One of the strange phenomena coming out of the United States is what is known as vaccine refusal among conservative Christians. In a recent survey, a full 26% declared that they will not in any circumstances receive vaccination against Covid. Another 28% are hesitant. These figures exist in spite of the fact that many conservative Christian leaders, including hard-core evangelical Trump loyalists like Robert Jeffress and Franklin Graham, have received the jab and encourage their followers to follow suit. Other evangelical leaders are more reluctant to encourage their congregations to take the jab as they fear that such an expressed preference would suggest to their congregations that they are going liberal in some way. The figures indicate a further problem, namely divisions within congregations and families. There are many cases of younger Christians refusing to let their children visit their unvaccinated grandparents. This has not only caused tension and upset in families, but planned weddings and other family gatherings have been thrown into uncertainty by these inter-family disputes.
It would be wrong to suggest that anti-vaxxers are all conservative Christians, but some certainly are. It is hard for us in the UK to understand why this issue should have become politicised or to understand why there should be any link between the act of refusing vaccination and conservative Christian beliefs. Some Christians may perhaps feel that to receive vaccination is to stop depending on the protection of God against Covid infection. Clearly there is more to it than this. Evidently, among many conservative Christians, there is a widespread problem of suspicion directed against all authority figures, especially the national government. Conspiracy theories will also always be popular among groups which feel they are in some way persecuted and the object of attack from those who disagree with them.
There is, however, one fascinating additional theory about the mentality of conservative Christian groups opposing vaccination. This appears in an online article in a magazine called Religion Dispatches. The article starts with the observation that Christians from the ultra-right-wing world of conservative Christianity hold a number of beliefs, Christian and political, with no sense of ever being in the wrong. When an individual has such a strong sense of the truth of all their beliefs, it is but a small step to always seeing the world as if from a heavily defended bunker. The attitude that says ‘whoever is not with us is against us’, is very common among conservative Christians. It is a small step from aggressively defending an ‘infallible’ and non-negotiable point of view to becoming routinely paranoid in every dealing with the outside world beyond the group. There are a number of passages in the New Testament which seem to glorify the experience of a Christian when meeting persecution of any kind. ‘Blessed are you when men reproach you and persecute you’. It is, of course, debatable whether these words of Jesus should be held to apply to Christians who are making what appears to be a political stand over vaccination, but one thing is clearly true. Conservative Christians seem to need to have enemies, and indeed they become energised in the process of identifying and defending themselves against them. In the ongoing Oxford saga of a group of clergy and dons trying to rid themselves of their Dean, the attempt is made to identify opponents, at the same time shutting out what they are saying. In practice, any attempt to close down dissident voices makes those voices still louder. Also the credibility of anyone demonstrating paranoid behaviour is inevitably lessened in the eyes of those who look on.
In the political realm, the ability to identify and name enemies, whether they be immigrants, Jews or people of a different colour, has always served authoritarian leaders well. Many dictators have gone further. Declaring war on named enemies is a way of hanging on to political power. Everyone has to rally round to fight off this ‘enemy’ in the name of the quasi-religion, known as patriotism.
Conservative Christianity, in its links with ultra-right-wing political ideologies, has often been successful at identifying and obtaining benefit and prestige by being good at ‘enemy-naming’. In the political sphere, we have, arguably, been caught in a similar dynamic by having Brexit presented to us as some kind of liberation movement. Many people seem to have voted to leave the EU based on what they were against. This same dynamic of teaching congregations which groups and individuals that ‘we are against’ still goes on. In a recent blog post, I drew attention to the way that the churchwardens at St Helen’s Bishopsgate have named individuals as being opponents for daring to suggest that their Rector might have done more to protect the church from the predations of Smyth and Fletcher. Quite often a church is drawing considerable amounts of energy from the intensity of its hatred for those who disagree with its leaders and its overall theological position.
