Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[Josh]

The United States of America is not continuing to unjustly steal land from native Americans. A lot of attempts have been made and are ongoing at reparations for injustice in the past.

And if the U.S. started doing this, I wouldn't buy a house in a freshly built subdivision on recently-stolen land.

That's basically my position on fetal stem cells.

[Soloist]

Tainted Vaccines - Objections

Kingdom Fellowship Weekend 2021


The following is the talk given at the Kingdom Fellowship Weekend, August 2021. I did expand it a bit, since I was constrained for time at the conference.


I REALLY appreciate what the brothers have just presented. These are subjects we can really get behind in a unified voice and spirit.

But what I’m going to present now is a complex issue in which I sometimes I feel like I’m caught in the crossfire between the Hatfields and McCoys: Are you Fer or Agin’ Vaccines ??

Many of you will be happy to know that I’m NOT an Anti-Vaxer, others will be ready to get up and leave right now because of that. OTOH still many others of you will be happy to know that I’m not a Pusher Uuuuhhh… Vaccine Pusher and yet more will be ready to get up and leave because of that. To those that remain, I’d like to thank you with the words of our Lord, “But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

(Mt 13:16)


There have been many great Patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob quickly come to mind, but I can’t recall any of them being physicians. So I belong to that increasingly endangered species of physician that believes in NOT telling you what to do in a patriarchal manner, but in providing you with information - and perhaps a little advice - and praying that you make Godly decisions from that in a clean conscience through the Holy Spirit.



In this era of COVID, vaccines are big news. But I have specifically been asked to address the issue of the use of fetal tissue used in the production of vaccines. To be brief: this is a fact, not conjecture, not conspiracy theory, that aborted fetuses have been used to develop and produce certain, mainly childhood vaccines: Rubella, Hepatitis A, polio, and now some COVID vaccines.



It started in the early 1960s when a scientist took a previously healthy aborted female fetus (which means offspring, or little one), dissected out the lungs, and started to grow them in a lab. Under these conditions, the tissue can keep growing almost indefinitely, producing a huge amount of tissue. This tissue is then infected with a weakened form of the targeted virus. This culture is then purified, then used to produce a vaccine which is injected into patients, stimulating a person to produce antibodies to that specific virus. If a person is then exposed to the usual, full strength virus, the antibodies will attack it it, so then preventing infection. (To be sure, vaccines are 85-95% effective - but NOT 100% effective.)



There have been some objections to this objection over using fetal tissue, even in our circles, and I hope to go over a few of those briefly.

