"Fighting" AIDS and the deaths caused by morally silent Christianity

World Vision, a Christian group, recently published on Five Ways to Fight AIDS. They note that in the last year an estimated 3,100,000 people have died of AIDS, which is more by a huge margin than the tsunami and the hurricanes combined. Their suggestions? 1. Pray; 2. Sponsor; 3. Be an Advocate; 4. Run, Walk, Bike, or Swim; 5. Spread the Word.

The World Vision article is typical of many, and the remainder of this entry does not concern World Vision in particular, but the general "morally silent Christian" approach of which they are an example. Of that approach, it is all very kind and well-intentioned. But it is not helpful in stopping the spread of AIDS in the same way as reducing the top risky behaviors -- IV drug use and promiscuity. This morally silent stance is supposed to be non-judgmental. And it is. It's also directly culpable in letting people continue at high risk of death, so that millions more are expected to die.

It's no big surprise when some secular groups are against what Christians would recognize as morality. Despite the obvious destructive effects of drug use and promiscuity, secular groups are slow to speak against these actions because of their determination to be anti-religious, even if that stance costs millions of lives a year by current estimates. It is, perhaps, testimony to how intense is the secular hatred of religion that they will not consider "monogamous and drug-free" among the solutions. This despite the fact that simple monogamy and refraining from drug use would be the most cost-effective and long-lasting way to solve the problem. Still, that is not even permitted serious discussion. The permissive approach looks at the root of the problem and absolutely refuses to tackle it. This ensures the continued spread of the disease. Due to the constraints of reality, the "preventive" measures will occasionally fail, but promote the continuation of the exact behaviors that spread this deadly disease.

It may be predictable that secularists take this approach. What is less excusable is when Christian groups consign millions of people to die because they are afraid of being called names. Who cares if people call us names if we are saving lives? Are we really so frightened of name-calling, or so naive as to think the anti-Christian bias from the secularists will stop if only we won't condemn today's popular pet sins? Do we really think we're doing a favor to those at risk of dying by allowing them to feel unjudged in their destructive behavior? Do we imagine they'll thank us when they're dying that at least we didn't speak up when it could have helped? Or are we so confused about morality ourselves that we're unwilling to preach it in order to save lives, as if that were not among the legitimate purposes of morality?

The best thing we could do for high-risk AIDS areas is to send missionaries to teach forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ's name, and to stop living decadent lives. A condom protects you from AIDS today but not when the box is empty; monogamy protects you from AIDS for free and forever. Clean needles protect you from AIDS while you have a supply of clean needles; not shooting up protects you permanently.

I hope to follow up in the future with why Christians must reclaim monogamy as a good message.

Celebrate Thanksgiving: Give Native Americans Something to be Thankful For

1. Personal: Start your Christmas shopping at a Native American gift shop. If you have funds for more than just shopping, make a donation to a Native tribe. Many have housing or job-building projects that could use more funding.
2. Group: Purchase land adjacent to a reservation and donate it to the Native tribe.
3. Government: Work with elected officials to create a program whereby new state parks or national parks are created and put under the guardianship of the Native Nations.

Note: Some members of the Native Nations are a bit tired of the "guardian of nature" schtick, but many embrace it as their rightful heritage. It ought to at least be a choice.

---

When the Europeans first came to this country, the Native Americans welcomed them. I do not know what they expected, but this was surely not it. And typically what follows next is hand-wringing, but not constructive. The main non-rallying cry has been, "What can we do now?" But "what can we do now?" is only a call for inaction if there is no answer. If we can rightly be ashamed of our forefathers' blindness, we can also rightly be proud of their accomplishments -- but none of that is actually helpful.

The answer is not for people of non-indigenous descent to go back to Europe (Asia, Africa). Things have gotten a bit more complicated over the centuries. The Karankawa tribe who used to live on the land where I now sit -- they are entirely extinct. My children, on the other hand, are 1/8 blood Cherokee, though they have never applied for tribal papers from the Cherokee Nation.

The answer is not to spend all our time wringing our hands over the wrongs of the past. Neither is the answer to sweep the wrongs of the past under the rug. Do we share the blame for the wrongs committed by our ancestors? I'd say the answer is: We only share in the guilt if we see the injustice and take no action. The injustice is not only a past event but a continuing reality, and when we take no action we share that guilt.