I have on this blog written about the way that the bogeymen for conservatives change over the decades. In times past, the enemies of true Christians were the proponents of contraception. They then became the supporters of abortion reform. More recently conservative Christians have settled on ‘hating’ supporters of the gay/trans-phobic cause. An opposition to vaccination appears, in America at any rate, to be merely the most recent in a series of issues which conservative Christians are expected to oppose. The very fact of opposing something seems to create energy and strong feelings among those who do it. Superficially this energy seems to be spiritual in nature, somehow revealing a fervour of commitment. In reality, when it is examined, it is nothing of the sort. It is the effervescence of the excited crowd which has the lasting power and solidity of candy floss.
As I reflected on this opposition mentality among conservative Christians, I began to wonder whether it is the experience of opposing something that appeals to this group, rather than the cause which is being opposed. If their perceived enemies, the amorphous group they sometimes describe as liberals, support a moral or political point of view, then that same position needs to be opposed. Clear lines of demarcation need to be maintained with those who are ‘not us’. What we are seeing here is what I would suggest is a kind of persecution addiction, one which enables a strong sense of identity. The bunker mentality seems to energise and strengthen those who hold to it. It is as though the words of Jesus have been changed to the following. ‘By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you oppose all the things that your enemies approve of.’
All those who have read the Stella Gibbons’ novel, Cold Comfort Farm, will remember the vivid description of a religious group called the Quivering Brethren. At all the services held by this group, the preacher would work on the members to bring them to a pitch of quivering fear. This was done by his vivid descriptions of the burnings and the pains of Hell. The preacher concerned was one of the extraordinary characters who lived at the farm at the centre of the story. Flora, the heroine of the novel, arranged for him to buy a van and go round the country preaching his message of Hell. ‘I will tell them about burning in Hell’ the preacher declared, as he had discovered that fear worked as a way of filling the building. There was a sense in which this experience of fear was, paradoxically, quite enjoyable. This account of the Quivering Brethren is completely fictional. One does, nevertheless, wonder sometimes whether many church leaders like to keep their congregations in a place of uncertainty, with the occasional mention of Hell to spice up what might otherwise be a rather dull observance of Christian faith. The additional belief that your church and its leaders are being ‘persecuted’ because you are against something that everyone else accepts (like vaccination), gives a certain frisson and flavour to your church life. I am reminded of the church door which had the words inscribed over them. ‘Be of good cheer I have overcome the world’. A church member who read those words would be encouraged to believe that he or she was always stronger, wiser and more competent than those outside. The very fact of taking a different side from everyone else on vaccination may be one way of maintaining a smug enjoyable feeling of superiority over the opinions of the mass of the population.
Most of my readers will agree with me that it is unacceptable to declare as enemies those who work hard to help humanity. There is no possible reason for opposing vaccination unless evidence appears that seems to indicate a health risk. To be against it because it is the position of people you do not like, is an act of irrationality. Thankfully this position is not common in this country. There are, as we have indicated, other widely held beliefs which are opposed because they suggest, for some Christians, a failure of faith, or because liberals support them. In America we are told of a widespread antipathy against scientific thinking because it is thought to be ‘against’ the world view of Scripture. This kind of thinking is typically found in the textbooks of those who use ‘Christian’ material to home-school their children. Swathes of young people are being taught to think, or not to think, because of dogmatic beliefs extracted from religious texts. Most of us accept that while there are differences of opinion in science and other areas of knowledge, little can be achieved by closing a debate down. It is always worth having a debate as long as both sides will be heard fairly and openly. The only reason for avoiding such a debate is when the circumstances suggest I will not be heard because I come from a different place in my presuppositions. Sadly, there are many debates which are non-debates precisely for this reason. One party uses social or political power to shut down what the other group are saying. In some cases it is the liberal establishment closing things down; in other cases, it is the conservative authoritarian approach that refuses to allow proper discussion. As a thinking Christian I need to be on the alert for both forms of intellectual tyranny. Sadly, we live in a world where this kind of fascistic thinking is not unusual.
