Religious Exemption Certificates for Covid Vaccines

It’s not a technical distinction I have read anywhere. Evangel Presbytery adopted a statement titled “Statement on Sphere Authority, Worship and COVID-19 Quarantines”, and I have caught myself referring to it as the statement on “sphere sovereignty” rather than “sphere authority” from time to time. The difference was pointed out to me in a discussion I was having with some other men last night, and I just thought it’s a helpful thing to remember: each sphere is not independent of the others.

2 Likes

I think the apologia statement is better than the CREC statement on several fronts. One was the explicit condemnation of abortion and the explanation that God’s law is the standard. I also appreciated that they made an argument for medical treatment. They also tied the refusal of this vaccine to the lack of warrant for the mandate. The problem is that a lot of this is disjointed and lacks a reason why God’ law would give the right of conscience here. I am inclined to agree that it does but I am not sure how to argue it.

The problem we are dealing with is the problem of the one and the many. We have to uphold authority as ordained by God and yet we have to uphold that the individual still must make judgements in their submission. They have to make a judgement about whether it is in accordance with God’s law or not. And so what happens when the authority and the subject disagree upon the lawfulness of the command. What do you appeal to decide? And who has the right to decide? At some point it seems you have to bring your appeal to heaven.

6 Likes

I didn’t understand either why this was in their statement or why it was worded the way it is. Just because abortion is abhorrent (or ought to be) doesn’t mean it’s a blanket justification for anything we don’t like. More to the point, it’s not their argument. So why put it in their exemption form? As it stands, it reads like ‘and here’s something else Durbin thinks is important and wanted to say.’

1 Like

I think it’s in there to guard against a blanket my body my choice argument against vaccines. It’s also is foundational for protection of life.

That are trying to be clear that life is sacred and their argument for freedom of conscience on this vaccine because of the various risks and problems associated with it is in keeping with their commitment on life.

I really wish we would give our brothers in other groups the benefit of the doubt and try to read them charitably. We are all dealing with a new thing in the life of the church. Yes there is some historical precedent but on the other hand the puritans and reformers lived in a different time. They didn’t have a technocracy or a secular humanist government and worldview to deal with. They also did not have our form of government or access to information the way we have. While we should learn from them, their solutions can’t always just be dragged and dropped into our time which means that our brethren at apologia or in the crec are attempting to work things out. They certainly can do better. But as we criticize let’s be careful to be charitable and to be those who offer solutions.

1 Like

Joseph, I appreciate your admonition. I need to be reminded to be charitable just as I have urged others to be charitable. So please read my response as attempting to keep your encouragement in mind while still asking difficult questions.

I don’t think it’s uncharitable to expect that those who are insisting that there is a religious exemption for this current vaccine do so with sound exegesis and coherent logic. To say it slightly differently, if you as a pastor (hypothetical you here, not speaking to @JosephSpurgeon specifically) are going to offer your congregation a piece of paper that they may take to their employer or the civil magistrate which effectively says, ‘My religion mandates that I do not participate in this restriction,’ I think you have an obligation to do so with very careful and well-thought through rationale. This responsibility exists not just for the sake of those to whom you are offering this piece of paper (i.e. your congregants), but also for the sake of gospel testimony to those to whom this signed paper will be handed (i.e. employers and civil magistrates).

This is not to argue that vaccine mandates in this instance are wise, fair, equitable, or a good use of the sword of the state. This is not to argue that covid-19 has been handled well. This is not to argue that there is not legitimate room for concern about tyranny. This is not to argue that Christians do not have a responsibility as Christians to think very carefully about medical ethics.

But if you’re going to claim the exemption that you’re sinning by participating in such and such a procedure, and that this exemption is something that wasn’t just thought up 15 minutes ago, I think you’re going to have to do a better job than the Apologia or CREC statements.

Part of charitably offering better solutions is calling out bad solutions that aren’t really solutions at all but only make the problem worse. Nicely and respectfully of course. But courtesy and respect don’t preclude manful interaction.

7 Likes

Hi pastor Spurgeon,

I don’t think the pastors and men here are being uncharitable toward Apologia or the CREC. Just as those men are trying to work out how the Church should live under new circumstances so the men here seek the same.