No further abortions are needed: While it is true the original abortions happened many years ago, science has developed an insatiable appetite for new lines. The cell lines are NOT immortal, and genetically start breaking down after 40 doublings. If there is no conscientious objection, unbridled science acquires an insatiable appetite for more tissue and more abortions. There have since been established a number of new cell lines, each requiring many abortions to develop, often by competing companies, since these lines of humanity come under copyright laws.
It’s no different than if a homicide victim donated his body to science: While I would agree that this would NOT be an ethical problem - if he signed his own donor card, or if his family agreed to it. But what if it was a family member that ordered the hit? Would that be ethical? This is the case in using aborted fetal tissue, where the mother usually signs the order. Proper consent is no small problem today: Christians in China are executed and their body part harvested without proper consent. This is also real and is no conspiracy theory.
The fetal tissue that was present in the original abortion is no longer there: The idea behind this objection is that because the original tissue doubled over an over again, the original is no longer there. This is true on a cellular level - those original cells would not be presently identifiable (though many of the original molecules are still present, though recycled into new cells). The problem with this argument is that all of us - without exception are no longer physically the same - even on a cellular level, aside from some neurons that don’t regenerate, are not who we once were as babies. Yet at the same time our humanity is not in question. At what point, then, did the fetal cell lines lose their humanity?
There are ethical guidelines that prevent the abuse and commercialization of using fetal tissue: It is true that the NIH has strict policies governing how the tissue is obtained (i.e.: partial birth abortions, and not for profit processing). However this only applies to NIH studies (California set aside a billion dollars in the past to skirt this very issue), the policy is not really enforced (one investigative journalist was charged with multiple felonies for invasion of privacy when he uncovered schemes of charging exorbitant fees for “processing” and violations where live dissection was being performed). (1, 2, 3)
This is an act of sacrificial redemption: The idea is that the abortion was bad, but there is now a sacrificial good coming from the vaccines the abortion produced. While it is true that God can make something good come out an act of disobedience, it is unfathomable that grace can give license to further disobedience and sin. As we have seen, the result of society benefiting from abortion tainted vaccines is more abortions. Furthermore, any sacrificial act worthy of God’s redemption must be a voluntary act. Our volunteering the life of another (the aborted baby) caries no more weight than a death row inmate offering the life of an innocent civilian to take his place.
We have benefited from injustices of the past, such as colonization, so why not benefit from this injustice? The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes that our present and future behavior is inextricably hard wired to the sins of the past - of our fathers. It makes huge assumptions about the supposed acts of our fathers and it even if true, it negates the blessing of redemption. Since most of these vaccines have ethical alternatives, it would be equivalent to saying that “since there was discrimination in the past, it is OK to continue discriminating” - instead of choosing not to.
Lastly, and most problematic is the spirit of moral relativism in our day. The apostle Paul states in Gal 5:9, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Of these vaccines, it has been said, it happened a long time ago, it’s done with, there are worse things in life, let’s just move on. We have heard these words before, and we should carefully consider where this leaven will lead us. It reminds me of a leadership conference I went to a few years ago put on by an otherwise staunchly Christian Protestant group. In it, the subject matter somehow migrated to the topic of scrambled eggs. The minister was actually speaking about divorce and remarriage: It happened a long time ago, it’s done with, there are worse things in life, just move on. He said, “You can’t unscramble eggs.” Much to my shame, I didn’t speak up, but I now know I should have said, “But I know Someone who can and does!”
So this ultimately leads us back to the theme of this conference: How do we “Spread Life in a Culture of Death?” In regard to vaccines, we know that just like with divorce and remarriage, God can unscramble eggs, though the process may involve great hardships, and stir up great scorn. Nonresistance does NOT mean non-conflict. It has been said that "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” In this day and age of the cancel culture, taking a stand may cost jobs, freedoms, and the esteem of our friends and neighbors. But have we gotten to the point of apathy where we can so easily dismiss what God calls an abomination - the shedding of innocent blood? I pray not.



But to the souls in the world seeking an alternative to the fatalism of the day, if we are perceived as making vaccine decisions out of a spirit of self sacrifice and service to the Lord, God can use us fools and revolutionaries to “Spread the message of life in a culture of death.”



I read a bumper sticker today that said, don’t put a question mark where God put a period. Paul says “We are fools for Christ’s sake; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honorable, but we are despised.” Which camp are you in?

https://anabaptistmedicalmatters.blogspot.com

[haithabu]

Vaccine passports have come to our neighbours next door in BC. Our premier here has said that we will not have passports but if I’ve learned anything over the course of this pandemic, it’s that when a politician says “never” he means “not yet”.

So far the Christians I know are mixed in their views on the vaccine. Some have it, some don’t and most are cool about each other’s decisions. But some are leaning toward support of a vaccine passport.

So the ethical questions for Christians soon may be: should we support a vaccine passport? Should we oppose it? Are we bound to honour it or enforce it? Is it a spiritually neutral measure taken by government for the good of all?

Let's say that a passport lies within the government's authority but then the next step in the ratcheting process is to require it for church attendance. It's not such a big step from a certain point of view. After all, at one point the government closed churches to virtually all in Alberta and almost all churches complied; this is just a matter of closing churches to some.

Different Christians may answer the question in different ways, but there is no denying that at this point Christians' and churches' response to the Covid passport would have profound spiritual implications.

• One issue is: is the sin of partiality no longer a sin if it takes place by government mandate?

• Another is: We are told to give to Caesar what belongs to Cesar and give to God what is God’s. There is no question but that the church is God’s. If the line between Caesar and God can’t be drawn on the issue of church attendance, where can it be drawn?

• What would this do to church unity since enforcement of the passport would draw lines through almost every congregation? Would the unvaccinated have to form churches of their own, worshipping underground?

This line of speculation may seem farfetched to some, but there is nothing that has happened in the last 18 months which would not have been considered far fetched not so long ago. The scenario I have described above is where the logic of exclusion points. BC bars the unvaccinated from non essential businesses. Worship services are exempted for now but are churches essential? Many in today's society do not think so.

[Ken]

Vaccine passports have come to our neighbours next door in BC. Our premier here has said that we will not have passports but if I’ve learned anything over the course of this pandemic, it’s that when a politician says “never” he means “not yet”.

So far the Christians I know are mixed in their views on the vaccine. Some have it, some don’t and most are cool about each other’s decisions. But some are leaning toward support of a vaccine passport.

