|
"Some Theological
and Ethical Reflections on AIDS"
by
Randall C. Bailey,
Associate Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew,
Interdenominational Theological Center, Atlanta, GA;
Visiting Professor of Scripture,
College of the Transfiguration, Grahamstown, RSA
"Who can separate
us from the love of Christ? ... I am convinced that neither death, nor
life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation,
will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our
Lord (Rom. 8:35a, 3839, NRSVB).
Isn't it a
paradox. The one writer in the bible who has most fervently been
used to fan the flames of homophobia and assisted the church in its
repression of gays and lesbians, is the same writer who gives us the
words quoted above, words which ought to be recited at every AIDS
Christian healing service, at every AIDS interfaith conference, at every
Christian funeral or memorial service for one who has died of AIDS
related complications. NOTHING CAN SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD IN
CHRIST JESUS. Both passages found in the same book, only chapters apart.
Both passages examples of rhetorical flourish. Both passages calling
forth intense emotional fervor. Both passages ringing with
argumentation.
Many Christians
would resolve the paradox by saying that Paul just didn't know about
AIDS. If he had, he would have changed his mind and written, "most
things." Others would say that it is because of words such as the Romans
8 passage that help them hang in with the religion and resist the
vitriol of Rom. 1:26-27. (Dare I quote these verses? As Paul says later
in Rom. 3:31, me genoito, definitely not! For to do such would be
to acknowledge, no it would be to unleash destructive forces.)
This paradox of
Paul, therefore, points to one of the crucial theological elements,
namely the authority of Scripture. It speaks to the crux of the
problem of how we use the bible (I guess you can see my preference.) Do
we see it as a measuring rod for the formulation of theological and
ethical discussions? Do we take this as an endless, eternal word from
God? Or do we see it as reflections of forerunners in the faith, who had
their own views of God, some of which were on target, others of which
were not? Or do we throw it out all together? Or do we pick and choose?
On what bases do we make these decisions? How do we enter into dialogue
with those who hold alternative positions? What is the basis of the
discourse? Can we hear each other? "The Bible says!" "It is written in
the Bible." "The biblical writer suggests/implies." "Can you believe
such is found in the bible?" All of these are starting points used by
Christians in their approaching some resolution to what is God saying to
us about AIDS? For of one thing we are sure. In this clash of voices,
God is not silent. God is clearly speaking in paradox.
One of the major
problems we face in dealing with AIDS is our own doctrine of God.
For many of us, just like the writer of John, we know God is in it, if
there is no other logical way to explain it, or if there is a miracle
associated with it. The way in which this notion plays itself out in
terms of AIDS is that medicine/science has not been able to come up with
a cure. Since we primarily believe in medicine as our God, we are
baffled by its inability to address the situation. Since doctors can't
cure it, it must be a plague from God. As the Johannine writer says,
"Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe (Jn 4:48)." Pull
out a trick! Stump the doctor! That's how we know God has to do with it.
Since the result is death, then we know that it involves judgment from
God, or so the arguments go. AIDS points to the paucity of our doctrines
of God, which results from theologians' attempts to protect God, or more
properly our views of God.
Who is the God
spoken of in such terms that AIDS would be viewed as just punishment.
How does one separate out the wheat from the tares? How does one decide
the so-called innocent PWA? The child born H-IV+? The unsuspecting wife
of the bi-sexual? The husband of the IV drug user? The person operated
on with the infected transfusion? Does the virus distinguish its fixing
in a host in such simplistic terms? Does one who is involved in a
loving, mutually supportive, nurturing same sex relationship become the
deserving one? Do we give up our right to respect in such moments?
Even more
fundamental than this is the whole question of sexuality. Most of
our theological pronouncements on sexuality begin with a biblical
understanding. They go to passages such as Leviticus 18 and 20,
Deuteronomy 22, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 4. They do not look
at the underlying ideologies of these passages or their writers. They do
not look at the Hebrew Scripture passages as grounded in their
heterosexual contexts, in a view of women as the property of men. Thus,
the laws in many respects depict ways of protecting the property rights
of these men. Similarly there is a depiction of the "other," be that in
terms of nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or the like, as one
who is controlled by voracious sexual desires for the taboo. These
passages appear to be dangerous places for guidance in the matter of
sexuality.
Under the
influences of these passages, many people have developed a most
sophisticated "theology by genitalia." This theology functions
such that when one gets to the Pearly Gates God will be there asking to
see one's genitals and receive a report on what one has done with them.