The opposite may actually be the case (though I hope I’m mistaken). I believe that over the past year and a half it is some of those who are most resistant to government mandates that have been the most uncharitable toward shepherds. Of course that’s a general statement, not all men are guilty. But I do believe it is true of a lot of those under the resistance banner — shepherds and laymen alike.

Many of these men, since the start of the pandemic, have postured themselves to the public as being the true heirs of the reformed doctrine of sphere sovereignty. They have made statements about the civil magistrate, masks, vaccines, quarantine, and a host of other related matters as if their formulation and application of sphere sovereignty is binding Scriptural law upon all Christians. In essence they have announced that they are the true expositors of biblical doctrine and that those shepherds who don’t mimic their prescriptions (say, government mandating vaccination is always sinful usurpation of authority) are compromised on doctrine or unfaithful to Jesus Christ.

This divisive and uncharitable rhetoric contrasts starkly with the end of the Evangel Presbytery statement:

There is no strict formula possible to answer the question for each sphere in each locale laboring under various levels of quarantine stringency and infectious risk. With wisdom and prayer and a humble posture, the familial shepherd and ecclesiastical shepherd must assess the condition of the flock under their respective care and the condition and risk of the open pasture.

This is anathema to many defy tyrants men. It’s easy to gain glory from a crowd by calling for disobedience against an evil secular humanist magistrate. But it is hard shepherding the flock to honor and obey that evil magistrate until it is finally time to disobey for the sake of God’s glory. And it’s even harder to shepherd when your authority is being questioned by other men who claim to know what there is to know about authority.

If anyone has been charitable it’s been men who know that it’s not as cut and dry as we all want it to be.

God give shepherds wisdom, discernment and charity.

In Christ.

Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

4 Likes

Totally agree. They also didn’t have the internet…where anyone with a keyboard can post opinions that can have either constructive or divisive ramifications a state or even nation away. (Yeah yeah yeah…the printing press and books did effectively the same thing for them, but it wasn’t nearly as fast or as widespread, and access to the medium was considerably more restricted than what we face today.)

Which is why it’s especially necessary for those of us who use the internet as part of pastoral ministry to do so with great care (that includes those of us on Sanityville). Apologia and the CREC aren’t the only ones who will have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I’m an ocean away and I still have to deal with rhetoric downstream from them (both for good and for ill).

3 Likes

I agree and do think we can do better. I’m pretty hopeful for a document being worked on amongst some men in our presbytery

1 Like

R. Scott Clark has laid out his case for a moral objection to vaccine mandates here (though not a formal religious exemption form):

3 Likes

Dr. Clark sketches out a good-faith moral objection to products made or tested using human cell lines. He makes a good case. But it is not the case I see argued in Apologia’s Medical Statement. Instead of objecting to use of all such medicine, the objection is specifically to COVID-19 vaccines.

The moral argument for the vaccines seems to rest on two points:

  1. The distance between the original cell material and the current cell material is so great that the pharmaceutical companies are no longer morally culpable for using them;
  2. The danger of the virus is so great that the benefit of the vaccines outweighs the moral risk in using them.

Most of the rhetoric against vaccines seems to rest on objections to the second point (i.e. the virus is not so dangerous). Is objecting to the first point (i.e. the vaccine is immoral) used as a convenient proxy for the issue which is more difficult to prove? That is, since no one has perfect knowledge of what the societal trade-offs are between natural infections and vaccinations, then those who feel the vaccine is worse could dodge the issue and simply object to the use of cell lines. As @tbbayly pointed out, it seems remarkably self-serving. If vaccines are bad for you then they are bad for me and you should do a better job of proving it so that everyone would stop taking them. Forging vaccination cards or handing religious exemption statements to secular employers does not seem like a good strategy for the sake of the gospel.

1 Like

I think this is a widespread issue (though I gladly acknowledge that there are many here whose concerns are consistent and heartfelt). And as important an ethical issue as foetal cell research is, using it as a cover for anti-vax rhetoric or because of the current political climate is hugely problematic. Especially since it’s only come to the fore so recently.

While I’m so thankful that more Christians are becoming aware of the ethics of vaccine research and production, I’m somewhat skeptical that the concern will outlast the current administration.

4 Likes