Image

My Nagging Feeling

"I was born and brought up as one of four missionary children in Tanzania. I still remember to this day the lepers in the streets... The church there in Morogoro did not stop the sick from entering and was open to all."

As the debate on whether the church should defy the government by allowing the unvaccinated to participate in worship rages on, my initial instinct was to agree with those who were willing to disobey. I’ve read countless arguments for and against. I’ve debated with some senior ministers and friends and the more I do, the more I believe that my instinct is correct.

You see I keep having this nagging, uncomfortable feeling that the church, if it agrees with the government on this issue, is not standing with God and what He truly wants. Maybe it has something to do with the old Christian saying, ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ I’m not an un-vaccinator, I have had my two shots, but should we stop the unvaccinated from entering our church buildings to participate in worship?

I was born and brought up as one of four missionary children in Tanzania. I still remember to this day the lepers in the streets and my parents bending down, talking with them, and then giving them something, usually money. The church there in Morogoro did not stop the sick from entering and was open to all. Maybe this is also what’s making me feel so uncomfortable about preventing people from entering the church to worship.

On one side of the debate, there are those who believe only God has the authority to say who is and is not allowed to worship within the church. The only true Biblical reason to ask someone not to come is when you “expel the immoral brother” (1 Cor. 5). On the other side, there are those who believe that allowing the unvaccinated to worship is contrary to the word of God, as He has instructed everyone to obey those in authority. Furthermore, they say, we’re not loving our neighbour as we should as the unvaccinated could pose a health risk to others.

The argument, surely though, must be: Which side honours God’s name? Could they both honour Him? Or do they both dishonour Him?

The easiest way forward for the church is to side with the government, be one with them on the issue, and thus have fewer ‘political’ ramifications. But, is this the correct decision? Will this bring honour to God’s name? Sadly, and ultimately, I think not. While we might, like the Pharisees, obey the letter of the law, we will not be obeying the spirit of God’s law. Christ came to the despised, the leper, the Samaritan, and the tax collector, which is, in one way or another, all of us.

David, when fleeing Saul, ate of the consecrated bread at Nob. Similarly, Jesus’s disciples picked heads of grain on the sabbath and went against the governance of the law. So, what was Jesus’ response to the accusations of the Pharisees for this “disobedience”?

“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent’” (Matt. 12.7).

Those who will be most affected by the mandate preventing the unvaccinated from participating in worship will likely be the poor and needy, the ethnic groups who, for reasons of communication, do not truly understand the medical reasons for vaccination, along with the modern-day ‘lepers’, namely, those who wilfully decide they don’t want to be vaccinated for reasons of conscience. At a time when Australia is recording a massive increase in anxiety and suicide, surely the church, historically anyway, has always been looked upon by unbelievers as a place of refuge.

On all grounds, this is a relatively simple, Biblical argument. The church should not stop the unvaccinated from entering into worship. Using the churches own reasoning, to side with the government, we historically would never have sent missionaries to the four corners of the world because either, it was too dangerous for them, or the missionaries would have been too dangerous to the community groups they were sent to.

So, are we to be like the Pharisees who judged Jesus’ disciples for not obeying the law of the land and be unmerciful towards the ‘unwanted’ who do not have Vaccination Passports? If we are, then surely we are bringing reproach on God’s name, for in the eyes of some non-believers and church members, we are identifying God with this unmerciful act and making Him look uncaring and judgemental, as one with the Pharisees.

The cost of including the unvaccinated will definitely have ramifications, but at least our church will not lose its ‘soul’, but remain joined with the merciful heart of our Father and ultimately honour the only name that is the proper object of man’s worship, Jesus, Lord of all.

Special Request:

For nearly eight years, we've highlighted issues ignored by mainstream media and resisted globalist ideologies eroding Western civilization. We've done this joyfully, without paywalls, despite personal costs to our team. Your support has kept us going, but operating costs exceed donations, forcing us to use ads. We’d love to ditch them, so we’re asking for your help. If you value our work, please consider supporting us via Stripe or PayPal. Every bit helps us keep fighting for our kids’ future. Thank you!

What's New?

Use the blue arrows at the bottom to scroll through the latest.
Final 130 Christian Children Freed After Month in Islamist Captivity in Nigeria

Final 130 Christian Children Freed After Month in Islamist Captivity in Nigeria

"Armed 'bandits' took 315 students and 12 staff members from Papiri’s St Mary's Catholic School captive in late November."
By
by Rod LampardJan 17, 2026
A Government That Won’t Acknowledge Christianity Can’t Defend the Nation

A Government That Won’t Acknowledge Christianity Can’t Defend the Nation

"By refusing to name its own moral foundations, the state undermines its ability to openly distinguish between belief systems that can coexist within its legal and moral order and those that fundamentally conflict with them. A society that cannot articulate its core moral commitments cannot coherently defend them."
By
by Staff WriterJan 16, 2026
Hate Speech Laws Are Just Blasphemy Laws

Hate Speech Laws Are Just Blasphemy Laws

"Blasphemy laws protect a society’s sacred object from verbal violation. Hate speech laws do the same, only the sacred object has changed. They are secularism’s answer to blasphemy law: enforcing reverence for the system’s ultimate values while denying that those values are religious at all."
By
by Staff WriterJan 15, 2026
Opposition Grows to Labor’s “Horrendous” Hate Speech Bill: “Worst Assault on Freedom Yet”

Opposition Grows to Labor’s “Horrendous” Hate Speech Bill: “Worst Assault on Freedom Yet”

Opposition to the federal government’s Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is mounting across multiple parties, with MPs and senators warning that the rushed, broadly worded legislation threatens free speech, religious freedom and civil liberties while failing to address the causes of extremism.
By
by Staff WriterJan 15, 2026
Democrats Want Trump’s War Powers Limited Over a War With Venezuela That Doesn’t Exist

Democrats Want Trump’s War Powers Limited Over a War With Venezuela That Doesn’t Exist

“This Vote greatly hampers American self-defence and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote.
By
by Rod LampardJan 14, 2026
True Leaders Inspire Unity, Weak Men Legislate It

True Leaders Inspire Unity, Weak Men Legislate It

"Heavy-handed laws, by contrast, are a symptom of weakness—a last resort when authority has decayed, and coercion is all that remains."
By
by Staff WriterJan 13, 2026
Australians Sound Alarm Over New Draconian “Hate” Bill

Australians Sound Alarm Over New Draconian “Hate” Bill

"The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has allowed less than 48 hours for public submissions on the 144-page draft bill."
By
by Staff WriterJan 13, 2026
Hate Speech Laws Are an Admission of Government Failure

Hate Speech Laws Are an Admission of Government Failure

"Hate speech laws are evidence that our governments can no longer inspire loyalty, trust, or solidarity. They are an admission that policymakers have no unifying vision capable of bringing diverse people together voluntarily. So instead, they use force."
By
by Ben DavisJan 13, 2026

Image

Support

If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2025, Caldron Pool

Permissions

Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.

Caldron Pool does not condone the use of violence, threats, or intimidation for political or religious purposes. We strongly advocate for peaceful, respectful, and free communication and open debate without fear of reprisal or punishment.