Vaccination, Inclusion and Exclusion: The ethics of regathering for worship in a part-vaccinated world
The Uniting Church holds two core values as part of our ethos.
First, we believe that our gatherings should be safe places for all, especially the most vulnerable. Appropriately, we invest considerable resources in policy, codes of practice, and training to make our worship and other activities as safe as possible.
Secondly, we believe that all are welcome at worship. We sing this in our hymns: “Come as you are” and “All are welcome in this place”. We proclaim our inclusive welcome in spoken words, as well as on our signs, websites, notice sheets and orders of service.
When we think about regathering for worship after this current lockdown, we are faced with a new ethical challenge that wasn’t present last year. What do we do when society is moving towards a situation where being fully (double) vaccinated will be a requirement of entry to businesses, offices and indoor events?
The two core values which I have described point in opposite directions. The first principle of safety for the most vulnerable implies that people who are not fully vaccinated may need to be excluded for the safety of the vulnerable. The second principle of inclusion implies that we can’t turn anyone away.
There are two further principles, or at least questions, that flow from this clash of equally valid principles.
First, we have a duty of care to our volunteers. Can we reasonably ask a door steward or greeter to tell someone at the door that they can’t enter?
Second, we have a duty as Christians, individually and collectively, to obey the state, unless there are compelling reasons to disobey when our “citizenship in heaven” (Philippians 3:20) conflicts with our national citizenship. Paul describes our duty to obey the state in Romans 13:1-2.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.
The Gospels speak to these questions. When questioned by a lawyer, Jesus affirmed the centrality of the command “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:8; Luke 10:25-28). Now, the lawyer’s next question may be a dodge, “Who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29). However, this is exactly our question. “Who is my neighbour?” becomes for us “To whom do we owe our primary duty of care: the vulnerable or the unvaccinated?” The principle of being a safe place tells us that the vulnerable are our primary neighbour. However, the principle of being inclusive tells us that the unvaccinated are our primary neighbour.
Taking this to the next step, the dilemma becomes deeper. Whichever path we take will exclude someone. Obviously, protecting the vulnerable means excluding the unvaccinated. However, including the unvaccinated leads to exclusion of the vulnerable who are afraid to come into an unsafe place.
In both lockdowns, and the return to face-to-face gatherings after the first lockdown, congregations have already wrestled with questions of inclusion and exclusion. Several examples from the experience of congregations in Parramatta Nepean Presbytery illustrate the reality of wrestling with inclusion and exclusion,
First, people with limited access to broadband internet, adequate devices or technical ability have experienced exclusion from online worship. The “digital divide” in all of society arises from social inequality, such as crowded and insecure housing, low levels of education and English, as well as personal limitations, including disability and (for some) age. Already, people who we would most want to include as “the last, the least and the lost” experience exclusion. Despite this, many congregations have decided that it was better to have online worship, that may exclude some, than no worship at all. Other congregations have followed a different path, distributing printed or pre-recorded DVDs to people’s homes, with no streamed or Zoom worship, so that all are included equally.
Secondly, some congregations have wrestled with the “good-problem-to-have” of being at full seating capacity before the first lockdown. Turning people away at the door or rationing members’ attendance did not seem like acceptable options to deal with the two and four square metre rules. Instead, they have developed new ways and patterns of gathering, at least one of which echoes patterns in the early church. For instance, in a typical month having one or two online services, and one or two resourced home church gatherings across the congregation (when home gatherings were allowed). As well as these online and home gatherings, the whole congregations have gathered monthly in the open air or a large borrowed space for Communion.
What the challenges of the digital divide and physical space constraints illustrate is that we have already been dealing with questions of inclusion and exclusion. Exclusion in the physical, face-to-face space has seemed too unpalatable to contemplate, and instead, not gathering face-to-face has been a better path. Exclusion in the digital space has for most, but not all, seemed like an acceptable compromise.
What we do in the next stage of emerging from the pandemic, with its new inclusion/exclusion challenge around vaccination status, is still unclear. Nevertheless, as Wesley would have said, our struggle can be informed by our UCA tradition and scripture on one hand, and our experience and reason on the other.
Whichever way we go, our ethics are not just a matter of opinion or theory, but decision and action. Blessings to all as we decide and act.
Rev Dr Rob McFarlane
Rob McFarlane has served for over 20 years on institutional ethics committees in public hospitals and non-government agencies in NSW & Queensland. He has also served on Uniting Church ethics working groups around issues such as euthanasia. Rob brings together theological reflection and pastoral experience to his teaching, public speaking and writing in health ethics. He currently serves as Presbytery Ministry Leader with Parramatta Nepean Presbytery.
Spiritual Care Australia Conference - Trajectories of HopeMon, 19th Jun 2023 - Wed, 21st Jun 2023
Listening to the Heart: Understanding The VoiceSat, 1st Jul 2023
National Conference of Lay Preachers 2023Fri, 4th Aug 2023 - Mon, 7th Aug 2023
Preachfest 2023Wed, 1st Nov 2023 - Fri, 3rd Nov 2023
- See more events
ADD AN EVENT
Are you hosting an event in the Synod that will be of interest to Insights’ readers?
To add an event listing email us your event details. A full list of events can be found on our Events page.
4 thoughts on “Vaccination, Inclusion and Exclusion: The ethics of regathering for worship in a part-vaccinated world”
Plenty of food for thought.
On a lighter note, with shared written prayers and singing etc how do we meet the needs of inclusion and full participation, without highlighting the limitations of those who can not read, in our congregations and gatherings.
DVD’s and USB sticks for those in their homes without the basic technologies that we can take for granted.
A great thought provoking article for these tough times….thank you Rob
Thanks for the thoughtful perspectives across these questions of emerging ethics for inclusive worship. As a Lay Preacher, I’ve engaged with different congregations over a number of weeks, working with the mode of worship or connection each has decided on. Some have printed off the entire order of service and sermon for mail distribution or letterbox drop; others have had a blend of Zoom and mail-out of materials; others again have a pre-recorded service which is then released for access on the day… and some variations in between. I always encourage the people simply to work as well as they can with the resources and skills available, offering what is meaningful without burning out with the effort required. This piece certainly deepens my appreciation of all the nuanced approaches.
Don’t lose sight that some of us aren’t locked down and are gathering for worship, safely and with a welcome. Personally I don’t want to see us step backwards.
It concerns me , fully vaccinated. At my doctor’s this week we also discussed the vaccination. The fact I don’t have a history of clotting I could have the Astrazeneca, the Pfizer could leave me tired, (as I always am.) For the Pfizer I would have to wait 6 weeks to have it at the surgery. Astrazeneca the you had to originally wait 12 weeks for the booster, Pfizer and the other one 6 weeks for the booster. I am actually booked in for the end of next month for my 2nd shot. My dr. Has bought the Astrazeneca forward to 6 weeks. So fully vaccinated could exclude those who have had the single shot, through no fault of their own. As the hymn says Come just as you are. Jesus never turned anyone away.