The Gospel Coalition Posts Helpful Vaccine Article

The Gospel Coalition often posts theoretical or theological articles. However, yesterday Joe Carter posted a helpful and practical piece on vaccines. In case readers need a Christian resource for their Christian anti-vax friends, I post a link to it and a few related comments.

The current resurgence of cases has been driven by a rise in religious exemptions. Anti-vax activists are increasingly vocal and have taken on pro-life arguments to bolster their cause. Prominent conservative evangelicals such as David Barton and “activist mommy” Elizabeth Johnson have spoken against vaccines.

Carter has spoken out before on medical issues. He wrote a scathing response to David Barton and Kenneth Copeland when they advocated treating PTSD with Bible verses. Given the fact that many Christians are using religious arguments to support their anti-vax position, I am glad to see this piece published by The Gospel Coalition.

I want to emphasize this part of Carter’s final paragraph.

If we choose not to vaccinate our children then we must accept that there will be some public institutions in which they cannot participate.

Especially in a public health crisis, I don’t believe parental rights are absolute. The state has a responsibility to protect all of us and in this case that might mean keeping unvaccinated children out of the general population, including schools.

57 thoughts on “The Gospel Coalition Posts Helpful Vaccine Article”

    1. Reproducible results lead to consensus. Your sources are fiction, not science.

  2. O/T, but Warren’s area of expertise.

    “Science Journal Retracts Paper That Said Gay Conversion Therapy Works”
    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/06/22/science-journal-retracts-paper-that-said-gay-conversion-therapy-works/

    The retraction notice:
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0024363919854842
    At the request of the Journal Editor and SAGE Publishing, the following article has been retracted.

    Santero, P. L., Whitehead, N. E., and Ballesteros, D. 2018. “Effects of Therapy on Religious Men Who Have Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction”. Linacre Quarterly. DOI: 10.1177/0024363918788559

    The journal is retracting the article based on unresolved statistical differences. Specifically, after receiving questions about the article, the editor determined that a statistical review of the paper, which was recommended during peer review, had not been conducted. The editor commissioned the statistical review after receipt of the questions. The statistical review identified the following concerns regarding the methodology followed in the article:

    1. No common intervention was given to participants that would allow for a valid conclusion to be drawn.

    2. The paper did not establish a demonstrated relationship between the intervention and the survey that measures the intervention in that the paper did not clearly address whether all respondents were treated according to the same (or similar) protocols and for the same periods of time, and/or by therapists of like or similar training and expertise.

    3. The chi-square test requires groups that are similar and the reported variation in the treatment times and modalities in this study is significant, rendering the chi-square test absent a control group (which was not present in this study), an invalid measure.

    The authors submitted additional support for the statistical treatment of the data in the original submission. In response to the above concerns regarding methodology, the authors replied:

    The only uniformity needed and employed, was SOCE and therapeutic involvement. Chisq compares an observed numerical distribution with any distribution chosen by the researcher and does not need other uniformity than the foregoing.

    The Editor considered this information and the authors’ response and concluded that in spite of this additional information, the original review still required retraction of the paper.

    The Journal Editor and SAGE Publishing wish to emphasize that the retraction is not based on any action taken by the authors but only the statistical concerns outlined above, and they regret that the concerns identified by the statistical review were not addressed prior to publication of the article.

  3. This is not on topic, but a couple of days ago I saw the Lord Jesus Christ in a dream for my fourth time. I have written up what I saw and am sharing it with whoever would like to read it. I have a copy I can email out to anyone who wants to read it with my opinion on what it means to me. Warren has my email address and can share that with you if you are honestly interested. Thanks,

    The Fourth Time I have Seen Jesus

    In the middle of the night on 6/20/19 I saw my risen Lord for the fourth time in a dream. What I saw was this: I walked in through a doorway on the right side of what looked like a small church building. This room had pews with a walkway on the right, left and in the center. I do not remember seeing any walls or ceiling. Jesus was standing stoically in the back aisle behind the last rows of pews in between the rows. Jesus was dressed in a white robe. I do not remember seeing anyone sitting, nor was there anyone gathered around Jesus. There were at least a few others standing in their places in front of the pews scattered throughout the area.

