Dear EFC Subscribers:
A lot has happened since the last newsletter went out. One fun thing is that William Lane Craig quotes me in a recent podcast. WLC’s podcast about his upcoming book In Quest of the Historical Adam. He says some nice things. I respond to one small criticism, clearing up a misunderstanding in this article: John Oakes’ Response: I recommend you consider reading Craig’s book when it comes out in the very near future.
Also, I recently published an article about the appropriateness of disciples of Jesus being given a religious exemption from receiving the Covid19 vaccination. This is clearly a very sensitive topic, which is made clear by the by the amount of response I have gotten–probably the most for any article I have written. This article has generated a bit of controversy. I would appreciate any feedback. Here is a link, and the article is copied and pasted below. Should Christians Be Given Religious Exemption for the Coronavirus Vaccination?
My brand new book Speaking of God comes out later this month. Copies are now available. This includes some advice to Bible group leaders, as well as more than eighty Bible study outlines to be used in group study sessions. To purchase, click here: Speaking of God.
New Materials:
I have now begun a series of sermons from the Book of Revelation. Ultimately, there will be about eight sermons, which will be available at the web site. Sermons on Revelation
In addition, I am doing a series of six lessons on the Book of Isaiah for my sister church in Sao Paulo. The lessons are in English and Portuguese.
I also recently completed a series of six lessons on the Book of Revelation for the church of Christ in Guadalajara. It is in Spanish and English. In addition, I did a class on the same topic in English for a church in Dubai. Both are here. Apocalypsis en Espanol
I have a pretty big announcement coming out in the next newsletter, so stand by.
John Oakes
Recently, a friend who is a minister in a Christian church was approached by a few members of his church to sign a request for a religious exemption from getting the vaccination for the Coronavirus. He asked me to express my opinion about whether he ought to grant such a request. Below is an edited version of my response to this question:
The one who claims that he or she deserves a religious exemption from receiving the vaccination must be the one to come up with the biblical/scriptural justification for this. It is not my “job” as a teacher or yours as a church leader to provide such potential biblical justification. To that extent, it is kind of hard for me to respond to the members of your church who are asking the church for a religious exemption. I need to hear these individual’s justification. Then I can respond. A member of my local church got a religious exemption at his work. I did not provide support for his application. However, I do support my friend personally. I love him, and I will not demean him for his choice, but I let him know that I do not agree with his request. He provided no biblical reasoning to me for his choice (he may have one but he did not mention it to me). The bottom line appears to be that he does not want to get vaccinated and the religious “exemption” was not really religious in nature. The reason he does not want to get vaccinated is that he claims the vaccines do not work. The problem with this position is two-fold. First is that it is wrong. Plain and simple. The vaccines are safe (relatively) and they work (although not perfectly). He is wrong. But even if he were right, if we claim a religious exemption, it would need to be based on a religious/biblical reasoning, not because we disagree with the law. Not agreeing with a law or regulation is not sufficient reason for a Christian to flaunt the law (Romans 13:1-7).
But, as I said, the science and the empirical evidence says that my friend is wrong. 90+% of those entering hospitals and dying of Covid-19 in the US are unvaccinated. As a Christian, I am obligated to obey the governing authorities (unless it violates my Christian conscience), and besides, in this case, getting vaccinated means that my church can meet more safely. It means that I do not endanger other people as much. It means that the economy can return closer to normalcy and people will have work and will not go hungry. If I care about my family, my friends, my church and my community more than I care about my personal preference, ALL the data says that I should get vaccinated. Given the data, it is selfish to not get vaccinated, and this is a violation of the Golden Rule. I understand that people claim to have data that disproves this claim, but every time I have investigated such so-called evidence it has proved to be false, and I have done quite a bit of checking.
Now I will try to do what I just said I do not want to do, which is to anticipate a biblical reasoning or a semi-biblical reasoning for requesting a Christian religious exemption. The only one I have heard is that the vaccinations contain cells or cell products from aborted fetuses. First of all, this is simply a false flag. It is not true. Now, it is true that cells many generations removed from fetal cells derived several decades ago were used, not in the production of the vaccines, but in the research to create the vaccines. In one case the cells were used to test the vaccine, and in the other to develop it (honestly, I forget which is which: J&J vs Moderna/Pfizer). I strongly suspect in this case that this is not the real reason for the individuals seeking the exemption. In the case of my friend, it is not the reason he gave me. It is a fact that decades ago cells were taken from the body of an aborted child, and that the descendants of these cells were used in later research. But is this sufficient reason it is immoral to take this treatment? I suppose some people might have a sufficiently sensitive conscience for this to affect their willingness to take the vaccine. I propose that the good in terms of literally millions of saved lives, in view of the fact that these cells were taken from one individual who was already dead when they were taken decades before the cells were used in the research is sufficient to offset this argument. No further harm is done in using these cells, and such cells are no longer being taken from aborted children, and it is debatable that any harm was done even in the original case, as the abortion was not done in order to produce these cells.
But here is the problem, and here is why I reject this argument. If a Christian takes this position, then they had better not take ibuprofen or anti-malarial drugs, or chemotherapy or AIDS medication or anti-virals or antibiotics… you name it. Perhaps it is not true that ALL drugs currently taken for all illnesses were tested or developed using these human cells, but nearly all were. If this person who wants the religious exemption is prepared to declare that he or she will foreswear all medications, or virtually all medications because of his/her consistent Christian belief that this is immoral, then I am prepared to listen to this person. I seriously doubt that this will be the case. Like I said, this excuse is a false flag, in my opinion. This flag is flown, not because of a true conviction, but because the person has either political reasons (not a Christian one) or practical reasons (which are in fact not even based on good science), not moral ones for not taking the vaccine.
The other drugs listed–NSAIDs, chemotherapy, antibiotics and the like protect the individual, but the vaccine principally protects other people. The moral imperative to take a drug to protect other people is stronger than that to protect our own lives. This more strongly argues for taking the vaccine.
For this reason, I personally would not sign such an exemption and I would not support leaders in our fellowship signing off on such a “religious” exemption request.
Again, I would not judge this brother or sister. Despite what I said above, I do not want to judge his or her motives. I assume a level of sincerity, even if based on false information, and I would do my best to emotionally support them in their concerns, but I would also tell them (as I did to this brother) that I disagree with their position and certainly would not sign the request for exemption.
If you can do a little research and ask the members of your church what their religious/biblical reasoning was, and send it to me, then I could respond, but I suspect that they will either have none, or will have a cookie-cutter excuse provided to them by certain media outlets such as the one I mentioned above.
John Oakes
