What we’re talking about
This is not an article about the COVID vaccines, and whether or not people should take them. That is a question that has been covered by…pretty much everyone! There’s nothing that I can add to that.
This is also not an article about vaccine mandates and passports. It’s related to that, but I recognize that the question is a complex one. I realize that whether or not I agree with the prevalence of vaccine passports at the moment, there are societal precedents to some extent. Given their widespread popularity with the public, they’re probably not going away anytime soon. I also understand that there are people who are immune-compromised and are at a particular danger of contracting severe cases of COVID. I understand that vaccine requirements can make environments safer (though far from absolutely safe) for those individuals.
And this is not an article about protests of vaccine mandates. I will say that those protests appear to have been completely counter-productive at this point. Protesting at hospitals has only increased the antipathy towards any questioning of vaccine passports. Any threats or abuse of any kind coming out of these protests have been condemned, and rightfully. This has all been covered breathlessly by Canadian media outlets. The top story on CBC News shortly after the protest in September was about a paramedic who was thinking about quitting her job because of how frustrated she was by the protest. That was the most consequential thing happening that day, according to our Canadian taxpayer-funded news outlet. (On the other hand, there is little to no concern from CBC about those who have actually lost their jobs because of vaccine mandates.) Regardless, whether or not I agree with the tactics of passport protestors, I don’t have much to add to that topic either.
What has really struck me, and what I’ve had a burden to write about, is about dehumanizing language. I want to talk about language that is at least headed in that direction regarding anyone questioning the prevailing wisdom about vaccines and vaccine passports/mandates. Maybe you’ll decide I have nothing to add here either, but so be it!
Examples
A few examples. In my local paper, the North Shore News, an editorial appeared after the announcement of BC’s vaccine passport system. The paper announced that the bad news was that the full re-opening of the province would be delayed because of the rise in positive COVID cases. However, “the good news is, those who have needlessly prolonged the pandemic by failing to get vaccinated will soon find themselves excluded” from all kinds of activities. The editorial admitted there would still be holdouts, “but the rest of us will breathe a little easier knowing they won’t be seated at the table next to us.” The good news is that unvaccinated people will be excluded, and that we don’t need to be in proximity to them. Not infected people. Unvaccinated people.
The same sentiment was echoed a number of times by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during his recent campaign for re-election. The Conservative leader, Erin O’Toole, suggested that vaccination or a recent negative COVID test should be required for travel. Trudeau slammed this approach, because “any of those anti-vaxxers who are protesting could be sitting across the aisle from your 12-year-old on a flight south in a few months. But they’d have gotten tested. That’s not good enough.” What is Trudeau getting at here? Why is it “not good enough”? If testing is reliable, then wouldn’t a recent test be more indicative that someone is not infected with COVID than vaccination status? After all, nobody would deny that breakthrough cases are a reality. So if it’s not about protecting people from a disease, is Trudeau suggesting that the real need is to protect people from those who think differently? That someone who has a different position about a medical treatment should be cut off from society, regardless of whether they’re infected or not?
And then we have a dangerous line of thinking being advocated by people like Jimmy Kimmel. In response to news that some hospitals are being stretched thin, Kimmel said the decisions needing to be made really weren’t that difficult. “Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right in, we’ll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, wheezy.” “Horse goo” here is the descriptor of choice for Ivermectin, a drug approved for human usage in certain situations. According to Kimmel, if you’re not vaccinated and pursued alternative treatments, no help for you from our hospitals! News has also begun to emerge of doctors who will not treat those who haven’t been vaccinated against COVID.
I don’t deny that much serious illness from COVID could be avoided if people are vaccinated. But do we see where this trend goes? If someone has lung cancer because they’re a smoker, do we not treat them? If someone has a heart attack, and it is shown that their poor diet had a significant part to play, do we say “rest in peace”? What if someone breaks a leg because they hiked in an out-of-bounds area? Do we refuse to send a rescue team? Many medical needs arise because of personal choices. But suddenly, when it comes to COVID and vaccines, some people are deciding that those who make certain choices are unworthy of medical attention?
Do you see how dangerous some of this language is? Do you see the path we’re headed down if this becomes the culturally normative way of speaking or thinking about a segment of people?
Implications
What can we say about all this? A few thoughts:
- If it wasn’t clear before, it should be now: our “inclusive” and “tolerant” society is not at all what it is cracked up to be. For all the “progressiveness” of Western culture, are we really that different from those who have committed atrocities in the past? Can we really say that we are incapable of that evil? One of the starting points for those atrocities has always been dehumanizing segments of people. I’m not saying we’re going to end up seeing a genocide of unvaccinated people here in Canada. That would be a surprise. But enough with the self-righteous pride of the liberal West. Enough with the “right/wrong side of history” rhetoric. Current events show that we still divide, we still hate, we still blame. We progressive, enlightened Westerners do everything that we say we detest.
