Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[Sudsy]

An observation of mine regarding our decisions as believers -

This and various other threads all seem to me to come back to a common issue about how to rightly know what Jesus wants us to do.

I often don't get much support for referring to being personally guided by the Holy Spirit and I think I understand why some don't talk in this sense. Jesus said that His sheep know His voice and follow Him. The voice of another they will not follow. And this is problematic as we have come to various different conclusion on what Jesus is saying to us through the Holy Spirit and we don't want to think that perhaps we are not one of His sheep.

Some say that if we are hearing the Holy Spirit guide us this guidance will not contradict what the Scriptures say. On the surface, I would agree. But then we find Scriptures that support what we hear as our guidance and another believer finds Scriptures also to support their guidance, yet they are opposites.

So, what I hear mostly is a battle of human reasonings to determine which have the most weight in our decision making. Seems the more educated folks are, the more they tend to trust their human reasonings, imo. The voice of the Spirit is not talked about much. Perhaps it is thought that our thinking is automatically under the Spirit's influence as He lives in us. But is that correct ?

This can be it's own thread but it might help to discuss sometime just how we get our guidance from the Holy Spirit and how much prayer, scripture and our own thinking is involved. One thing that early Anabaptists emphasized in their beginning was the need for the Holy Spirit guidance and not just the written Word only. I wonder if, due to perhaps the extreme practises of some Christians regarding the Holy Spirit, that Anabaptists are leaning more on their human scriptural guidance more today than the guidance of the Holy Spirit and do not seek and listen to that 'still small voice'.

[Bootstrap]

Sudsy, I think you basically object to the thread itself. And you do that in various threads, saying we should not be discussing the ethical questions in detail. You have done that several times in this thread. This thread may not be helpful to you, but it is helpful to me.

I will copy your post into a new thread and discuss it there, but I really do find it helpful to discuss ethical questions with people who may disagree with me so that I understand their reasoning. I can explain that in the other thread. But not here in this thread.

Let's discuss it over here instead.

[Bootstrap]

And here are a couple more ethical questions...

These are all good questions. To me, some of them are more risk-assessment questions than ethical questions, e.g. what are the odds that I will be better off if I take the shot than if I don't. To me, the ethical questions are not so much about "what's best for me", but "when do I need to take others into account, including unborn babies and people living today". So I'm going to focus on the ones where I see an ethical tradeoff.

1. Should I inject something into my body that is potentially harmful (something that has lower overall risk than Covid) or should I practice mitigation measures and hope that I don't get really sick with Covid (something that has more overall risk)?

2. Should I inject something into my body that is potentially harmful (in order to protect others who may get really sick) or should I practice mitigation measures and hope that no one gets really sick from me? (mitigation of disease is something taught in the Old Testament)?

This one is a good ethical question for those who think that the Covid-19 shot might harm them, but might protect others. I happen to believe that it will help protect both me and others, so it doesn't turn into an ethical question for me.

3. Should I inject something into my body that does not have years of trials and research, or should I only use vaccines that have been studied extensively over the long haul?

4. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Many Christians believe we should take good care of this temple. Many Christians are also pro life. What if a vaccine helps reduce deaths in the present, but makes a person's body not function well in the future. That seems like a slow death. Also, some vaccinated women who have had no trouble conceiving are experiencing lack of fertility and monthly cycles. This will result in less children being born. Isn't this the opposite of "pro-life"?

Here, you seem to be weighing deaths now ("What if a vaccine helps reduce deaths in the present") against potential births in the future, but you aren't thinking of women who are already pregnant. For me, this is actually an easy ethical choice, if the vaccine will indeed save lives and if it would actually prevent women from conceiving. Saving lives of people who are actually alive takes precedence for me.

I'm not sure whether Covid-19 vaccines will actually affect fertillity or not, this seems to be an open question, but let's discuss the ethics under the assumption that it does, since you raised it that way.

5. Does it matter if the virus originated in a lab or through more natural causes? Does this make a difference in whether we should get vaccinated? i.e. If man speeds up the process of spreading disease in the world by "manufacturing" diseases, do we then submit to man's remedies to fixing his own problems? If this virus is the result of natural causes, imposed on the world through the Fall, should we inject something into our bodies before we are even sick from the thing God set in motion at the Fall? (The latter could apply to any vaccines. And of course there is then the debate about synthetic drugs vs. more natural inoculations.)

Could not either cause be equally God's doing? And even if it is "natural causes", could that not be a result of humans messing the earth up in some way?

[Sudsy]

Sudsy, I think you basically object to the thread itself. And you do that in various threads, saying we should not be discussing the ethical questions in detail. You have done that several times in this thread. This thread may not be helpful to you, but it is helpful to me.

I will copy your post into a new thread and discuss it there, but I really do find it helpful to discuss ethical questions with people who may disagree with me so that I understand their reasoning. I can explain that in the other thread. But not here in this thread.

Let's discuss it over here instead.

I was surprised at how you saw what I underlined and your view that what I post in threads is in objection to the threads themselves. I had to look back through my posts in this thread and it began with this response. I added the underlined.

Pray about it and do as you sense what God leads you to do. Some things can be argued forever and not result in satisfactory answers for everyone. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us and regardless of how others determine what they chose to do, we all will account for what we did with the guidance we believed came from the Holy Spirit. That is what I'm going with.

On page 5 the conversation sounded to me that this might be regarded as a salvation issue and some of us discussed this. Nothing said objecting to the thread itself.

