How should Christians think about Biden’s vaccine mandate?

I’m going to indulge in a bit of editorial privilege and post my .02 then close comments. We already have several discussions going on this general topic, and I don’t think this one would stay focused on “sphere sovereignty.” (The linked article isn’t focused on that either).

The linked article has some valid points here and there, but quite a few weak ones.

Probably most important to note is that neither questions of constitutionality nor questions of “sphere sovereignty” authorize individuals to unilaterally decide what laws to obey.

This is not what the American founders had in mind, not what Romans 13 and related passages teach, and I’m pretty sure isn’t what Abe Kuyper advocated either.

Sphere sovereignty doctrine focuses on how the spheres of God-delegated authority ought to limit their reach. It’s not about what individuals should do when entities exceed their sphere.

On the flip side, Romans 13 is not focused on what the duties of the spheres are, but on what our individual duty as Christians is, and it couldn’t be more clear on that point. We have a bit of ‘sphere responsibility’ revealed also in Rom 13, and more in 1 Pet 2:13-17 and other passages. 1 Pet 2 is also very clear on where the individual Christian fits in.

If you love the Constitution, you have to love due process. Review the Federalist Papers and you’ll see that every man doing what’s right in his own eyes is not what the framers of that document had in mind. It’s also clearly not in view in Scripture. Few things are more fundamentally non-Christian than a spirit of rebellion.

1 Peter 2:16–17 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

If you want to read further on the topic, it’s on a lot of people’s minds. Most of them seem to be much more comfortable with individual and church noncompliance than I am, but these are thoughtful analyses of the general topic…

• Ben Edwards last week on How Should Believers View Government?
• Jonathan Leeman a few days ago on Must Churches Follow Mask Mandates?

OK, I’ve been talked into opening this one for a while, mainly for the sphere sovereignty idea.

One of the big rallying cries that I have seen amongst my conservative Christian friends is the portraying of the government being tyrannical and thus we need to resist it. They then typically lay out a quote from a Reformer, typically Scottish, around how resisting tyranny is a God given right. This would be a typical quote that I would see:

“Since tyranny is satanic, not to resist it is to resist God, to resist tyranny is to honor God.”
-Francis Schaeffer
“A Christian Manifesto”

Like Aaron said, I don’t want to get into the details of the various rules the government has laid out.

But my view from Scripture is that we should err on the side of following the government, as they have been ordained by God, and only if the command is in direct contradiction to a clear command from Scripture should we resist. I struggle, living in a free society that a democratic republic, that the government is overly tyranical.

I find many in the church, don’t like something the government says and they then try to find a way to frame it against Scripture to justify their resistance. My concern is that the church is going to become more and more vocal about anything they see as wrong, whether it is Scriptural or not and then will build a Scriptural framework around it based on loose concepts and even weaker passages. I agree with much of the spheres, but if this is where we draw the line, I have concerns. In theory, given the reasons that I have seen on social media, we should be even more against taxation. The government forcefully taking money that we have rightfully earned to then turn around and spend it on unbiblical things and even worse use it to combat Christianity, should be an even bigger grievance. But this one may be harder to fight for a christian since Scripture explicitely addresses this.

I think I’m in general agreement with Aaron on this one but I think sphere sovereignty is something we all understand. For instance, if the government tells you you must feed your children only candy, how many would acquiesce? I suspect most would say, that’s not the government’s place. Before someone brings in the inevitable gluttony argument let me use an example more benign. All children must be named Steve. Every human being born after 1-1-22. You going to submit to that?

I believe public health is within the government’s sovereignty but they cannot (or at least should not) tell you that you must inject something into your body (even though I think it is wise to be vaccinated).
Sphere sovereignty is not about rebellion. It’s about following rightful authority.

This is a sincere question, not a counter-argument/challenge: would we feel the same way if the vaccine were a pill? What if it was administered via some device you put in your air conditioner and breathe?

If the government sphere extends to public health—and I can’t really see how it couldn’t where contagions are involved—what are the limits on what it can legitimately require people to do with their bodies?

