A Lutheran Explication Of The Religious Exception to the Vaccine Mandates

 It is always exciting when I discover another Lutheran writing on the topics of the day from a Lutheran perspective.  Such is the case with the Armed Lutheran. Today, though, I cite another Lutheran writer, Matthew Cochran, who writes that Christian Leaders Need to Stand for the Consciences of Their Flocks Against Vaccine Coercion. 

The proximate cause of Cochran's article is the evident cowardice of the President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I had previously thought that some of what I experienced at congregation was due to the pastor. But now I see that the pastor may have felt that the Synod did not have his back, thus he was left swinging in the wind.

Naturally, we can’t all expect a signature from the heads of our denominations. We have to rely on our local churches. But many of our congregations are likewise scared to offer such things because our leaders have set an example of cowardice.

They look to our overseers for guidance, then embrace the counsel that “no position” is the best position. When their faithful members ask for support, many echo the position of their president: “This is a personal decision. Go in peace. Be warm and well fed, but don’t expect any help from us.“

If any of this fine talk about personal decisions proceeded from true conviction or leadership, it would not studiously avoid taking a position. It would instead take the position of affirming the God-given authority from which our decisions proceed and discard the duplicitous fiction that “no position” is an option.

Cochran points out that there is a religious basis for opposing vaccines, namely the use of aborted fetus stem cells. But he also makes a case that the decision as to whether or not a vaccine is to be given not only to himself, but to his family lies with the head of the household, and not with the civil authorities. Moreover, he must be convinced, not coerced.

I urge gentle visitors to this blog to go and read Cochran's article, as it provides one of the best explanations for the conscientious objection to the vaccine.

I would also point to the illogic of the administrations claim that the vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated.  Why?  And why do the vaccinated have to wear masks?  These things point to the use of the so called 'pandemic' as a tool for political control.  Because these things have no basis in public health.