I remember seeing a woman on television who said she didn’t want to have the injection in case she reacted to it, because she had children to care for. No thought at all about what would happen if she actually caught it, or even died. Bonkers. That’s the sort of reaction that makes you think you can’t engage with such idiots! They make me so cross, my instinct is to say, fine, let ’em die then! No marks for Christian Charity.
How do we know we’re right? Do we verify our sources? Or do we just follow our set/cohort/mates/chums?
One thing that does strike me about commentators on here and other religious blogs and social media, is the certainty. This is particularly true regarding political matters and leaders. We are absolutely certain we know better.
And yet if put to the test in their shoes, wouldn’t we be worse?
Regarding the vaccines, like other things, people tend to follow the crowd. Fortunately, in my opinion, in the Uk, the vaccine is “in” generally, and increasingly acceptable to groups who were initially reluctant.
Those in positions of leadership have the greatest responsibility to weigh the evidence for our plans not just in healthcare but in Christianity too. Wherever there is variance, it generally comes from the top somewhere.
Personally I thank God for the brilliance of the scientists who designed these vaccines and the expedition of their delivery.
Well, you’re right to be sharp with me, Steve. I hope I wouldn’t be unkind to someone who was worried about the vaccine. The problem is, I don’t understand some of the daft things people believe! I’d really struggle with a polite explanation! You know, the “we’re all being controlled by a microchip” stuff. Get away! I just wouldn’t be patient enough. And they’re putting other people at risk.
I feel the same as you about the vaccines English Athena. Have a youngish neighbour with child at risk who didn’t trust them.
We explained we’d had them/were keen to have them etc and tried not to show exasperation, which I feel would have been counterproductive.
The origins of suspicion in different cultures are very deep, and not always completely without foundation unfortunately.
I have seen it best expressed as – we have now had evidence based medicine for long enough that fear of death from a preventable disease has reduced so people have stopped ‘believing’ in evidence based medicine.
Your comments about needing enemies are spot on.
Yes. People have remembered that measles was a common childhood illness, and forgotten it was a killer.
Interesting article from the “New York Times”: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/us/covid-vaccine-evangelicals.html
There’s a paywall. I don’t blame them, but it does mean I can’t read the article.
Re evangelical opposition to various ‘threats’: I recall rock music, dance, and films being on the banned list. The evangelical liberal arts college I went to forbade dance, but had a student perform a ballet number at an officially sanctioned revue! Apparently only modern dance was of the devil.
I think the need to oppose something and have enemies springs partly from the continual harking back to the Reformation. If all your heroes stood for principle against overwhelming odds, you’ll probably look for something to battle in order to emulate them.
I had friends in the CodE who forbade Harry Potter!
I have never read or watched any Harry Potter! But on my first visit to USA the woman Rector in the Anglican church I attended roundly condemned it in her sermon! That was before we had women clergy in the C of E, so a good many years ago.
The first Harry Potter book, ‘Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,’ was published in 1997. The C of E ordained its first female deacons in 1987, and its first female priests in 1994. I was in my 4th post, and first incumbency, when Harry Potter appeared on the scene and I was captivated. I can’t see it’s any worse than the Narnia books, which feature not only a witch but nymphs, satyrs, Bacchus, and a river god.
However it’s true that many evangelicals and charismatics can see evil forces everywhere. One of the lead counsellors of Ellel Grange observed to a friend of mine many years ago that paisley is ‘demonic’, and a Reader at St. Michael-le-Belfrey advised us to avoid the Body Shop because of its ‘pagan’ influence.
I went through a similar spell of seeing evil everywhere, before I became an Anglican, but came to see that as a symptom of the memories of abuse I was suppressing. Something similar may happen with others, too.
Maybe I have confused the chronology but, not to mince words, the sermon was condemning the Harry Potter stories with a suggestion that they were ‘Satanic’, to be avoided and, specifically, children to be protected from them. I gather that view was fairly widespread in some US churches.
This was TEC and (by C of E standards) ‘middle of the road’, although Eucharistic vestments were worn. I actually felt very at home there.