So the ethical questions for Christians soon may be: should we support a vaccine passport? Should we oppose it? Are we bound to honour it or enforce it? Is it a spiritually neutral measure taken by government for the good of all?

Let's say that a passport lies within the government's authority but then the next step in the ratcheting process is to require it for church attendance. It's not such a big step from a certain point of view. After all, at one point the government closed churches to virtually all in Alberta and almost all churches complied; this is just a matter of closing churches to some.

Different Christians may answer the question in different ways, but there is no denying that at this point Christians' and churches' response to the Covid passport would have profound spiritual implications.

• One issue is: is the sin of partiality no longer a sin if it takes place by government mandate?

• Another is: We are told to give to Caesar what belongs to Cesar and give to God what is God’s. There is no question but that the church is God’s. If the line between Caesar and God can’t be drawn on the issue of church attendance, where can it be drawn?

• What would this do to church unity since enforcement of the passport would draw lines through almost every congregation? Would the unvaccinated have to form churches of their own, worshipping underground?

This line of speculation may seem farfetched to some, but there is nothing that has happened in the last 18 months which would not have been considered far fetched not so long ago. The scenario I have described above is where the logic of exclusion points. BC bars the unvaccinated from non essential businesses. Worship services are exempted for now but are churches essential? Many in today's society do not think so.

I don't think the "vaccine passport" is actually the issue. A vaccine passport is just some type of recognizable proof of vaccination. The real issue is whether the government can (and should) require vaccines for indoor public meetings and indoor public venues. And, if so, how far those requirements will extend. We know that the vaccine spreads incredibly easily within enclosed crowded spaces (cruise ships, bars, schools, and yes, churches).

If I was a government heath official looking to bring the pandemic to an end (or prevent new outbreaks) and it was my job to deal with churches. I would turn the question back onto the churches in question and ask: "OK, if you have a religious objection to mandatory vaccines, what alternative mitigation measures do YOU propose to implement to provide the public with assurance that your church isn't going to become a super-spreader location and spread the virus back into the community? If not vaccines, what is YOUR plan to hold church services safely and assure the public that you are part of the solution not part of the problem?"

Good government shouldn't be a one-way street with mandates coming down from on high. When appropriate, it should be a 2-way process of finding the best, most creative, and least disruptive solutions to a problem.

So how do you propose to safely hold a large indoor gathering of unvaccinated people who are singing and in close contact? How do you assure to the participants and the public at large that you aren't spreading the virus? Vaccines are just one easy measure. What other alternative steps are you willing to take?

[Wade]

Vaccine passports have come to our neighbours next door in BC. Our premier here has said that we will not have passports but if I’ve learned anything over the course of this pandemic, it’s that when a politician says “never” he means “not yet”.

So far the Christians I know are mixed in their views on the vaccine. Some have it, some don’t and most are cool about each other’s decisions. But some are leaning toward support of a vaccine passport.

So the ethical questions for Christians soon may be: should we support a vaccine passport? Should we oppose it? Are we bound to honour it or enforce it? Is it a spiritually neutral measure taken by government for the good of all?

Let's say that a passport lies within the government's authority but then the next step in the ratcheting process is to require it for church attendance. It's not such a big step from a certain point of view. After all, at one point the government closed churches to virtually all in Alberta and almost all churches complied; this is just a matter of closing churches to some.

Different Christians may answer the question in different ways, but there is no denying that at this point Christians' and churches' response to the Covid passport would have profound spiritual implications.

• One issue is: is the sin of partiality no longer a sin if it takes place by government mandate?

• Another is: We are told to give to Caesar what belongs to Cesar and give to God what is God’s. There is no question but that the church is God’s. If the line between Caesar and God can’t be drawn on the issue of church attendance, where can it be drawn?

• What would this do to church unity since enforcement of the passport would draw lines through almost every congregation? Would the unvaccinated have to form churches of their own, worshipping underground?

This line of speculation may seem farfetched to some, but there is nothing that has happened in the last 18 months which would not have been considered far fetched not so long ago. The scenario I have described above is where the logic of exclusion points. BC bars the unvaccinated from non essential businesses. Worship services are exempted for now but are churches essential? Many in today's society do not think so.