But is there any action to be taken? If we cannot give the land back, and we cannot go back to Europe, what remains? I would go back to the original observation that the Native Americans welcomed us; they did not begin by thinking we should go back to Europe or that we should have nowhere to live in their land. But they did seem to think they would be treated with justice and treated as friends, and they did seem to think they would have a better lot than we have since given them. (Some have noted that the Native Americans were not actually any more peaceful than Europeans, just less well-armed. That's probably true enough, but amounts to hinting that might makes right, which is not an ideal that I'd choose to support.)

I'd respectfully submit that our Thanskgiving Celebrations are best if we also give the Native Americans something to be thankful for. Help them have the same prosperity we enjoy in their lands. That, I think, is more what they had in mind when they welcomed us.

Revelation: Sabbath and Jubilee

When we try to understand the Biblical book of Revelation, we are plunged into rich symbols and intriguing mysteries. I’m sure this depth and interpretive enigma is more than just part of the book’s appeal, but also part of its design. Part of the message we are supposed to understand is the fact that there are mysteries too great for us, beauties we have not yet imagined, realities we have not yet grasped. The book of Revelation keeps us honest in our pretensions to have neatly analyzed all there is to understand about The Ancient of Days.

But sometimes there is a hint, in all those rich symbols, of things we have already understood – or have already had explained to us. One symbol used repeatedly in Revelation is the number 7. As often as the book repeats the number 7, the book’s goal must include fixing that number firmly in our mind in the picture of the end of all things. So what does the number 7 mean?

The Bible has already told us many things using the number 7 as the reminder or key. In the beginning of the Bible, the number 7 is tied to the completion of a good work, to the fullness of time. It is linked to the time of rest. In the ancient ceremonial laws of the Torah, holy time is often counted in sevens. Each seventh day is designated as a time of holiness, a time which is blessed. The first feast of the year lasts for seven days. Seven times seven days come before the next major holy day. The next major holy days – including the Day of Atonement – fall in the seventh month of the calendar, so that seven is the number associated with forgiveness and atonement. Every seventh year was a year of rest for the people and the land. After seven times seven years there was ordained a Year of Jubilee when debts are forgiven, those in bondage are released, and lost inheritances are restored to their former owners. In the prophet Daniel, seventy times seven years is the fullness of time before Messiah comes. In Jesus’ teaching, seventy times seven times is associated with forgiveness of sins.

So the number 7, one of the main symbols of Revelation, is known to us. Seven has long been the favored number for the fullness of time, for blessing, and for rest. It is the number designating the time for things to be restored to how they were meant to be. Seven is the number assigned to the time for the forgiveness of sins, the cancellation of debts, and the release of those in bondage. Seven has been the number for the time when those who lost their homes and inheritance came back home, restored to what was once their own by God’s decree that that’s the way it should be. “Seven” has always been God’s promise for the blessing he has stored up for the fullness of time.

Comparative Religion: Goodness and Harmony with Nature

This is a continuation of a previous post on comparative religion. The first part laid out the general approach of looking for truth and goodness, and some of the problems that come up in understanding "truth" and "goodness." This part explores one of the side-paths: the view of "goodness" as "harmony with nature".

The question of "harmony with nature" came up previously, and right away we meet some interesting questions if we define "good" as "harmony with nature" and "evil" as "disruption of harmony with nature." If nature includes people (and who would say that it doesn't?), then can anything be done by a person be out of harmony with nature? If an action is not "natural" for a person, then where does it come from, if not from human nature? And if it does come from human nature, how can someone say it is not in harmony with nature? I'll expore these questions a little bit more.

We know that some wild animals, such as wolves, might kill one of their own pack simply to achieve dominance. Certain parts of human history read very much like the behavior of territorial pack animals, ever seeking dominance and territory to gain some sort of advantage within the pack or amongst the packs. So what is the relationship between what is natural and what is right? Again, for the moment I will leave open the questions raised so that we do not miss too much ground as we do our exploring. I will simply say that someone would be wrong to imagine that I am condoning humans acting like pack animals simply because I have not yet covered the various approaches to the question. Various religions leave open ways for man to have an ambiguous place in nature so that man, even if natural, is not necessarily in harmony with nature. In some understandings, restored harmony with nature, or restored union with Ultimate Reality, is the final goal of religion. If (on the traditional Western view) nature is a self-revelation of God and God is Ultimate Reality, then we find a lot of similarity amongst several different religions though not to the extent of sameness.