Yes, usually people who hadn’t seen or read it but thought if it involved magic it must be wrong!
It is, by the way, a Christian sacrifice/ resurrection allegory.
My con-evo home church block-booked a cinema so their people could check out Potter and report back. The verdict was: no problem. Never heard another word from them about it.
Personally I find the genre rather boring unlike JK Rowling’s venture into crime fiction: “Cormoran Strike”, which I particularly enjoy.
There is also the theory that the vaccine, or the vaccine passport, is ‘the mark of the beast’ (Revelation 13:16-17, 14:11) which seems to have achieved fairly widespread credibility, especially recently. It ties in very neatly with a persecution narrative.
https://www.viralityproject.org/rapid-response/mark-of-the-beast-meets-vaccine-passports?mkt_tok=MTMxLUFRTy0yMjUAAAF8vkxEkAbw_-aB38GhpF2rwqWz9rFwiJnH63TjcvJRs66kpFG26UZk22euXCjoWxYfPEfIce8WpASD36JKkzkxDujRplkSnDXLJjrYHDniBEMV
Hi, John. Have none of these folk noticed that there are millions of people in Britain who have been vaccinated, with no sign of microchips or demonic control?
How do you know that you aren’t harbouring a microchip which, at some future date, will impel you to join the antichrist’s army?
I think that’s what their reply would be.
Within the heart of most of us is a capacity for the divine, and failing that, the supernatural. Indeed I would argue that to be an atheist requires considerably more effort than belief in a deity.
Many scientists are religious too. For them a statistical analysis of empirical data is not the only source of belief. Intelligence does not preclude superstition and paranoia either, and many controversies over items cited above contain a measure of both.
In the church, we have seen again and again how an alternative reality can quite easily be created by controlling leaders and dependent followers. Both categories of people include the brightest and best of society as well as the simpler and less educated.
Leaders fear that if they eliminate the mystical, they lose the allure of their ministry and the “god-anointed” cachet of their pronouncements.
The challenge for all leaders is authenticity. The temptation (however hard it is for those who consider themselves “rational” to believe) is to jump on the latest spooky/conspiracy/end-times scare stuff. It generates engagement in a spiritually hungry world.
Some of the more bizarre ideas seem to have remarkable tenacity. It becomes easier to understand when you look at the size of these constituencies and the votes they carry. Politicians have to tread a fine line here and from what I can gather, particularly in the States, the church going caucus is massive.
Jesus wanted his followers to love their enemies. The one-off football match in no man’s land during the first world war between the English and German soldiers comes to mind. A Christian response to being threatened by a group of people is to ask, how can I show love to these people?
This is a strange article and doesn’t engage with why people are refusing the vaccine. There’s mounting evidence that it does pose a very serious health risk to many people. Deaths are mounting – just look at the MHRA yellow card reporting data website. There are many eminent scientists and Drs speaking up against it – Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Byram Bridle, Dr Robert Malone (one of the inventors of the mRNA vaccine technology), Dr Tess Lawrie. As someone who is currently refusing the vaccine I am seeing every day how I have made the right decision as more evidence comes to light. Early treatments work and are being suppressed. Start digging and don’t trust the BBC.
Precious little evidence of harm, actually, Becca. If you trust only those who agree with you, you’re never going to engage with those who don’t. Please quote an article or primary source. I tend to believe vaccines experts like Patrick Vallance.
And what do you mean by people suppressing early treatments?
Becca, which vaccine in particular are you concerned about? I see that Dr. Robert Malone’s doubts relate to the Pfizer and Modern vaccines, and Astra Zeneca is the more common one here.
In any case, data shows that deaths and serious illness from Covid are greatly reduced by all the vaccines. I’ve had the Astra Zeneca jab twice, as have many of my friends, and none of us has had a problem with it apart from two or three days of feeling vaguely fluey. The vaccines are life-savers, as were the measles, smallpox, polio etc vaccines before them. The vast weight of medical and scientific opinion supports them.