Mandated Vaccinations Have Nothing to do With "Religious Freedom"

 Paul the Apostle equates being "prepared for every good work" with "submission to the authorities," when he writes to Titus, a bishop or overseer of several congregations working under Paul's apostolic authority. 

Remind them [the "elders" or leaders in the churches] to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.  [Titus 3:1-2]

Two Kentucky Seminaries Sue to Block Vaccination Mandate

Vaccinations have been mandated by municipal, county and state governments in the United States for well over a hundred years, almost as long as medical science has produced them.  In all that time, there have been very few objections to getting them based on any kind of Christian doctrine.  There are a few groups who hold some very literal and specific views on accepting medical help that they see as being of human origin, but the bottom line is that American Christians, of virtually every theological and doctrinal background, have not used first amendment guarantees of religious freedom to refuse mandated vaccinations.  Until now. 

As I read the article cited above, I looked for, but did not find any Biblical or doctrinal reference from the leadership at either seminary supporting their opposition to the federal mandate.  More than likely, that's because the leaders at both of those schools are thoroughly familiar with the Bible and know that such a verse, interpreted in its correct context, does not exist.  It's clear, by the simple fact that tens of millions of Christians in the United States, and around the world, have submitted themselves or given permission for their children to be vaccinated against a wide variety of diseases, from diphtheria to the measles to smallpox and polio.  

Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the two involved in the Kentucky lawsuit, himself offers no theological, Biblical reason for opposing the mandate, except the mandate itself.  In fact, Mohler has himself been vaccinated.  But he claims, "The larger issue here for Southern Seminary is religious liberty.  And on that we take our stand." 

On that, Dr. Mohler, you need to explain how something not religious in nature, and in fact having nothing to do with Christian faith or religion, something that you have personally declared has nothing to do with faith because you have participated in it, is a religious liberty issue.  

What both Southern and Asbury, the other Kentucky seminary in the lawsuit, are claiming is that because they are religious institutions, they should not be required to participate in a mandatory vaccination program ordered by the federal government.  The argument is that because the mission and purpose of the two schools is to train ministers, the mandate is a "distraction" from that mission and purpose and that it "changes" the relationship between the seminary and its students.  

There's still no religious liberty argument here.  Taking a vaccine is not distracting, deterring or preventing anyone associated with the seminary from any religious duty or practice required related to their seminary education or their future ministry.  Perhaps there is an interference argument if church services are limited capacity or closed by mandates, and I can see how that might bring up religious freedom issues.  But not this.  This is pure politics.  

Americans have as much religious freedom as they've ever had.  Being required to wear a mask or get a vaccination doesn't, in any way, interfere with the practice of a person's faith nor does it "coerce" anyone out of believing.  It is not persecution of the church, since the mandates apply equally to all employers, religious-based or secular.  

Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-17

I would suggest that Dr. Mohler, as well as Asbury's leadership, examine their positions on and interpretation of these two passages of scripture, without adding in exceptions or possibilities that they didn't preach or teach until recently.  I read through a commentary on the Romans passage written by a professor at Southern and saw nothing noting an exception for Christians who are excused from following these teachings if they happen to not like the governing authorities or they are of a different political party than the interpreter.  

Christians in the early church who took these apostolic words seriously suffered tremendously under waves of persecution, many of them becoming martyrs for the faith, yet there was no complaining about the "unjust" nature of the Roman government or the fact that its emperors believed they were divine and set about persecuting and murdering those who didn't see that.  The obedience of Christians to the civil authorities was a testimony of their faith in Christ, as it should be in our culture today.  And this kind of resistance to promoting the common good by two theological seminaries teaching Christian theology does exactly what Paul and Peter were trying to prevent.

The precedent for mandated vaccinations in the United States goes back at least to the Supreme Court's Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruling in 1905.  It's not government over-reach or intrusion any more than drunk driving laws or auto insurance mandates.