On the topic of harmony with nature and its relation to goodness, another approach deserves mention here. The example may be familiar but still worth review. Suppose -- what I earnestly hope is not true -- that a doctor were to tell me that I have cancer. Suppose that, to preserve my life, it were necessary that some part of my body be removed, and that the doctor should take a knife to me for this purpose. It might be argued that there's some sense in which the cancer is natural since it occurs in nature, and also some sense in which I see the cancer as not good since it tends to destroy, even to the point of destroying its own host. The doctor's decision to perform surgery and remove the cancer is a decision that takes it for granted that certain cells have more right to live than other cells, that some are healthy and some are unhealthy. It seems obvious when we think of cancer that any part which tends to destroy the whole has got to go, regardless of any debate over whether it is natural.

Still, is cancer "natural"? In the normal course of things, the body repairs and renews itself with new cells made after the pattern of the ones before. These cells, built on the same pattern, work well with the whole. If a healthy body does not typically produce cancer, is cancer still "natural"? If cancer is said to be natural at all, then it is only natural in the context of an unhealthy, destructive system.

On the subject of goodness as harmony with nature, we will want to keep an eye on not only whether something occurs naturally, but also whether it occurs naturally in a healthy system, and whether it tends to benefit the whole or to attack, destroy, or weaken the whole. We will also want to keep an eye on the pattern that produced the nature in question, and whether something is in keeping with that pattern.

More to come on the topic of comparative religion, exploring with goodness and truth as the basic guideposts.

Risk: The board game and the history of megalomania

Remember the board game Risk? It's a game where you try to conquer the world, while all your friends/enemies try to conquer it first. Sometimes world history books read just a little like the people were playing Risk. The first surprising thing is how often people think conquering the world would be a good idea. The second surprising thing is many people have been fairly successful at it -- at least in conquering huge sections of the world. Here are a few observations that seem to follow:

1) Most of the time, most places are so badly mismanaged that they can't really withstand a substantial threat. "Leadership vacuums" -- vast empty spaces created by absence of leadership -- are common.

2) Nature abhors a vacuum. If there's not a leader in one region, a neighbor is very likely to volunteer himself. He is not very likely to have the other's best interests at heart, regardless of what he might say.

3) As in all games, whoever moves first has the advantage.

4) The desire to dominate other people and take their possessions is among the most enduring motivators of human history.

5) Megalomaniacs have limits. Their armies are a certain size and can only manage a certain amount of territory. And typically, the megalomaniac-in-chief dies and leaves an empire that crumbles in just a few generations. Fairly unique in this context is the Islamic jihad movement, founded by Mohammed, which actively seeks out new megalomaniacs to lead each new generation; it is wise not to ignore such things. As they say, "Reality is not optional."

It would be an interesting treatise to track down the great megalomaniacs of history and study what can be learned about how megalomaniacs form and gather followings. But here are a few more observations worth noticing:

6) Christianity has, at long last, noticed that using the world as a Risk game is not consistent with the teachings of Christ. It has noticed this while at the top of the Risk game, not just as a convenient cry from someone who is losing.

Before all the other people in the world start the regularly-scheduled chastisement of Christians for being so slow on the uptake, it's worth noticing another thing:

7) Nobody else in the world besides Christians has showed any sign at all of thinking the game of Risk is wrong. Their only objection has been to their losses.

Given that everybody else is still playing Risk, we can't afford to just let ourselves be run over. Those are not little playing pieces on the field, those are our homes and families.

What about George W. Bush? I've had objections to some of his policies and decisions, to be sure. But despite what valid criticisms are available, I do not believe for a minute that he's out to build an empire or play Risk. Why not? As anyone who has ever played Risk knows, if you want more territory you go for a next-door neighbor. Mexico, just next door to us, has oil -- and as horrible as its infrastructure is, at least it's better than Iraq's. We have some grievances against Mexico, if Bush were determined to push a territorial war and gain some oil reserves (which, obviously, he's not). Also notice the U.S. didn't actually end up with the Iraqi oil. If the modern war were really about knocking off some convenient nation for the sake of oil, Bush could have found someone who was far less trouble than Iraq, and closer to home, with fewer entanglements.