In my own experience, not with gov but w/other things in life, I can look back on times where my response was irrational because of the sense of unclear limits: How bad is this going to get? How far is this going to go? Whether the matter is financial or relational or anything else, I’ve found in retrospect that much of what I did was driven by fear though I was not conscious of it at the time—specifically, fear of the unknown/of something seeming out of control/beyond my control.

It’s hard to relinquish control. Sometimes it’s extremely hard. But the hard things have grown me the most.

Back to sphere sovereignty, and tyranny: one of the things a teacher opened my eyes to way back in the days of high school senior gov class was how concerned many of the founding fathers were about the human tendency for resistance to tyranny to get lost in general rebellion. They didn’t want the French Revolution. Right now, we’re seeing a generalized anti-government spirit on the right that has more in common with radicalism than with conservatism. If you go far enough right, you bump into left where they join at anarchy.

But for Christians my concern is more than that: the trend does not seem to be driven by these attitudes and values…

1 Timothy 2:1–2 1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

1 Thessalonians 4:11–12 and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 12 so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.

Hebrews 12:14 14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

James 3:17 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

Titus 2:9–10 9 Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything…so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Philippians 2:14–15 Do all things without grumbling or disputing, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,

Matthew 5:16 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

1 Peter 2:20–21 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

I think we’ll find that if we look at the Reformers and the U.S. founders in context, we find that resistance to perceived tyranny was reserved for extreme situations not by concern for how bad it might get in the future if we don’t resist now, etc. If we’re looking for the comfort of being in control, we’re on the wrong track. If we’re looking for the thrill of battle, we’re on the wrong track. If we think we’re supposed to resist the devil by fighting “the left,” we’re on the wrong track. It’s impossible to really be obedient if we’re looking at it the wrong way from the start.

…..is that if indeed the Biden executive order hinges on “what the government can force us to do with our bodies”, one relevant Supreme Court decision is Roe v. Wade. That would not bode well for the Constitutionality of the order, since a central point of Roe is that there is a certain autonomy of the body that does not admit government interference.

My take; it’s not Constitutional, and even if it were, it really “poisons the well” of public trust for a generation….huge unforced error by the Biden administration. People simply do not like things shoved down their throats, and the reason Biden is trying this is because he simply does not know how to persuade, nor do others in his administration. He, and his staff, instead led by insulting those who resist the vaccine, and that ended up hardening people against the vaccines.

[dgszweda]

But my view from Scripture is that we should err on the side of following the government, as they have been ordained by God, and only if the command is in direct contradiction to a clear command from Scripture should we resist. I struggle, living in a free society that a democratic republic, that the government is overly tyranical.

I find many in the church, don’t like something the government says and they then try to find a way to frame it against Scripture to justify their resistance. My concern is that the church is going to become more and more vocal about anything they see as wrong, whether it is Scriptural or not and then will build a Scriptural framework around it based on loose concepts and even weaker passages…

I am in agreement with this.

Overall, I’d say that there are times when the spheres of sovereignty overlap, like a venn diagram. We shouldn’t object just because there is overlap. We must exercise wisdom and rightly interpret Scripture to help us parse out what is acceptable overlap and what is unacceptable overreach.

Social media doesn’t lend itself to thoughtful analysis, but unfortunately that is seemingly where most Christians get their talking points.

[Aaron Blumer]

In my own experience, not with gov but w/other things in life, I can look back on times where my response was irrational because of the sense of unclear limits: How bad is this going to get? How far is this going to go? Whether the matter is financial or relational or anything else, I’ve found in retrospect that much of what I did was driven by fear though I was not conscious of it at the time—specifically, fear of the unknown/of something seeming out of control/beyond my control.

This is the slippery slope argument, and this is the conversation I had with one of my friends recently about the vaccine mandate. The basic idea communicated to me was that if we as a free society give into this government mandate, we are more likely to give into future government mandates. This will lead to an erosion of basic democratic freedoms and personal liberty, and the government will continue to take away our rights and freedoms. The solution: stand firm against this mandate.

Again, I agree with the sentiment of submission to authority. Since I’m pro-vax it’s not really an issue for me but I do think the government should not tell you what to inject, regardless of the form. I absolutely agree that the paranoia of the right is unsettling right now but there is another extreme; that of submitting to government and at the same time baptizing all their actions as good. There is a ditch on both sides.
As far as the right and left meeting at anarchy, I’m an anarcho-capitalist and believe that reconciles with my Christianity much better than the Jack D. Rippers of the world.

[Aaron Blumer]

I think we’ll find that if we look at the Reformers and the U.S. founders in context, we find that resistance to perceived tyranny was reserved for extreme situations not by concern for how bad it might get in the future if we don’t resist now, etc.

The American Revolution was all about what would happen in the future if the line wasn’t drawn in the present. None of the “long train of abuses and usurpations” was an extreme situation taken alone. There were lots of Tories during the Revolution making exactly the same kind of arguments you are making here. Personally I’m glad their view didn’t prevail.

[T Howard]

The solution: stand firm against this mandate.

I understand what they are saying. Here is where my head was at. Taken on the face without context, I would agree that the government appears to be infringing without our sphere. But I think, for me, context plays a lot into this. First, this is a once in a hundred year pandemic, which was contributing to a big impact on society. Regardless of the level of impact that someone may feel, overcrowded hospitals, 700,000 deaths, shut down economy…. It had an unprecendent impact. At least unprecedented in my lifetime. The impact was real. I did not see any laws being passed which were suspending any of my freedoms down the road. We still had three pillars of government, Constitution was still in effect, and we had instances where one branch struck down the over reach of another branch. So I felt comfortable everything was working. The mandates that were being put forward, appeared to be in the interest to protect my health and freedom and were coming from qualified people across the entire world. This wasn’t my government distorting what the vast majority of the scientific community was putting forward. And lastly, I viewed the mandates as temporary. I didn’t see vaccine mandates in the past being an over reach and I didn’t see this one as being an over reach. Remember, the same people who said that vaccines were an over reach, also said masks were and a littany of other things. And then very lastly, I don’t see the government forcing me to inject something into me against my will. They have provided me with an option #2 of getting tested.

So on the surface, yes what they are asking for is invasive. In context, we are in a peculiar situation, in which I am not witnessing any long term structural changes being taken advantage by the government to take away long term freedoms. Is it a slippery slope? maybe, but I am not seeing it at this point. So while the governmental sphere has impacted my sphere I am acceptable of this because of the context that it is being put under.

I’m an anarcho-capitalist and believe that reconciles with my Christianity much better than the Jack D. Rippers of the world.

I could Google it but would rather hear your take. What is an anarcho-capitalist and why do you identify with it?

I’m not familiar with Jack D Ripper, but I’m pretty sure there are other options besides his views and some form of anarchy.

Back to clashing spheres…

I’m not sure I approve of this or that policy or health order or “mandate,” but it’s important to separate approval from “being subject.” The NT doesn’t instruct is to equate obedience with approval or to disapprove by means of disobedience.

Submission isn’t conditioned on agreement. In our system, protest, vote, and lawsuit are consistent with “submission” though, if we comply. So, whether/how to protest, vote, or sue becomes a question of choosing battles wisely, and applying other principles. It’s a separate question from whether to respond lawfully or unlawfully.

[Aaron Blumer]

I’m an anarcho-capitalist and believe that reconciles with my Christianity much better than the Jack D. Rippers of the world.

I could Google it but would rather hear your take. What is an anarcho-capitalist and why do you identify with it?

I’m not familiar with Jack D Ripper, but I’m pretty sure there are other options besides his views and some form of anarchy.

Back to clashing spheres…

I’m not sure I approve of this or that policy or health order or “mandate,” but it’s important to separate approval from “being subject.” The NT doesn’t instruct is to equate obedience with approval or to disapprove by means of disobedience.

