In recent months, there
has been a lot of talk about vaccination. It began with an outbreak of the
measles in California during last year’s holiday season, and has extended into
this year. If you look at this fact sheet from
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), you will see that 2014 was actually the
worst year for measles in more than a decade, and by a considerable margin.
However, if 2015 maintains its pace, it will be even worse.
The Vaccine Resistance
This situation has resulted in a great deal of debate, with
people reasonably concerned over how a disease that was nearly eradicated in
this country has roared back to such an extent. Much of the blame has been
directed toward the anti-vaccination movement. They have a number of
motivations, such as a fear of the potential side effects of vaccination,
concern with the idea of government coercion, or purely a belief that
vaccination is ineffectual and unnecessary. Whatever the cause, a number of
parents have decided not to vaccinate their children. Some believe these
parents are the cause of the spread of diseases that were uncommon not long
ago.
I cannot say whether this criticism for the “Vaccine
Resistance” is deserved or not. I would lean more toward it being one of many
causes in a perfect storm, rather than the sole source of all our troubles.
However, it has certainly become the focal point, and arguments are being made
to use government power to force all parents to vaccinate their children. Many
people would probably assume I would be against this, but it is actually not
that cut and dried. I am certainly not a fan of government power, and I fear
overreach. On the other hand, though, the government does have a responsibility
to protect its citizens. If my position on policy were to be sought, it would
be to allow the states to make their own decisions and not make it a national
debate, or a concern for the national government. And I think peer pressure
would be more effective than anything else. Let the culture make these parents
feel outcast, rather than be outlaw.
Fortunately, though, no one is seeking my position on
policy, and that is not really why I wrote this. I am more interested in those
calling for vaccination requirements. For the most part, they have been
political liberals who have made the (what I consider to be reasonable) public
safety argument. It is perhaps no surprise that they would look to expand the
scope and authority of government. However, I was struck by an
irony in the grounds for their position. To my eyes, they seem to be contradicting
the philosophical foundation of the “Sexual Revolution” to which many of these
same people are devoted.
Herd Immunity
One of the key arguments of those calling for vaccination
requirements leans on the concept of “herd immunity.” Basically, it is the idea
that no vaccine is 100% effective, but the more people you vaccinate, the more
you can control the disease by relying on the people whom the vaccine does
help. Their immunity supposedly restricts the rate of infection. The vaccinated
population has been shrinking as a result of people opting out (or at least so
the argument goes), so there is a fear that everyone, vaccinated or not, is at
greater risk. People who do not vaccinate their children are not making a
decision for themselves alone, but for everyone. That would mean it is a
question not just of their rights of privacy, but of the nation’s right to
health. The Resistance, for its part, says herd immunity is unsubstantiated and
their right to choose for their own children supersedes the government’s right
to tell them what to do.
This should sound familiar. So much of the Sexual
Revolution has had its basis in a reactionary ethic. The individual desire for
sexual “fulfillment” had been frustrated by a puritanical society’s desire to
control people. And Christianity was seen as the primary offender of the rights
of man.
Christian Sexual
Ethic
I will not deny that the Biblical faith takes a very hard
line for sexual purity. In some ways, it is more restrictive than all the rest
of the world’s major religions. From what little I know, Buddhism and Hinduism
can be rather libertine. And even Islam, for all its harsh laws on sexuality, promotes
polygamy where Christianity and Judaism do not (and they do not promote it.
There is a difference between the Bible recording something and approving of
it). Scripture is replete with warnings against fornication and with requirements
to follow the “one man, one woman” pattern. From Genesis
2:24, to Exodus
20:14, on to Matthew
19:1-9, 1
Corinthians 6:9, 10, Revelation
22:15, and absolutely everywhere in between, God
tells us to guard our sexuality and stick to the confines of marriage as He
ordained it.
There are a few misconceptions about this, however. God is
speaking to God’s people, which is the point made in 1
Corinthians 5:9-13. Christians over time have
come to expect the type of purity from the secular culture that is truly only
expected of the church. Taking such a position has made it more difficult for
us to describe why purity should be sought. We have spoken as though we did not
need to explain. Instead, we have to say exactly what the Scripture says. It is
not up to us to stop all the sexual sins in the world. God Himself will hold
unbelievers accountable. Our job is to show them that they can be forgiven of
His judgment by turning to Christ and away from their sins.
That problem has developed in the church, and we need to
deal with it. But the other misconception is by those outside. They have been
so focused on Christians trying to stop them from “having fun” that they have
not paid attention to why we see a
problem. This is similar to an argument made about those who do not vaccinate.
Disease has been defeated to such an extent that they do not know the horrors
of it. This, in turn, leads them to think there is no longer any need for the
medicine that helped curb the diseases and make them so rare in the first
place. Certainly, that applies to sexual ethics, as well. The cure has been so
effective that society is losing sight of the ravages of the disease. That blindness
does not make sense when we consider the evidence, though. Sexual sin comes
with natural consequences. We see them constantly now: teen pregnancy,
single-parent homes, STD’s, abortion, the objectification of women, absentee
fathers, broken and meaningless relationships, and the list goes on and on. Why
would society want these things? If Christians offer a formula for avoiding
them, why should it be resisted just because it comes from Christians? Can Christians
force them to stop, anyway? No, and as I have said, we shouldn’t try. But we
are supposed to tell them why they should try for themselves.
Seeing the
Similarities
The vaccination debate brings this into sharp focus again.
Christian ideas on sexual purity are about our relationship to God, but as they
apply to the secular world outside the church, they amount to herd immunity. When
a high percentage is “inoculated,” the ill effects will not spread as far. We
know full well we can never stop all the negative consequences of aberrant
sexuality. There will always be people who do what they shouldn’t, just as
there have always been. But the more people we can encourage to follow a purity
ethic, the more people we can protect from those negative consequences. The
goal is to promote physical, emotional, and societal health, not to control
people. The rules are for our own good, and for everyone else’s. Is that really
any different than calling for vaccination requirements? No. In fact, it is
less extreme and more obviously helpful. Why can the people who call for
vaccination requirements not see the similarity in their arguments to Christian
calls for sexual protections? For that, I have no answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment