A Love Lesson Learned Through a Pair of Leg Braces
A Love Lesson Learned Through a Pair of Leg Braces
"Outdo one another in showing honor."
Romans 12:10b
Introduction
An enduring elementary school memory was the day I stood in a long line of my fellow students to receive the polio vaccine on a sugar cube. There was no protest because we knew the impact that the disease could make upon our young lives. Poliomyelitis is highly contagious and can affect the central nervous system, leading to paralysis. It can be life-threatening. Prior to immunization with the Salk vaccine, named after the man who discovered it, polio outbreaks paralyzed more than 15,000 people per year, mostly children, but the vaccine helped to reduce this number to ten annually in the 1970s.
I also recall when Mike, a boy in my 1960s grade-school class who had suffered from a bout with polio, was freed from his leg braces and ran unhindered for the first time on the playground. My classmates and I erupted into cheers as we watched him race with joy! I also knew, as a pastor, a beloved Christian woman who was crippled for life because the polio vaccine was discovered too late to prevent her from living daily with a lifelong disability. I, at times, wondered how her life might have been different had she been able to receive that immunization.
You may well imagine my surprise to read that this menacing disease recently reoccurred when an unvaccinated New York man became infected with the virus and was hospitalized. The elimination of the deadly illness comes when all are vaccinated, but growing numbers of people here in the United States, and also globally, are choosing not to receive the vaccine. This decision not to be immunized has contributed to a reemergence of this malady and other diseases. This circumstance invites questions: "Why would people choose not to be vaccinated, when not doing so adversely impacts the public good?" and "What responsibility might Christians have to benefit the common good?
I also recall when Mike, a boy in my 1960s grade-school class who had suffered from a bout with polio, was freed from his leg braces and ran unhindered for the first time on the playground. My classmates and I erupted into cheers as we watched him race with joy! I also knew, as a pastor, a beloved Christian woman who was crippled for life because the polio vaccine was discovered too late to prevent her from living daily with a lifelong disability. I, at times, wondered how her life might have been different had she been able to receive that immunization.
You may well imagine my surprise to read that this menacing disease recently reoccurred when an unvaccinated New York man became infected with the virus and was hospitalized. The elimination of the deadly illness comes when all are vaccinated, but growing numbers of people here in the United States, and also globally, are choosing not to receive the vaccine. This decision not to be immunized has contributed to a reemergence of this malady and other diseases. This circumstance invites questions: "Why would people choose not to be vaccinated, when not doing so adversely impacts the public good?" and "What responsibility might Christians have to benefit the common good?
What is a "vaccine"?
"Vaccine" is defined as "a substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen, typically prepared from an inactivated or weakened form of the causative agent or from its constituents or products." The word “vaccine,” which was coined by Dr. Edward Jenner, comes from the Latin vacca meaning “cow” (cf. “cowpox”). The physician resided in Gloucestershire, England, and discovered in 1790 that the young milkmaids who had been exposed to cowpox did not suffer from the dreaded smallpox (IJCE, 2000). His successful inoculation of thirteen people to prevent the illness led to widespread vaccination by the early 1800s.(1) Even though Jenner’s vaccine quickly led to pervasive practice, inoculations had been around for centuries before his work.(2) Strong justifications for compelling people to become immunized soon followed the successful propagation of vaccines. It was reasoned that the unvaccinated have the potential to trigger further epidemics, an argument that will be explored below.(3)
The presence of epidemic disease had become a catalyst for taking public health action in industrial cities where squalid living conditions, overcrowding, illness, and death were exponentially increased among the poor residents in these areas. Public officials began to intervene to “control or manage health.”(4) An anti-vaccination backlash soon emerged, based largely upon protection of civil liberties, and similar responses to mass vaccination campaigns have ebbed and flowed throughout the history of vaccines.(5) The delicate balance between protecting public health and preserving highly prized individual rights has always created tensions in strongly democratic societies like the UK, France, and here in the United States.
The presence of epidemic disease had become a catalyst for taking public health action in industrial cities where squalid living conditions, overcrowding, illness, and death were exponentially increased among the poor residents in these areas. Public officials began to intervene to “control or manage health.”(4) An anti-vaccination backlash soon emerged, based largely upon protection of civil liberties, and similar responses to mass vaccination campaigns have ebbed and flowed throughout the history of vaccines.(5) The delicate balance between protecting public health and preserving highly prized individual rights has always created tensions in strongly democratic societies like the UK, France, and here in the United States.
Vaccination hesitancy
Measles had been considered eliminated in the United States in 2000, but resurfaced this year in Gaines County in rural West Texas. It was discovered that the disease was spreading through a non-vaccinated part of the population that happened to be a religious group of Mennonites. This medical situation began to be broadcast in the media and regular updates have continued. A key Mennonite belief is decisional freedom, so members often exhibit a distrust of local public health officials and often reject perceived governmental authority that would overrule individual family autonomy.
A Mennonite pastor in the impacted area said, "With this measles situation, I can honestly just tell you we haven't taken any steps as a church. We did leave it up to the mothers."(6) Lubbock, Texas, which is eighty miles to the north of Gaines County, has been the front line in providing hospital care to babies, children, and teens who have been infected from this measles outbreak. Some children were intubated because they could not breathe, while others were admitted with high fevers or sore throats, which caused them to refuse to eat or drink to the point of dehydration. Physicians report that all the children admitted to the hospital were unvaccinated which, according to the doctors, would have prevented the illnesses and protected the children from suffering and potential death.
Political involvement has also increased in recent years. More than twelve bills have been introduced by Texas state lawmakers that would strengthen or expand vaccine exemptions, which the state already allows for "reasons of conscience," including a religious belief.
This social phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy is not localized; indeed, it is far-reaching and global. For example, the countries of Brazil, The Netherlands, England, and Sweden all have active anti-vaccination population pockets. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated vaccine reluctance, or anti-vaccine activism (i.e. "anti-vaxxers," as it is sometimes termed), and social media has enabled the rapid spread of misinformation among populations with limited scientific knowledge.
A Mennonite pastor in the impacted area said, "With this measles situation, I can honestly just tell you we haven't taken any steps as a church. We did leave it up to the mothers."(6) Lubbock, Texas, which is eighty miles to the north of Gaines County, has been the front line in providing hospital care to babies, children, and teens who have been infected from this measles outbreak. Some children were intubated because they could not breathe, while others were admitted with high fevers or sore throats, which caused them to refuse to eat or drink to the point of dehydration. Physicians report that all the children admitted to the hospital were unvaccinated which, according to the doctors, would have prevented the illnesses and protected the children from suffering and potential death.
Political involvement has also increased in recent years. More than twelve bills have been introduced by Texas state lawmakers that would strengthen or expand vaccine exemptions, which the state already allows for "reasons of conscience," including a religious belief.
This social phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy is not localized; indeed, it is far-reaching and global. For example, the countries of Brazil, The Netherlands, England, and Sweden all have active anti-vaccination population pockets. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated vaccine reluctance, or anti-vaccine activism (i.e. "anti-vaxxers," as it is sometimes termed), and social media has enabled the rapid spread of misinformation among populations with limited scientific knowledge.
Arguments for and against
There are several arguments against the use of vaccines: disease is a natural process; vaccines are toxic poisons; there are hidden complications like autism; Big Pharma and politicians are only looking to make profits; and there is a right to live in accordance with one's values (cf. measles and the Mennonite community above).(7) Some opposition is even rooted in misinformation (e.g. post-vaccination complications like attention deficit syndrome and autism).(8)
On the other hand, arguments for the acceptance and use of vaccines provide important decision-making perspectives as well. Vaccination programs to combat infectious diseases aim to protect individuals from serious illnesses (cf. smallpox above). They also serve the important purpose of safeguarding the wider population until enough people have been immunized. This "herd immunity" is important because it shields people who, for health reasons, cannot be immunized or who respond less well to vaccines. Non-compliers, then, who decide not to be immunized, still benefit from the herd's protection. "Free riding," as this phenomenon is termed, holds moral significance for fairness (i.e. justice). There is a wider world to consider, however, before we answer the main question about our Christian duty regarding vaccines.
On the other hand, arguments for the acceptance and use of vaccines provide important decision-making perspectives as well. Vaccination programs to combat infectious diseases aim to protect individuals from serious illnesses (cf. smallpox above). They also serve the important purpose of safeguarding the wider population until enough people have been immunized. This "herd immunity" is important because it shields people who, for health reasons, cannot be immunized or who respond less well to vaccines. Non-compliers, then, who decide not to be immunized, still benefit from the herd's protection. "Free riding," as this phenomenon is termed, holds moral significance for fairness (i.e. justice). There is a wider world to consider, however, before we answer the main question about our Christian duty regarding vaccines.
Caution against global isolationism
Vaccine hesitancy is now included by the World Health Organization as a "Top 10" global health threat. Previously, it was often religious convictions that led people to refuse vaccination (e.g. Christian Science adherents). The main ground today for refusal or hesitance is fear of side-effects and doubts about the importance of protecting one’s children against diseases like measles or pertussis. Often these beliefs are triggered or sustained by ‘viral misinformation’, which undermines trust in vaccines and vaccinations. People, regardless of socioeconomic status, increasingly question the need for, and safety of, vaccinations and therefore decide to forego childhood immunizations. For example, European countries in 2018 registered more than 80,000 cases of measles. Seventy-two children and adults died as a result.
Even though measles had been eliminated in the United States, outbreaks have been climbing in subsequent years. A large measles outbreak in New York in 2019 led to far-reaching infectious disease control measures. We can ill-afford to practice health isolationism in a post-pandemic world in which humans, often asymptomatically, easily transport diseases across geographic borders. Doctors in West Texas, for example, knew that the measles virus traveled via infected children because their parents often must journey long distances in that rural region to reach grocery stores, hospitals, and houses of worship. It was, in fact, presumed that the New York man, mentioned in the introduction above, was exposed to polio from a person in Europe. Clear tension obviously exists in "for" and "against" arguments between individual freedoms/rights and those of a group or population, but Christians always choose wisely when they examine the issue primarily through biblical lenses.(9)
Even though measles had been eliminated in the United States, outbreaks have been climbing in subsequent years. A large measles outbreak in New York in 2019 led to far-reaching infectious disease control measures. We can ill-afford to practice health isolationism in a post-pandemic world in which humans, often asymptomatically, easily transport diseases across geographic borders. Doctors in West Texas, for example, knew that the measles virus traveled via infected children because their parents often must journey long distances in that rural region to reach grocery stores, hospitals, and houses of worship. It was, in fact, presumed that the New York man, mentioned in the introduction above, was exposed to polio from a person in Europe. Clear tension obviously exists in "for" and "against" arguments between individual freedoms/rights and those of a group or population, but Christians always choose wisely when they examine the issue primarily through biblical lenses.(9)
Tensions that call for Christian attention to the use of our freedom
As Christians, we have a duty to benefit the common good, so we do well to consider what Bible principles provide guidance about being neighborly in situations like a health crisis (Romans 12:13; Galatians 6:9-10; Ephesians 2:10; Philippians 2:4; Hebrews 10:24-25; 13:16).
Christians have moral responsibilities to others in society. In behaving responsibly, we show respect for other human lives and treat others fairly (e.g. minimize "free riding"). Paul presents a careful argument for Christian ethical living in the letter to the Romans. His “therefore” in Romans 12:1 reaches back to the beginning of the letter and views as a whole God’s freedom work in Jesus Christ. That is a powerful “therefore,” because he has laid a strong theological foundation in chapters 1-11 that opens the way for instructions in how Christians “ought” to live in light of so great a salvation. He knew that every Christian convert benefited from the Holy Spirit's implanted moral compass within their hearts, so he urged them to submit to the Spirit's lead, even when it might be contrary to their values (see 12:1, “be transformed”; 13:6-7, payment of taxes!).
God's grace empowers good and right living. Paul grounds his appeal to us on God’s mercies—his grace gift in Christ. This catalyst for moral living empowers us positively to offer our whole lives as daily, living sacrifices and negatively to enable us not to conform our lives to the world (“bodies”; See also 13:13-14). The moral living to which Paul refers flows out from the reservoir of grace! Herein lies the difference between the Spirit’s empowerment and moral self-effort. The Spirit works within us to guide our daily, moral walk (12:1b). There are specific characteristics of such a lifestyle. “The sacrifice that the Christian is to offer is described in three ways: living, dedicated to his service [i.e. “holy”]; and pleasing to him." So, we offer our moral purity back to God as a though we were a killed sacrifice but still living. I termed this reality in my seminary ethics classes as the “worshiping life,” because it testifies to our true nature (12:2). We no longer give a witness that we are good people; instead, we testify to our good God! We recognize our spiritual poverty and live humbly within the riches we have in Christ (cf. Matthew 5:3).
Eliminate prideful self-reliance (12:3-8). Such humility will be demonstrated in community, for we are all members of the same body (12:3-5). No sincere Christian holds back that which a brother and sister in Christ needs for spiritual well-being. Furthermore, thinking like Paul opens us to consider what we ought to do to protect a child's health. Neither example limits our freedom; instead they both offer us a better way. We choose to use our freedom in Christ to do that which is good and right for our neighbor (read Galatians 5:13-17; cf. 1 Corinthians 8).
Apply liberally Christian virtues to benefit others. Paul lists thirteen ethical exhortations in five short verses (12:9-13). He makes the primacy of “love,” the supreme virtue, a key to the entire passage (12:9; cf. Mark 12:31, “love your neighbor"; 1 Corinthians 12:31b; 13:13). He taught and sought to offer those converts to Christ the example of “sincere,” and not phony, love (12:10).
This virtuous lifestyle means that we are to be tenderly affectionate and to defer to one another. Love means that we will remain zealous in our service to both the Lord and each other (12:11). Love keeps heavenly hope alive (12:12). Beneficent giving will be a hallmark of love. In our current day, it has become more and more difficult to provide for the needs of people because of inconsistent life stewardship of all Christians. Love answers the opening question asked above by obliging and enabling us to give generously in all areas of our lives (12:13).
Christians have moral responsibilities to others in society. In behaving responsibly, we show respect for other human lives and treat others fairly (e.g. minimize "free riding"). Paul presents a careful argument for Christian ethical living in the letter to the Romans. His “therefore” in Romans 12:1 reaches back to the beginning of the letter and views as a whole God’s freedom work in Jesus Christ. That is a powerful “therefore,” because he has laid a strong theological foundation in chapters 1-11 that opens the way for instructions in how Christians “ought” to live in light of so great a salvation. He knew that every Christian convert benefited from the Holy Spirit's implanted moral compass within their hearts, so he urged them to submit to the Spirit's lead, even when it might be contrary to their values (see 12:1, “be transformed”; 13:6-7, payment of taxes!).
God's grace empowers good and right living. Paul grounds his appeal to us on God’s mercies—his grace gift in Christ. This catalyst for moral living empowers us positively to offer our whole lives as daily, living sacrifices and negatively to enable us not to conform our lives to the world (“bodies”; See also 13:13-14). The moral living to which Paul refers flows out from the reservoir of grace! Herein lies the difference between the Spirit’s empowerment and moral self-effort. The Spirit works within us to guide our daily, moral walk (12:1b). There are specific characteristics of such a lifestyle. “The sacrifice that the Christian is to offer is described in three ways: living, dedicated to his service [i.e. “holy”]; and pleasing to him." So, we offer our moral purity back to God as a though we were a killed sacrifice but still living. I termed this reality in my seminary ethics classes as the “worshiping life,” because it testifies to our true nature (12:2). We no longer give a witness that we are good people; instead, we testify to our good God! We recognize our spiritual poverty and live humbly within the riches we have in Christ (cf. Matthew 5:3).
Eliminate prideful self-reliance (12:3-8). Such humility will be demonstrated in community, for we are all members of the same body (12:3-5). No sincere Christian holds back that which a brother and sister in Christ needs for spiritual well-being. Furthermore, thinking like Paul opens us to consider what we ought to do to protect a child's health. Neither example limits our freedom; instead they both offer us a better way. We choose to use our freedom in Christ to do that which is good and right for our neighbor (read Galatians 5:13-17; cf. 1 Corinthians 8).
Apply liberally Christian virtues to benefit others. Paul lists thirteen ethical exhortations in five short verses (12:9-13). He makes the primacy of “love,” the supreme virtue, a key to the entire passage (12:9; cf. Mark 12:31, “love your neighbor"; 1 Corinthians 12:31b; 13:13). He taught and sought to offer those converts to Christ the example of “sincere,” and not phony, love (12:10).