On Page 6, I posted and added the underlined -

I know I have a simple approach as I am not one wrestling with this as an ethical issue. But I don't mean to dissuade others but rather to express how I approach it. Others approach the Holy Spirit's leading in a different way than me, I realize that. So, carry on as you make your choices.

To be clear, I have no objections to you creating a thread for what you are looking to get out of it. I wasn't suggesting that everyone follow my approach, just how I was approaching it. I can't do anything about whether or not my input was helpful, that is up to you to decide.

No hard feelings I hope and I will go to the thread you created off the general observation I had and my suggesting it could be a separate thread.

[Bootstrap]

No hard feelings I hope and I will go to the thread you created off the general observation I had and my suggesting it could be a separate thread.

Oh, no hard feelings at all.

I was surprised at how you saw what I underlined and your view that what I post in threads is in objection to the threads themselves.

Mostly because I agree with you that the Holy Spirit and Scripture are important, but I also think that really taking the time to work through the ethical questions in detail is also important. Sometimes I get the feeling that you get uncomfortable when we do that, and it's precisely what I want to do in this thread.

At any rate, I apologize if I misunderstood you.

[Ernie]

We had a brother at our church attempt to convince us that we as a church take a stand against Covid Vaccines that use fetal tissue and/or cell lines in production or testing. (This was before Covid.) We as a church did not think that we should take this stand as a church, but we did agree to the following statement, "By being willing to forgo these vaccines we can be acquitted of the charge that because we have benefitted from them, we should not stand in the way of further research and destruction of human life."

Some in our church are aware that by using such vaccines, they cannot be fully acquitted of this charge. However, by speaking out against the use of fetal tissue in vaccine development, they feel they have done their duty, even if they cannot be fully acquitted. They don't feel morally culpable in using such vaccines.

I personally prefer using vaccines that have the least association with fetal tissue, simply because of the charge mentioned earlier.

Here is a simple chart that shows current vaccines in development.
https://s27589.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploa ... s-June.pdf

[joshuabgood]

"By being willing to forgo these vaccines we can be acquitted of the charge that because we have benefitted from them, we should not stand in the way of further research and destruction of human life."

This is well and good insofar as vaccines go...do they also apply that to the "rights and economic privileges" gained by the violence of the USA military? Or police force? If so, what does it look like?

[ken_sylvania]

"By being willing to forgo these vaccines we can be acquitted of the charge that because we have benefitted from them, we should not stand in the way of further research and destruction of human life."

This is well and good insofar as vaccines go...do they also apply that to the "rights and economic privileges" gained by the violence of the USA military? Or police force? If so, what does it look like?

I have in the past declined opportunities to work on projects where the customer would have provided armed security to accompany our workers and cargo at all times. Specifically because to me it seemed to get too close to directly benefiting from armed violence or the threat of it.

[Soloist]

We had a brother at our church attempt to convince us that we as a church take a stand against Covid Vaccines that use fetal tissue and/or cell lines in production or testing. (This was before Covid.) We as a church did not think that we should take this stand as a church, but we did agree to the following statement, "By being willing to forgo these vaccines we can be acquitted of the charge that because we have benefitted from them, we should not stand in the way of further research and destruction of human life."

Some in our church are aware that by using such vaccines, they cannot be fully acquitted of this charge. However, by speaking out against the use of fetal tissue in vaccine development, they feel they have done their duty, even if they cannot be fully acquitted. They don't feel morally culpable in using such vaccines.

This seems like an unusually complex way of stating a position.

I am opposed to alcohol use ( I take a swig from a beer bottle) but I don't oppose the taxes building my roads nor do I petition for the bar being proposed to not be built. After all, it will help us even though we are opposed.

That's is how the members who speak against it and then use it look.

[Ernie]

"By being willing to forgo these vaccines we can be acquitted of the charge that because we have benefitted from them, we should not stand in the way of further research and destruction of human life."

This is well and good insofar as vaccines go...do they also apply that to the "rights and economic privileges" gained by the violence of the USA military? Or police force? If so, what does it look like?

Yes, the brother in our church who takes a strong stance on unethically sourced vaccines, would also not call the police, for the same reason. (He hasn't started boycotting Walmart yet.)

I take a different stance, and that is...
Those who choose to be part of the kingdoms of this world have their ways of doing things and they need to answer to their Creator, not to the church.
Those who have chosen to be part of the kingdom of God have their ways of doing things and they also answer to their Creator, not the state. As long as we are acting consistently within the rules and principles of our kingdom, that is what is important. So what if the state or the worldly-oriented businessman brings "charges" against us.

We are told to pay taxes and do good to all men. ( I report and pay Use Tax on things I buy from other states when I am not charged sales tax.)
We are not told to refuse blessings from the government.
We discipline our members according to the New Testament. The world disciplines its members according to the laws of the state.
I realize that I am not able to be "acquitted of the charges against me" but neither am I attempting to do that.

It seems to me there is no end to the list of things that one could make ethical issues about. (e.g. Not shopping at Walmart because of their unethical practices. Only paying the percentage of taxes that do not go to military use. Not accepting interest money from the bank because a percentage of it was invested in businesses that do not operate according to scriptural principles. Not communing with a brother because not all parts of his character remind me of Christ. Not buying guns for ridding my land of varmints because it has interchangeable parts with a similar weapon that is used to kill people. Not posting any "likeness of anything" on the walls of my house. Not using electricity from the grid on Sunday because it requires people to work on Sunday. Refusing to aid someone who has taken a restraining order out against her husband to completely distance one's self from what she has done. Excommunicating someone because they don't see things the way I do. etc.)