Dear Editor,
The apostle Peter makes a stunning Pentecost declaration: ‘This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.’
This theme of good arising from evil might be applied to Covid vaccination. Vaccines are often grown (or tested) in human cell cultures which can originate from the organs of foetuses aborted in past decades. The practice of harvesting cells for this purpose might now appear to have ceased in Western countries.
Treating aborted children as a commodity is deeply problematic; but if an earlier generation has already harvested their cells, we might view cell cultures as a morally neutral resource, immediately available for vaccine production.
The Genesis story of the patriarch Joseph’s life sees the divine hand mysteriously redirect murderously evil human intent, so that good results arise from evil human actions.
Moved by mercy, for self and for others, we may elect to take a vaccine grown or tested on abortion-derived cells; but mercy should also inspire robust lobbying against abortion, and ethically uncontroversial vaccine production should always be favoured.
The full human character of cells taken from murdered abortion victims may be the very feature that makes them so biologically useful to vaccine developers and researchers..
Yours sincerely,
James Hardy
Retired GP, Belfast
Dear Editor,
I was saddened to see the front page ‘vaccine’ article of the January 2021 en.
I am one of those who find it morally unethical to take a Covid vaccine because of its connection with aborted foetal tissue. However, I also believe that there are many other grave concerns over these vaccines: for instance, they have not been safely tested; manufacturers have been given total immunity from liability if their vaccines cause injury; mRNA has never before been used in a vaccine and the long-term effects are therefore unknown, especially with regard to fertility, but other things as well; etc. And all this on the basis of a disease with a greater than 99% survival rate.
But what really horrified me was that Professor John Wyatt effectively appears to be saying that if you love your neighbour you should have the vaccination to protect him/her, with the implication that, if we don’t have the vaccine, we will be haters of our neighbour. Quite the reverse, I feel that I must tell as many people as possible of the dangers of the vaccination, because if I don’t I will have their blood on my hands.
Yours sincerely,
Priscilla Seidler
London SW16
Dear Editor,
If the Covid vaccine has its history in the cells of a foetus whose life was taken in order to save the life of the mother, then what good news it is that those multiplied cells are now saving thousands more lives.
Yours sincerely,
Tim Smith
By email
Dear Editor,
I was shocked that Evangelicals Now should have on their front page an article that tells Christians to take the Covid Pfizer -BioNTech vaccine.
There are many reasons to be wary of this vaccine but none other more important than the issue of abortion.
Yours sincerely,
Joy Wilson
By email
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the article by Professor John Wyatt discussing the use of the ‘immortal cell line’ derived from an aborted foetus in 1972 and used in the development of vaccines such as those for Covid 19.
The ethical issues raised are very real and point to a much wider question to be faced by Christians. How do we, who are saved and want to follow the right way, navigate living in a fallen world. For example, should we continue to benefit from pensions whose funds are not ethically invested? Do we continue to enjoy music written by some who have led very dubious lives? Many enjoy the benefits of living in cities whose wealth was founded on the slave trade, and we will all benefit from the vaccine. Such examples can be multiplied ad infinitum.
Information learned in a sinful way cannot be unlearned as was discovered in the Garden of Eden. Do we disregard such information? We cannot. There is a difference, I think, between what we personally do and are responsible for, what we personally or collectively can influence and help to change, and what is completely out of our hands. The undeserved truth is that common grace and blessing continue toward us despite all the things that go on in our fallen world in which, even though saved, we too play an imperfect part. Let us be circumspect in our own lives, accept the blessings we have, including Covid vaccine, and be thankful.
Yours sincerely,
Crispian Oates
Whitley Bay
Dear Editor,
The refrain of most evangelicals on Covid-19 vaccine ethics (and carried in last month’s front-page article) is that it is a ‘disputable matter’ in which ‘each one of us must do what we feel is right’, and passages such as Romans 14 are cited. I want to suggest that the teaching of 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 is actually more apt to the situation we find ourselves in.
The principle here is that it’s not just about what you have freedom to do as an individual in isolation, it’s about seeking the ‘good of others’, especially the ‘unbeliever’. Before someone says that taking a vaccine is for ‘the good of others’, note that Paul is not talking here about health or wealth but in terms of their ‘conscience’, and their understanding and reception of the gospel: ‘so that they may be saved’.
The Corinthians are instructed, if told by an unbeliever that meat was offered in sacrifice: ‘do not eat it.’ This is a command, not a suggestion: it’s no longer a freedom of conscience issue, but has been taken over by the superior principle of love for neighbour and not causing them ‘to stumble’.
Applying this to today: if we know, if we are told, that something has been produced with the fruit of child sacrifice, as these vaccines are, and especially if that child sacrifice (along with the harvesting of babies’ tissue) continues today with society’s blessing, as it does, then unless I’m mistaken this passage of Scripture issues a command, not freedom of conscience. And the command is this: do not partake of it. Not so much because of what it means to us, but because of what it means to those around us.
Yours sincerely,
Dave Brennan
Brephos