This virtuous lifestyle means that we are to be tenderly affectionate and to defer to one another. Love means that we will remain zealous in our service to both the Lord and each other (12:11). Love keeps heavenly hope alive (12:12). Beneficent giving will be a hallmark of love. In our current day, it has become more and more difficult to provide for the needs of people because of inconsistent life stewardship of all Christians. Love answers the opening question asked above by obliging and enabling us to give generously in all areas of our lives (12:13).
Conclusion
Mike, my elementary school classmate, was always delayed when we were dismissed for recess, because he had to step into, and then strap on, his two leg braces. I always remained behind to help him, as our friends hurried to the playground. To this day, I recall the scent of the leather braces straps and the cold and rigid metal supports I gripped with my hands! He was crippled, so the least I could do was to "honor" him the best way I knew, by serving him (Romans 12:12b).
Vaccines, as you undoubtedly sense, are more than a personal decision to me. Even so, I will openly state that I have declined in the past to take some of them. However, they overwhelmingly offer me a way to do that which is good and right in my community to limit the spread of harmful diseases.
So, I encourage you to research the moral issue well, help to stop the spread of misinformation, humbly examine the scriptural principles with the Holy Spirit's guidance, then act for God's glory and for the benefit of your neighbor.
Prayerfully yours,
Larry C. Ashlock
Vaccines, as you undoubtedly sense, are more than a personal decision to me. Even so, I will openly state that I have declined in the past to take some of them. However, they overwhelmingly offer me a way to do that which is good and right in my community to limit the spread of harmful diseases.
So, I encourage you to research the moral issue well, help to stop the spread of misinformation, humbly examine the scriptural principles with the Holy Spirit's guidance, then act for God's glory and for the benefit of your neighbor.
Prayerfully yours,
Larry C. Ashlock
Notes:
1. Wolfe & Sharp, BMJ, “Anti-vaccinationists past and present,” 24 Aug 2002; 325(7361), 430-432.
2. Cf. China 200 BCE; see History of Vaccines.
3. Cf. Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, chapter XIII, “Public Medicine.”
4. Porter, The Greatest Benefit, 420.
5. Cf. Kennedy, A Brief History of Disease, Science and Medicine, 110ff.
6. Devi Shastri and Carlos Nogueras Ramos, "West Texans, Mennonites at center of measles outbreak choose medical freedom over vaccines mandates," Texas Tribune, March 4, 2025.
7. See, for example, Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee in Immunization Safety Review: Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Stratton K, Gable A, McCormick MC, editors. National Academies Press; Washington (DC): 2001.
8. C. H. Barrett, Drue; W. Ortmann, Leonard; Dawson, Angus; Saenz, Carla; Reis, Andreas; Bolan, Gail. Public Health Ethics: Cases Spanning the Globe (Public Health Ethics Analysis Book 3) (p. 106). [Kindle Edition.]
9. See a Pathway Ethics article that was penned following the pandemic. Larry Ashlock, Pathway Ethics, "Digging In or Leading the Way?"
1. Wolfe & Sharp, BMJ, “Anti-vaccinationists past and present,” 24 Aug 2002; 325(7361), 430-432.
2. Cf. China 200 BCE; see History of Vaccines.
3. Cf. Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, chapter XIII, “Public Medicine.”
4. Porter, The Greatest Benefit, 420.
5. Cf. Kennedy, A Brief History of Disease, Science and Medicine, 110ff.
6. Devi Shastri and Carlos Nogueras Ramos, "West Texans, Mennonites at center of measles outbreak choose medical freedom over vaccines mandates," Texas Tribune, March 4, 2025.
7. See, for example, Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee in Immunization Safety Review: Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Stratton K, Gable A, McCormick MC, editors. National Academies Press; Washington (DC): 2001.
8. C. H. Barrett, Drue; W. Ortmann, Leonard; Dawson, Angus; Saenz, Carla; Reis, Andreas; Bolan, Gail. Public Health Ethics: Cases Spanning the Globe (Public Health Ethics Analysis Book 3) (p. 106). [Kindle Edition.]
9. See a Pathway Ethics article that was penned following the pandemic. Larry Ashlock, Pathway Ethics, "Digging In or Leading the Way?"
Posted in Pathway Perspectives