Hello, everyone. This is Tony speaking to you from November as I edit this episode for the podcast with a brief programming note before we start. Due to studio schedules, this episode had to be recorded way back in October, back when it was widely reported that a major ethical dilemma was looming for pro-life Christians related to COVID vaccines made from aborted tissue cell lines.

But as the weeks passed, however, vaccines rose to the forefront that do not pose this ethical dilemma, particularly those from Pfizer and Moderna. All that to say, today's question needs to be addressed, even if it's looking now like it will thankfully not be as major of a dilemma with the COVID vaccines in the news.

Alas, on to today's episode. Well the pandemic has disrupted our lives in America for nearly a year now, and I know this disruption is very real for many of you around the world too. As we record this, vaccinations are on the minds of as an important step really in ending the pandemic and returning to some sense of normalcy.

But with it arrive many emails about the ethics of vaccines, questions from listeners like Callum, Benjamin, Anna, Heather, Megan, Michelle, Krista, Tanisha, Matt, Carolyn, Candace, Daniel, James, and Franco, just to name a few. Basically, these listeners share one single dilemma. Several frontrunners for the new coronavirus vaccine are made from the cells of aborted children, healthy children who were murdered.

Most notably, this includes the human fetal kidney cell line called HEC-293 from the kidney of a healthy girl aborted in 1972 and Per-C6 from the retina of a healthy boy aborted in 1985. Science magazine reported last fall that five of the leading coronavirus vaccines use one of these two human fetal cell lines.

And apparently, similar cell lines have been used since the 1960s to manufacture vaccines against rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, shingles, hemophilia, rheumatoid arthritis, and cystic fibrosis. As we record this, ethically derived coronavirus vaccines are in process but are slower and will likely be more expensive, rarer, and maybe even more difficult to get.

That's the prediction, at least. So the question is, should committed pro-lifers get the fast, available, cheap vaccines made from aborted cells or should they wait? Pastor John, how do you think through this ethical dilemma? Let me make four kinds of observations and hope and pray that these will give some guidance to our thinking and our feeling and our acting, and I think all three of those really matter, particularly in regard to the use of human organs or human tissue harvested from the killing of unborn children.

And we need to say it with words like that, otherwise we will conceal from ourselves what's happening. So first observation. In Romans 3.8, some of Paul's adversaries accused him of "doing evil that good may come." Paul responded to this that it was a slanderous charge. In other words, he distanced himself from that kind of ethical stance, and I think we should too.

We shouldn't do evil that good may come. God alone has the infinite wisdom to manage an entire world of sin in which he can turn horrible things for wise and good purposes. He never tells us that we have such wisdom. We don't. We are to live our lives guided by the principles he reveals in his Word, not by our calculations about how much evil we can join in for some greater good.

So if we really believe that the killing of unborn children is abhorrent to God and falls into the category of the shedding of innocent blood for which God's judgment fell, we should not think of turning this wickedness into a wonder drug to save our lives. We should not do evil that good may come.

That's my first observation. Second, God frequently in the Bible calls us to do things and avoid things which are very costly to us personally in order to demonstrate that Christ and his ways are more precious to us than safety or security or comfort and that we sacrifice in order to do what's right.

When we are told not to return evil for evil or that we should love our enemies or turn the other cheek or go the extra mile or do good to those who hate us, all of those kinds of commands are designed to show that we are not in bondage to this world and that the deepest contentment of our lives does not flow from needing to avoid risk or show vengeance.

By denying ourselves comfort or satisfaction or safety for the sake of testifying to Christ's value to us and testifying to the sanctity of another person's life or testifying to our hope for another person's well-being or testifying to our confidence in God's reward beyond the grave, when we deny ourselves in that way, we aim to exalt Christ and his ways over mere self-preservation.

So if a scientist avoids using tissue and organs harvested from babies killed in abortion, or if an ordinary citizen avoids using a medication which they know has been developed specifically through such harvesting and research, the aim is that the Christian conscience is preserved and Christ is made much of as more valuable than any security or safety or health we might get through sin.

Third, avoiding such research and avoiding the use of the products of such research is only one way of testifying to the truth and value of Christ and the sanctity of the unborn persons, but another way that should be added is the proactive engagement in whatever way we can to speak and act against the taking of innocent human life in the womb and the use of those children for research and experimentation.

So I'm saying renunciation, that is the avoidance part of our ethics, which is being asked about, to avoid the medication. The renunciation of the use of such drugs has value, yes, it does, and supplementing that value should also be the proactive engagement of resisting and discouraging abortion and the use of aborted babies in research.

And the final observation, the fourth one that I would make, is the one that's most difficult to articulate but may be the most important. The observation is that acting on principle, in this case the principle that we do not want to be complicit in the desecration of dismembered human beings, acting on principle often does not look like the most obvious way to be a blessing to the greatest number of people.

For example, if you try to act on the principle of not participating in the desecration of these children by avoiding medicines developed from their dead bodies, someone will say, but look, look at all the good that is coming through the medication. And they will say that they can't see the good that may be coming from your principled action.

So what I'm saying here is this. God has ways of honoring and blessing and multiplying the effectiveness of principled action in his name, which to the human calculation may appear futile. This is certainly the case with many martyrdoms in history, for example, or other kinds of sacrificial principled actions, which didn't look like they were going to have any payoff at all for the suffering person or for their family or for the cause of Christ.

Just a dead-end street at the stake of suffering. The sufferers simply acted because their consciences wouldn't let them do otherwise, while the world sees that as futile and foolish. Just save yourself and your family and others and stop denying yourself the privilege of life or health or prosperity. And my point, again, is God is God.

He honors integrity and principled action that is rooted in his truth and his beauty and his worth, even where the world cannot see the point. We have no idea what explosive effects in the depths of God's providence and purposes our principled action might unleash by God's grace. So I'm saying let's not act as researchers or as ordinary consumers in a way that desecrates the bodies of unborn victims and treats those children as though they can be killed and their tissue harvested for our benefit.

Amen. That's a sobering word. Thank you, Pastor John. And thanks to everyone who sent this question in to us. We really appreciate it. Well, you can ask a question or follow up with a question of your own, a follow-up to this topic. You can do that online at DesiringGod.org/AskPastorJohn.

And there you can also search or browse 1600 of our past episodes and even subscribe to the podcast. Well, we have been talking a lot about providence of late, but why? What's the big deal about God's providence? What are the implications of the doctrine for my busy life? We're going to spend some time looking at the implications of providence, and we'll begin doing this next time on Wednesday.

I'm Tony Reinke. We'll see you then. 1. Desiring God's Providence 2. The Providence of Late 3. The Providence of Late 4. The Providence of Late 5. The Providence of Late 6. The Providence of Late 7. The Providence of Late 8.