We have been told for a while now by our cultural thought leaders that there is no such thing as objective truth. That there is no such thing as objective morality. That these things are subject to the whims of the individual, and that morality shouldn’t be imposed from the top down. Except, apparently, when it comes to a new vaccine. We’ve been told about the evils of systemic racism, and endless conversations have revolved around this especially over the last few years. We’ve been told to stop turning a blind eye to systemic racism. Except, apparently, when vaccine mandates actually do disproportionately affect Black people and other racial minorities. We’ve been taught about our colonial past, and the wickedness of getting other cultures to conform to our Western standards and knowledge. Except, apparently, when it comes to the response to COVID, particularly vaccines. As so often in this pandemic, inconsistency reigns.
You see, the problem, for eons and eons, has been the human heart. That hasn’t changed. Maybe there are structures and systems in place in the West to check the worst of our instincts. Thank God for that. But the fundamental attitude that, unchecked, leads to world-altering evil? That hasn’t gone anywhere. Paul, in a well-known passage in Romans 7, alludes to this. “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do…What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?” (Romans 7:15, 24) The heart of humanity is being revealed for what it is, regardless of how we dress it up.
- The church must not fall into the ways of thinking we see on display. I know of churches that are. I know of a church in Greater Vancouver, a purportedly evangelical church, that is allowing vaccinated people to worship in the sanctuary, but unvaccinated people are required to worship in the entrance to the church building. The worship team has a number of members that are unvaccinated, so they will be required to video themselves ahead of time- they won’t be allowed to lead in person. This could be a whole other article, but how do you reconcile this with the behaviour of Jesus with lepers? People who were actually contagious and cut off from society? And yet he did not shy away from contact with them. How do you reconcile it with Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4? A woman who was deemed as unclean in so many ways by Jewish society? How do you reconcile this with Peter’s visit with Cornelius, a Gentile centurion, or his stay with Simon the Tanner? Both men who he should not have had contact with in the eyes of his society?
There are, and will be many more, churches that tell unvaccinated people they are not welcome to worship in person with others. I would guess that few of these churches have practiced any kind of biblical discipline for unrepentant sin. But they are willing to cut off those who have opted not to receive a vaccination. Who is lord in these churches? The church is supposed to look different. We’re supposed to be “in the world, but not of it”, right? We’re supposed to be holy, which means set apart. I am convinced that if churches segregate on the basis of vaccination status as so many in the world are doing, we have lost the plot. We have been co-opted by the world. Recently, the governor of New York spoke to a church and asked that they be her “apostles” in pressuring the non-smart people to be vaccinated. That’s what I mean by being co-opted by the world.
We must stop dividing over something that is not a primary, Gospel issue. And I really believe vaccination status isn’t. On the one side, I really don’t believe it’s the mark of the beast. I don’t believe receiving the vaccine is a sign that you’re pledging allegiance to some authority other than God. I don’t believe you’re sinning if you do receive it. On the other hand, I don’t believe you’re sinning if don’t receive it. I don’t believe it’s addressed in the Scriptures. Given the fact that vaccinated people can still be infected and transmit the virus (though to a lesser extent), I don’t believe it’s as simple as “if you love others, you’ll get the vaccine”. Christians need to express charity and grace towards those who have a different vaccination status. Enough dividing. “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2) Proclaim Jesus. Proclaim the Gospel.
- Just as the human heart hasn’t changed, just as the church is as tempted as ever to fit in and go along with the world in order to get along, so also the need and solution to all of this has not changed. The apostle John (an actual biblical apostle, unlike Kelly Hochul’s) said that Jesus “appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.” (1 John 3:5) Jesus is the one man in history in whom there was no sin, the one man of whom Romans 7 was not true. And he came in order to take away our sins. To remove the fear and the hatred we harbour in our hearts. John says in the next chapter that “there is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear.” (1 John 4:18) Who can deny that a fear of unvaccinated people is driving much of the current rhetoric? Jesus came to take away this fear by loving us with perfect love. He took it away by laying down his life for us, so that we could become children of God (1 John 3:1, 16).
As cliche as it might sound, the world’s great need is for Jesus. The church’s great need is a renewed vision and love for Jesus. My own great need is to walk in the light that comes from Jesus. I’m as vulnerable to inconsistency, to fear, to division as anyone. I, too, experience the temptation to live in the anxiety that current events produce. So may we lift our eyes to the throne and meditate on the love of God in Christ Jesus that drives out fear.