    I then walked along behind the last row towards the left where Jesus was standing. I past Him and then stopped to put my right arm around him in a quick embrace. I do not remember Jesus responding much to this, nor especially acknowledging my hug. He was approachable but kept his focus staring forward apparently watching what the people were doing in the room. And so I left Him to take my place inside this building. I walked over to the left aisle and walked up a couple of rows and then walked over and stood in front of that pew standing close to the center aisle. As I
    stood looking forward I do not remember seeing anyone up on stage. Maybe there was a worship band there and/or a pastor, or maybe not. My attention was still on Jesus Christ even though He was not really doing anything externally but, instead, was observing. I do not remember how many others were there for the same reason, just that the building was far from packed out. So even though the real Jesus Christ was present there were too few willing to come and wait for Him. But for me, because Jesus was actually present here, the rest of the people were not my focus!

    As I stood silently looking forward and not watching Jesus I felt this inner trembling going on that the priests first felt when God’s Holy Spirit entered the Temple for the
    first time and filled the Ark of the Covenant. I was interacting actively with the unseen Holy Spirit. As I was trembling in righteous fear I saw in my spirit what was going on behind me. Jesus had become high and lifted up and was flying now, hovering over this meeting. As He did this He moved towards the very center of this
    place moving forward. I could see this internally so I did not have to actually look up and see it with my own eyes. Jesus stayed airborne, while ascending for some time.

    Then Jesus began to make His landing in this meeting. All the while I was filled with this strong inner trembling as I stood keeping my focus on Him and not on what other people in that room were doing. Jesus took as long, it seamed, to come down as it took for Him to go up. Eventually Jesus did land and when He did He was in the very center of the meeting, not in the front up on stage. When He landed I awoke out of this dream.

  4. personally, I’d like to see some of these people spreading this anti-vax nonsense get sued for it. Although, it would be tough to make a case.

  7. State governments basically have all the authority they could ever want to ensure the public’s health and don’t need to make exceptions of any kind for vaccines, quarantines, evacuations, etc to control disease. Some even used to practice eugenics for this purpose before it went out of fashion.

    Due to the presence of immune-compromised individuals it is well within the state’s reasonable discretion to compel vaccinations upon everyone residing there (which means presence for more than 10 days and intent to remain).

  8. State governments basically have all the authority they could ever want to ensure the public’s health and don’t need to make exceptions of any kind for vaccines, quarantines, evacuations, etc to control disease. Some even used to practice eugenics for this purpose before it went out of fashion.

    Due to the presence of immune-compromised individuals it is well within the state’s reasonable discretion to compel vaccinations upon everyone residing there (which means presence for more than 10 days and intent to remain).

    1. I don’t think the state could get away with compelling vaccinations. However, they CAN and should restrict access to events/functions to people who aren’t vaccinated.

      2. The tenth amendment of the Constitution reserves power over healthcare “to the states, or the people”. That means state law decides. In Constitutional jurisprudence it falls under the “police power”, which is the general authority of state governments to do anything they want.

        In California, since July 1, 2016, all children must be vaccinated unless the vaccine will medically harm them. 99.99% of all applications for this exception are denied by doctors. All religious exceptions were eliminated.

      3. Of course they could. Imagine the worst case scenario of a virus with the killing power of Ebola and the spreading power of influenza. Assuming there was a vaccination for it, compelling people to take it would likely be the only way to save millions of lives.

        Naturally, it wouldn’t be difficult to compel most people in that scenario, but some would still resist. In cases of national emergency, there’s very little the state cannot do.

        1. Protection of the people is one of the most primary constitutional functions of the state.

          2. Like the right of the children killed in the production of vaccines?

            Or like the right of the children killed by vaccines yearly? See VAERS.

      4. Of course they could. Imagine the worst case scenario of a virus with the killing power of Ebola and the spreading power of influenza. Assuming there was a vaccination for it, compelling people to take it would likely be the only way to save millions of lives.

        Naturally, it wouldn’t be difficult to compel most people in that scenario, but some would still resist. In cases of national emergency, there’s very little the state cannot do.

      5. How, exactly, are they going to do that? Will people have to carry a certificate from their doctor(s) that they and their children have current immunizations against specific diseases? How easily could such documents be forged? Would we really stand for creating a whole new class of criminality? Perhaps we should, but could we?

        1. As he said, I think most people in such situations would be eager to be vaccinated. We can look back to the polio vaccine to see an example. However, if a true emergency were involved and some balked at the idea, I’m sure cards could be created that are not easily forged (new drivers licenses are actually not easy to duplicate) and that would take care of the vast majority of cases.

          Desperate times could call for desperate measures, particularly if hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. Let’s hope we don’t have to encounter such situations. In the mean time, individuals have a responsibility to those around them as members of a society.