Whether you agree or disagree with the current Bush policy, a fair observer will still notice that Bush has chosen his targets in the modern war with an eye to keep the Risk situation in Eurasia from getting out of hand. It's still very debatable whether the policy is succeeding.

It's also worth noticing that the old-style game is outdated. In the old-style Risk game, a territory had to be conquered before moving your pieces across its borders. Current immigration policies have cheerfully welcomed in a certain number of Risk-playing foreign soldiers to set their positions before the battle starts ... which takes us back to #3: Whoever moves first has the advantage. Immigration policies would do well to be a little less blind to "people who are followers of megalomaniacs" when letting people into the country.

"Obnoxious" as marketing gimmick

It's probably no big secret that a lot of people try to be obnoxious because, simply put, obnoxious sells. It drums up controversy, it drums up talk, it drums up business. Jerry Springer and Rush Limbaugh use it as a tool as a matter of course; Ann Coulter and Molly Ivins have taken it to new highs (lows?). Over the last week or two, I have seen more than one Christian blogger admit to being obnoxious (or its equivalent) on purpose, just to get notice (attention, traffic). One question: does anyone think "deliberately obnoxious" is a God-pleasing approach? It's not only the question, "Does the end justify the means?" It's also a matter of "Is it possible to achieve the right end with those means?"

Problem In Seminaries: Follow-Up

To gauge from the amount of discussion around the blogosphere, the Internet Monk really touched a nerve with his recent piece on questionable methods of recruiting pastors and the harm to the pastors' families, their churches, and themselves. I promised I'd follow up with some thoughts on how to improve the situation.

Even churches founded on the Reformation often have a mistaken idea that "Reform" (in any major sense) is something that only the Roman Catholics need to do. But given Murphy's Law, reform is for everyone, and must be continuous. Humility, confession, and repentance are spiritual basics for churches and church bodies, not just for individual Christians.

When it comes to Christian ministry, I have to wonder, in general:

• Was the person's maturity really evaluated when they sought to come into the ministry?
  
• Has the shortage of ministers made us ask fewer screen-out questions, even if they are important ones?
  
• How do you remove a well-intentioned person who lacks the ability without humiliating them? Without stigmatizing them when it comes to finding a different line of service?
  
• How perfect does a pastor have to be? Are we setting standards that nobody can meet?
  
• Which flaws should we bear with patiently, and which are over the line?
  
• Are there more ministry options than full-time for life, overworked for life, or marginalized for life?

Without claiming to have answers for all of those, I'd like to suggest a few things as a place to begin:

1. Churches should ask for a commitment from the pastor that their first ministry is to their own family. Pastors should expect the churches to respect that.
   
2. Churches should support their pastors in their family time (and spiritual wellbeing) by designating regular days off for their pastors. No Bible studies, no prayer meetings, no special services, no council meetings. Genuine rest. An elder or spiritually mature member should be able to handle most emergencies -- and should have the "church emergency" cell phone for the day.
   
3. A church cannot be a one-man show. The Bible speaks of a variety of offices or positions in the church. There should be those who help visit the sick, those who teach, those who help the needy with material needs, even those who can preach.
   
4. The pastor should seek out and encourage spiritually mature members to consider a sort of apprentice pastorship in their area of interest. This would build the congregation's strength, allow those who are not fully-fledged pastors a wider range of opportunities to serve, and provide a rest for the pastor when needed. Jesus sent out people two by two, and I think the pastor should question himself if he finds himself performing many of his duties alone instead of with a fellow-worker.

This just scratches the surface -- but I think scratching the surface is exactly the right place to start. Grand sweeping changes take an entire reorganization (such as the Reformation, or the new "Emergent" scheme) before they work. Churches that don't reform when needed find themselves splintering -- but so do churches that change too drastically. As small as these changes are, as obviously incomplete as they are, they are also one more thing: workable. That makes them a candidate for "where to start". The time to take the next step is after we take the first one.