The government in BC told us we are non-essential for months restricting any church gatherings but allowing bars, casinos, and etc. to remain open. We are still non-essential but exempted for now... So they targeted us and ruined any trust we might have had and now exempting us...? What that distrust has caused is that I don't know any Christians who have got the vaccine because of that ridiculous inconsistent treatment. So now many of the people now that aren't allowed to "buy and sell" in certain shops are in fact Christians unless they receive the jab. Many are digging their heels in deeper with such a resemblance. I don't really care anymore if the vaccine works if this resembles the mark and it does now they can kill me first.

[haithabu]

I don't think the "vaccine passport" is actually the issue. A vaccine passport is just some type of recognizable proof of vaccination. The real issue is whether the government can (and should) require vaccines for indoor public meetings and indoor public venues. And, if so, how far those requirements will extend. We know that the vaccine spreads incredibly easily within enclosed crowded spaces (cruise ships, bars, schools, and yes, churches).

If I was a government heath official looking to bring the pandemic to an end (or prevent new outbreaks) and it was my job to deal with churches. I would turn the question back onto the churches in question and ask: "OK, if you have a religious objection to mandatory vaccines, what alternative mitigation measures do YOU propose to implement to provide the public with assurance that your church isn't going to become a super-spreader location and spread the virus back into the community? If not vaccines, what is YOUR plan to hold church services safely and assure the public that you are part of the solution not part of the problem?"

Good government shouldn't be a one-way street with mandates coming down from on high. When appropriate, it should be a 2-way process of finding the best, most creative, and least disruptive solutions to a problem.

So how do you propose to safely hold a large indoor gathering of unvaccinated people who are singing and in close contact? How do you assure to the participants and the public at large that you aren't spreading the virus? Vaccines are just one easy measure. What other alternative steps are you willing to take?

Your questions contain the assumption that the presence of unvaccinated members carries an elevated risk of transmission which creates a special need for mitigation and reassurance to the public. It's not an assumption that is supported by current data.

I would advise people who are symptomatic to stay home and ensure they are clear before returning. I would not differentiate between vaxed and unvaxed except maybe to remind vaccinated members that minor cold-like symptoms might be the sign that they are infectious. I would educate the members on ways to reduce infection risk through the use of supplements and to obtain effective early treatment. I would comply with official regulations. And finally we would pray.

[Ken]

I don't think the "vaccine passport" is actually the issue. A vaccine passport is just some type of recognizable proof of vaccination. The real issue is whether the government can (and should) require vaccines for indoor public meetings and indoor public venues. And, if so, how far those requirements will extend. We know that the vaccine spreads incredibly easily within enclosed crowded spaces (cruise ships, bars, schools, and yes, churches).

If I was a government heath official looking to bring the pandemic to an end (or prevent new outbreaks) and it was my job to deal with churches. I would turn the question back onto the churches in question and ask: "OK, if you have a religious objection to mandatory vaccines, what alternative mitigation measures do YOU propose to implement to provide the public with assurance that your church isn't going to become a super-spreader location and spread the virus back into the community? If not vaccines, what is YOUR plan to hold church services safely and assure the public that you are part of the solution not part of the problem?"

Good government shouldn't be a one-way street with mandates coming down from on high. When appropriate, it should be a 2-way process of finding the best, most creative, and least disruptive solutions to a problem.

So how do you propose to safely hold a large indoor gathering of unvaccinated people who are singing and in close contact? How do you assure to the participants and the public at large that you aren't spreading the virus? Vaccines are just one easy measure. What other alternative steps are you willing to take?

Your questions contain the assumption that the presence of unvaccinated members carries an elevated risk of transmission which creates a special need for mitigation and reassurance to the public. It's not an assumption that is supported by current data.

I would advise people who are symptomatic to stay home and ensure they are clear before returning. I would not differentiate between vaxed and unvaxed except maybe to remind vaccinated members that minor cold-like symptoms might be the sign that they are infectious. I would educate the members on ways to reduce infection risk through the use of supplements and to obtain effective early treatment. I would comply with official regulations. And finally we would pray.

Do you think that is taking enough active mitigation steps to convinced a public health official that they safe in waiving a vaccine requirement for your church that they impose on everyone else?

[Josh]

I don't think the "vaccine passport" is actually the issue. A vaccine passport is just some type of recognizable proof of vaccination. The real issue is whether the government can (and should) require vaccines for indoor public meetings and indoor public venues. And, if so, how far those requirements will extend. We know that the vaccine spreads incredibly easily within enclosed crowded spaces (cruise ships, bars, schools, and yes, churches).