        2. They will come up with the idea to force everyone to have a mark on the right hand or forehead.

          1. I had a bet that someone would bring up that nonsense in this thread. I guess I won.

    2. I never could understand how we could do some of the heinous things we have done as a country (eugenics, forced sterilizations, etc), seemingly oblivious to the awful aspects. After the events of recent years, I am beginning to see how so many people could have been convinced it was a good thing. It is a frightening realization, because it means that, no matter how far we have come, we can’t let our guard down lest we regress into the darker aspects of our past.

  9. I was pretty young so I can’t say for certain, but it has always been my understanding that my parents had to show proof of vaccination before I could attend elementary school. I even remember getting one vaccination in school, en masse. They used those industrial vaccination “guns” and we lined up for it. I can’t remember what it was for. Is this not the case anymore?

      1. I’m not sure I agree with your terminology but given this view, I would say that our country has been “liberalizing” since its founding. In fact, one could say that our founding itself was “liberalizing.” Then again, I don’t see what we are going through now as particularly conservative, but just plain messed up. Your comment could have been in jest, however 😉

        1. We didn’t have Constitutional vaccine jurisprudence until 1905, David, so I’m not sure we’re sharing the same conversation.

          1. We aren’t, I just saw that this was in reply to my vaccination comment. Disqus is rather primitive, but they have locked in their market so we live with the confusion.

          2. Ah, my bad. I’ll need to include more context clues in the future, I forgot disqus has that side view. Thanks buddy.

    2. Most likely that was the MMR vaccine. And yes many schools required children be vaccinated in order to attend.

    3. I’m pretty old. In the 50s we all lined up at school for the polio vaccine. We all remember getting a vaccine-laced sugar cube. And most of us have memories of who fainted when we were all given shots.

      1. I remember getting the polio vaccinations in the early 60s. By that time I think we were getting the live vaccine, it came in little bottles that you drank. It tasted awful but we got to keep the bottles afterwards 🙂 My parents were eternally grateful that they no longer had to go through the fear that they had with my brother and sister.

  10. This is a reminder that there are evangelical organizations which seek to address issues with care and respect for observable reality.

    I particularly like this bit: “We must always consider whether we are using our religious liberty … as cover for a choice that may cause significant harm to the neighbors we are commanded to love.” Spot on!

    1. I have serious doubts that this line of reasoning is consistently applied. Unless I’m wrong and they support female clergy and perform gay marriages.

      2. I’m not sure that this is completely relevant, as the particular points you have raised are not directly issues of public health, although I suspect that having more women in church leadership positions might help in respect of the safeguarding of children (which is certainly, in the broadest sense, a health issue).

        1. My comment was directly relevant to the quote you cited “”We must always consider whether we are using our religious liberty … as cover for a choice that may cause significant harm to the neighbors we are commanded to love.” In fact your own comment was entirely devoid of any mention of health itself, its relevance seemed rooted in a broader principle.

          1. Fair point.

            Just specifically on the issue of gay marriage: I am opposed to churches being compelled to perform ceremonies (or, as is the case with the Church of England, under the law in England and Wales, being required NOT to do so!). It should IMO be a matter for a particular church / denomination what it does. The important principle is accessible fair treatment by the State. Separation of Church and State should cut both ways?

            As for female priests and bishops: I personally am in favour. But I would not want to suggest that those who choose to belong to churches that do not accept women in holy orders are in some ways causing material harm to others outside their church.

          3. Thank you! I try … 😉

            Perhaps I’m influenced by belonging to the C of E, which, on the issue of female priests and bishops, recognizes “two integrities” and has formulated arrangements designed to accommodate those who who do not subscribe to the majority viewpoint that ordaining women is a good idea. And maybe one important measure of the health of any community is its capacity to keep together, for the sake of a greater common good, those who cannot agree with each other on this or that issue.

      1. We hear this kind of thing more often on this side of Atlantic, I’m pleased to say! People who actively campaign against public health initiatives are much more likely to be regarded by most Christians as crazy extremists.

        1. Actually you are mistaken (thank God). most people still value freedom of conscience and view PARENTS as those responsible for their kids, NOT THE STATE.

          1. “Freedom of conscience,” whatever that means in this instance, does not override the public health. This is especially true when those objecting do not accept basic scientific fact.

            All this nonsense started with a conman’s fake study and has snowballed via internet fueled conspiratorial claptrap. It is not “the state” it is the general public. Providing for the general welfare is an important aspect of governments, Federal and Municipal.

            It is not hyperbole to say that those who are pushing this anti-vaccination ideology have very real blood on their hands. This is not the place to push your agenda.

          2. Parents should be responsible. But part of their responsibility must be to recognize that public health is important for their, and each others’, children.

            Freedom of conscience is very important, but so is social responsibility.

Comments are closed.