Submission isn’t conditioned on agreement. In our system, protest, vote, and lawsuit are consistent with “submission” though, if we comply. So, whether/how to protest, vote, or sue becomes a question of choosing battles wisely, and applying other principles. It’s a separate question from whether to respond lawfully or unlawfully. As to why I identify with it, I think it’s the best politics system. It is however, pretty pie-in-the-sky since governments are like snowballs rolling down hill. They basically never get smaller.

You probably should google it as I won’t articulate it as well off the cuff. In my words: It’s a political system that advocates free markets and individual choice over the use of one’s own property and over one’s person. It affirms libertarianism’s Non-Aggression Principle which says that no one (or group) has a right to initiate an act of aggression on another person or group. It had some political antecedents prior to him (in some forms although possibly not fully realized) but was most fully developed by Murray Rothbard and other Austrian School economists. Most Ancaps believe in decentralized government but very few are anarchists in the way it seems you understand the term. For the record, very few even anarcho-socialists are the type of anarchists that most people think of when they hear the term. Even they rarely believe in no government. I of course as a believer understand that God instituted government and that it is a good thing.
The Jack D. Ripper thing was a joke. It’s a reference to an insane war hawk that uses the military to attack the “Ruskies” in a movie called Dr. Strangelove. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure the movie had some inappropriate stuff in it. I haven’t seen it in many years. I’m sorry for mentioning it as I think it’s not a movie I could watch with a clear conscience now.

Ok so going back to the sphere thing, would you comply with my ridiculous example to feed your children only candy if the government said you must? Is there any area (besides overt biblical command) where the government’s authority does not extend? Personally I would submit to even a vaccine mandate (if I hadn’t already been vaccinated) but would it necessarily be sinful not to? Or, more specific to some of your recent comments, are people necessarily in sin for contemplating not being vaccinated if Uncle Sam mandates it? I just think you and some others need to give a little more grace to those that have less understanding than you. I also believe there is a legitimate argument to be made from sphere sovereignty although I too would submit in all but the most extreme cases.

One thing to note here is that while Paul tells the Church to submit to the sovereign, at the same time he emphatically does not submit (nor did the Church as a whole) to Caesar’s prohibition of the faith, nor does he submit to the magistrate who whipped him without a trial.

Regarding the latter, Scripture doesn’t spell things out explicitly, but I’d guess Paul knew quite well that if he didn’t speak up, the behavior would be repeated and worsened—harming every accused man who came before that magistrate. In the same way, if the Constitution and the law do not grant Mr. Biden this right, he’s going to repeat the behavior, to the loss of all of us.

Already, Biden has pretty much decided that immigration law is a dead letter (a blatant Constitutional violation), and over a million people have crossed the border, including tens of thousands of people with active cases of COVID. If you don’t think that’s influencing our COVID rates and deaths, you’re kidding yourself. You can’t send that many infected people north to work in food preparation and the like without increasing disease rates. And if he’s willing to do this, he’s going to be willing to rule by decree in other ways, too.

And along the same lines, Scripture commends Shiprah and Puah for ignoring Pharaoh’s commands because they would have gotten people killed. Now, consider that in light of Biden’s open borders/open COVID policy, as well as the federal government’s silence on the practice of sending COVID patients into nursing homes, which likely killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of people as well. It’s not as direct as what Pharaoh wanted the midwives to do, but it’s gotten a lot of people killed nonetheless.

In short, while the Scripture does tell us to heed government’s lawful authority, it simultaneously gives us examples of when believers have ignored lawless commands from government, and who have even directly told governmental leaders to pound sand. The trick is to figure out when that’s important.

I’m all for taking a small but reasonable risk for vaccination, but this is a place where the courts need to slap Mr. Biden into next week.

Regarding the claim that “the ship has sailed” regarding homosexual marriage, one thing that’s interesting is that it’s built off the same logic as is Roe. So if Roe goes, it’s entirely plausible that Obergefell v. Hodges might go, too.