And on that report will rest our salvation. Sexuality is raised to the
penultimate position in this view. Ask anyone to list sin, and they will
most likely start with naming sexually taboo behavior. How does one
develop a sense of healthy sexuality? AIDS, with its association with
sexuality and death, has reinforcement for this lethal theological
strand. Until we see sexuality outside of the patriarchal boundaries of
both the biblical (con)text and Puritanical views of the self, we shall
be locked into this theological conundrum. If sex is always listed in
the sin category, how does one move to a theology which recognizes
sexuality as a vital, creative, essential part of life?
Closely
associated with this theology is a theology of "otherness," in
which one is depicted as part of the out-group, and, therefore, "hateable."
Missionary religions posit an in-group/out group mentality, which is
expressed in the dictum, "I'm OK, but you're not. And the reason I know
that I'm OK is that I'm not you!" These religions which teach
intolerance of people who practice another religion, depict followers of
other religions as heathens, pagans, infidels, "kaffirs", savages. These
religions also malign the cult practitioners of these other religions by
renaming them as sorcerers, witches, magicians, witch doctors and the
like. These maligning religions have at their root a demonology of
"otherness." Once one is able to place another in this outsider
category, oppression of them becomes not only normative, but
theologically sanctioned. One is able to practice a "holy hatred" of
them, steal their land, enslave them, exploit them in any form. This
oppression is sanctioned, because the theology has allowed the
dehumanization of the other and the idolatry of the self. Once one
practices this dehumanization with those of another religion, one easily
extends this "holy hatred" to the variables of race, gender, class,
sexual orientation, nationality, and whatever variable becomes
convenient. Since the other is not understood to be like the self in
humanity, one need not respect any of their life qualities, with the
"Blessed Assurance" that one is practicing the will of God. In this way
the treatment of PWA's as non-humans is sanctioned religiously.
One must keep in
mind that this theological construct of "Otherness" is closely bound to
conquest theologies. Once I declare one "other," I can steal
their land. Thus, the invasions of all part of the globe by people from
other parts, is fed by this theology. Once one declares the local
inhabitants other, one can do anything to them. And what better way to
declare them other than to label them negatively with sexual innuendo?
This theology of conquest, not only functioned for Israel in biblical
times, but also for Europeans who massacred native people in the
Americas, Africa, Pacific Islands, Asia and the like. This tendency
guides the space exploration of this era with the depiction of life on
other planets as "sub-human" and therefore, we may invade this space. In
this way the interlocking oppressions of racism, sexism, classism,
heterosexism, militarism keep mutually reinforcing each other, with the
help of the oppressed, themselves. Just look at how David refers to the
Philistines as "the uncircumcised ones," (I Sam 17:26), thereby reducing
them to the phallus and sanctioning the murder of Goliath by chopping
off his head. And we read it and are immune to the interlocking
oppression and say, "Yeah, God!"
Closely akin to
this theology is the desire to be more than conquerors and to be on the
right side. The insidiousness of this tendency, is that one who is
declared to be "Other" on one dimension, is willing to place their
neighbor in the "Other" category in respect to another variable. Thus,
those who are oppressed on one variable, are willing to join with
oppressors on a variable upon which they are not oppressed, but viewed
to be normative. In other words, people oppressed on the variable of
race, are willing to oppress others on the variable of sexual
orientation. Similarly, those oppressed on the variable of sexual
orientation are willing to oppress others on the variable of
nationality. Similarly those oppressed on the variable of nationality
are willing to oppress others on the variable of gender. Thus in some
communities, PWA's who get the disease from drug usage are viewed as
more acceptable than those who are gay. The amazing facet of this
phenomenon is that the oppressor joined by those oppressed is often
their own oppressor. Somehow, we do not learn from our oppression not to
be oppressors. Rather we learn how to be oppressors. We do not have a
theology of liberation. Rather we have a theology of our own
amelioration. In essence we do not, or refuse to, understand that
many of our privileges come from oppressive systems. Thus, we look for
the privilege and nurture it, thereby being coconspirators with
oppressive forces.
A corollary ethic
to this theology of otherness/self amelioration is an ethic of
dispensableness. We declare that certain people are not needed. This
ethic usually begins in the benign form of making objects dispensable
and discardable. We move from things to people in rapid succession. This
is hooked up with globalization and its destructive forces. We give
pharmaceutical companies exclusive rights to drugs. We certify drugs as
"orphan drugs." We then allow exorbitant amounts of money to be charged
for these drugs. We only allow certain people to have access to them.