If I was a government heath official looking to bring the pandemic to an end (or prevent new outbreaks) and it was my job to deal with churches. I would turn the question back onto the churches in question and ask: "OK, if you have a religious objection to mandatory vaccines, what alternative mitigation measures do YOU propose to implement to provide the public with assurance that your church isn't going to become a super-spreader location and spread the virus back into the community? If not vaccines, what is YOUR plan to hold church services safely and assure the public that you are part of the solution not part of the problem?"

Good government shouldn't be a one-way street with mandates coming down from on high. When appropriate, it should be a 2-way process of finding the best, most creative, and least disruptive solutions to a problem.

So how do you propose to safely hold a large indoor gathering of unvaccinated people who are singing and in close contact? How do you assure to the participants and the public at large that you aren't spreading the virus? Vaccines are just one easy measure. What other alternative steps are you willing to take?

Your questions contain the assumption that the presence of unvaccinated members carries an elevated risk of transmission which creates a special need for mitigation and reassurance to the public. It's not an assumption that is supported by current data.

I would advise people who are symptomatic to stay home and ensure they are clear before returning. I would not differentiate between vaxed and unvaxed except maybe to remind vaccinated members that minor cold-like symptoms might be the sign that they are infectious. I would educate the members on ways to reduce infection risk through the use of supplements and to obtain effective early treatment. I would comply with official regulations. And finally we would pray.

Do you think that is taking enough active mitigation steps to convinced a public health official that they safe in waiving a vaccine requirement for your church that they impose on everyone else?

Depends on if they respect religious freedom or not.

If they don’t, well, Anabaptists didn’t start with legal church services, now, did they?

I attended my first “illegal” church service in California last year; the preacher held a Ph.D, in case anyone is wondering. It was at a Calvary Chapel. Nobody was masked. (Nobody was vaccinated back then either.) It was one of 2 churches having any kind of meetings in the entire county.

People who had been saved and miraculously set free from drug and alcohol addiction got up and shared their testimonies. It inspired me to continue to attend church and keep meeting, even if the authorities forbid it.

[haithabu]

Do you think that is taking enough active mitigation steps to convinced a public health official that they safe in waiving a vaccine requirement for your church that they impose on everyone else?

They don't in fact impose a vaccine requirement on anyone in Alberta.

But I would say that the onus lies on the public health official to make the case for discrimination, not on us to make the case for equal treatment. That case has not yet been made, it has been **assumed**.


Phil

[haithabu]

Your questions contain the assumption that the presence of unvaccinated members carries an elevated risk of transmission which creates a special need for mitigation and reassurance to the public. It's not an assumption that is supported by current data.

I would advise people who are symptomatic to stay home and ensure they are clear before returning. I would not differentiate between vaxed and unvaxed except maybe to remind vaccinated members that minor cold-like symptoms might be the sign that they are infectious. I would educate the members on ways to reduce infection risk through the use of supplements and to obtain effective early treatment. I would comply with official regulations. And finally we would pray.

Do you think that is taking enough active mitigation steps to convinced a public health official that they safe in waiving a vaccine requirement for your church that they impose on everyone else?

Depends on if they respect religious freedom or not.

If they don’t, well, Anabaptists didn’t start with legal church services, now, did they?

I attended my first “illegal” church service in California last year; the preacher held a Ph.D, in case anyone is wondering. It was at a Calvary Chapel. Nobody was masked. (Nobody was vaccinated back then either.) It was one of 2 churches having any kind of meetings in the entire county.

People who had been saved and miraculously set free from drug and alcohol addiction got up and shared their testimonies. It inspired me to continue to attend church and keep meeting, even if the authorities forbid it.

Our church stopped meeting in early 2020 during the first shutdown. (And unfortunately never reopened.) After social gatherings were allowed again we began meeting with other families in homes, staying more or less within group size limits. Very Anabaptist, that. When social gatherings were once again forbidden in the fall we honoured the restrictions for the first few months but after that began meeting in homes again, figuring that the state's authority did not extend to forbidding group worship indefinitely.

We called the group the Face to Face Fellowship as per 2 Corinthians 3:18:

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

One of our prayers during the earlier meetings was that God would protect us as a group from getting Covid. We prayed this not for our own sake but so that the gospel would not be brought into disrepute by the fact of us meeting together. We took care to absent ourselves if anyone experienced symptoms.

If similar restrictions on churches are reimposed or if a vax pass is required we will likely begin meeting clandestinely again in small groups. Having learned a little more since then about prophylactic treatment I would encourage other group members to use them to lower the risk.