I’m not holding my breath on that, but it’s an interesting legal fact.

For my part, I’m trying to gently encourage people to get vaccinated, and thank God, the recent surge in cases (and deaths) appears to have peaked. But it’s still really ugly.

Non-Aggression Principle which says that no one (or group) has a right to initiate an act of aggression on another person or group. It had some political antecedents prior to him (in some forms although possibly not fully realized) but was most fully developed by Murray Rothbard and other Austrian School economists.

I find it strange that groups that believe in law and government want to have “anarcho…” attached to their ideology. I think I understand the sense in which they mean it, but it’s an unfortunate choice, since anarchy is about radical individualism and, literally, no (an) rule/authority (archos). So if we’re going to use it in reference to “authority operating within principled limits” we need a new word for anarchy. I think it’s better to just let the real anarchists have it.

Speaking of individualism, this is where my skepticism toward libertarianism becomes most intense. Though Scripture places great importance on the individual—especially given the times in which most of it was written—it’s not individualistic by any stretch. It’s also not “collectivist,” but the importance of identifying with and subordinating personal interests to a larger group is huge in Scripture and in Bible-driven theology (‘Bible-driven’ because ‘biblical theology’ is now confusing!): “As in Adam all sinned.” Believers are members of a body, are “in Christ,” etc. And Israel is so often referred to as Ephraim or Joseph or some other individual representative with strong ties to the whole.

So, in our day, when both the right and the left are obsessed with individualism (in some very different ways and some of the same ways), Christian thought needs to be a strong counter.

And for all the Austrian economic philosophers got right, they’re view of the world is pretty evolutionistic/naturalist/darwinist in places. There is stuff to actively filter when we’re considering these influences.

Ok so going back to the sphere thing, would you comply with my ridiculous example to feed your children only candy if the government said you must? Is there any area (besides overt biblical command) where the government’s authority does not extend? Personally I would submit to even a vaccine mandate (if I hadn’t already been vaccinated) but would it necessarily be sinful not to? Or, more specific to some of your recent comments, are people necessarily in sin for contemplating not being vaccinated if Uncle Sam mandates it? I just think you and some others need to give a little more grace to those that have less understanding than you. I also believe there is a legitimate argument to be made from sphere sovereignty although I too would submit in all but the most extreme cases.

This is a useful example and raises the issue of the difference between:

• Direct biblical command
• Biblical command by inference from biblical revelation
• Inferences many degrees removed from biblical revelation, but having some relationship to it

Scripture is clear that parents are supposed to take care of their kids, and I think we can call it a “fact” that a diet of only candy would violate that.

It would be in the second category. The lines ge murky between these at times, and there’s a ton of space between the second and the third…. I mean the third is a very wide range of “degrees of removal” from biblical teaching and, with that, a wide range of levels of certainty.

And with the levels of certainty, you have degrees of appropriate dogma and combativeness. … and choosing appropriate hills to die on.

A thought on government requiring us to inject things into our bodies…

In some ways, the requirement to take something into our bodies vs. do something with or outside of our bodies seems like a good place to draw a solid line, but there are problems.

• Contagious disease is unusual in some crucial ways because it’s what in your body (and exiting) that is directly endangering the lives of others. (As a thought experiment: what if we were talking about a contagion several thousand times more lethal, so if you’re infected and not vaccinated, you will certainly cause several people to die?)
• Secondly, a human fetus is inside a body. Do we want to say government has no business in any regulating what is inside our bodies?

I’m aware that some (many?) libertarians make exactly the argument that abortion, though morally wrong, should not be illegal because the boundary between inside the body and outside the body is sacred, with regard to relationship to government.

I can’t quite go there. At the same time, I’m aware of one reality: in matters of law and authority, sometimes you can’t avoid paying a high moral/ethical/wellbeing price for drawing a line in a place that is sustainable—that is, for drawing it in a place where it is likely to hold and not slip into tyranny.