Thus, PWA's in South Africa and Uganda have a life expectancy of six
months, because medications are impossible to secure in these contexts
under these conditions. We patent drugs which will make a few rich,
while exploiting the fears of others. We declare certain segments of the
population, since they are not us, as expendable. Thus, since the first
group of primary contractors of H-IV were gay males, who were viewed as
the "Other," and thereby expendable, there was nothing done. Once part
of this group was willing and able to pay the price of medication, they
were moved up on the "expend ability ladder" and treated at a high
price. As long as we do not develop an ethic which values human life,
which values life, in all forms, we shall enforce the "ethic of
expend ability." Insurance companies can cancel policies and no one
says anything, because it is happening to the "expendable." Land lords
can evict people and there is no outcry, because these people are
expendable. You see the picture.
There is no
ethic of neighborliness. We do not engage the powers and
principalities which are reeking havoc in the lives of PWA's. Rather we
close our eyes to it. We hold healing services but no accompanying
demonstrations at the national headquarters of these companies. We do
not recognize the healing power of such actions. We leave that to ACT
UP. We do not want to jeopardize our own incomes from those who work
there and are part of our congregations. We rather say, we'll pray for
you in some ecumenical/interfaith way, but don't ask us to be neighbor
and stop the carnage on the Jericho Road. Isn't it enough to bind you up
and put in a hotel somewhere? We do not recognize that communal action
against legislation which supports heterosexism is a healing event. We
do not recognize that staging protests against the inundation of the
black, brown and Asian communities with drugs, is a healing action of
neighborliness. Rather, we opt for the safe and respectable. There is no
turning over of tables and chasing out the money changers of the
biomedical conglomerates. There is no organizing against politicians who
reduce funding for AIDS research, training, and education. That is not
healing, we think. Let us rather once a year hold a service, not
expecting God to say, "I hate, I despise your festivals. Remove from me
these choirs. Let justice roll down. Get out there and do some social
intervention of true neighborliness. That is the healing I desire." And
then God adds, "If you do both, I'd even be able to enjoy the worship."
In all of this
there is a conspiracy of silence on the part of religious
institutions. We say, "Go away you that are heavy laden, for there is no
rest here!" The most insidious way this theology gets carried out is
when we allow/encourage members to keep silent about their living
condition. We hold services and never say what has caused the death. We
train people to be stoic and pretend that something else is going on in
their lives. In this way we further stigmatize them, for we reinforce
the feeling that they are not worthy of our attention. We do not raise
the subject in our sermons, except on special days. We do not challenge
prevailing views. We further oppress people in this way. This is not to
say that people do not have the right to their privacy. It is, however,
to say that we should not encourage hiding, when such only furthers
stigma.
One of the major
gifts of AIDS has been in the model of forgiveness given to the
Christian Churches by UFMCC. When they made application to join National
Council of Churches, as an expression of their ecumenical commitment,
they were met with resounding rejection. When Faith and Order of NCC
wanted to do a study on the Church and AIDS, however, they had to turn
to UFMCC for guidance and assistance, because the other Churches were
not doing much. UFMCC opened their doors and showed us what it meant to
live a life in the face of death and to have hope in a God of love. They
also showed us how to love those who have reviled you and misused you.
Would that we could model such humility and reconciliation.
AIDS is nurtured
by a youth culture with sees itself as invincible. It
won't happen to me. I'm too young. AIDS places death at the door step of
homes regardless of age, race, class, ethnicity, national boundary. AIDS
also offers us the opportunity to function as true family, bearing each
other's burdens, accepting each other's limits, and bolstering each
other's courage. It forces parents to re-examine their understanding of
their children as their key to immortality. It presents children with
the need to move beyond shame in accepting the limitations of their
parents. It forces us to rethink the notion of quality vs. quantity of
life. It leads to redefinition of family to those who love God and serve
God through the nurture of the abandoned. It creates new vistas of
hope in seeing a God who lives with us, Emmanuel, in the midst of
our pain and suffering, a God who identifies with us in the shortness of
time to live, a God who does not abandon us, even if our loved ones do.
We may have to look hard and struggle to experience this God, but
this God is there and struggles to get through to us. We experience a
God who is trustworthy in the midst of our sorrow. We experience a God
who enfolds us in love. We experience a God who is able to break through
the institutions which are supposed to help us experience this God, but
often stand in the way. But we do experience this God in the hands that
bring the meals, the cars that drive us to medical treatment, disability
payments that finally come, family members that hug us. We experience
this God and say, "Amen!" Grahamstown, RSA 10 March 1997
Email:
|
