Ebola, AIDS and False Prophets

On the evening of November 14^th I heard a radio personality, state the following,

 

“I just read that another medical doctor is being flown to Nebraska to be treated for Ebola. Why are all these medical personnel coming down with this thing if it is so hard to contract as the government tells us. You have to be intimate to contract this thing, so we’re being told. Why don’t doctors and nurses come down from AIDS? When did you last hear of medical personnel coming down with AIDS while treating a person with AIDS? Don’t you think that doctors and nurses know how to protect themselves? So if they are catching Ebola, what does that say about the decease and what we are being told? I don’t know. Just asking, that’s all!”

 

Before I left the show, while he did not explicitly say it, he implied that Ebola is a highly contagious airborne virus that being in the proximity of someone with Ebola was sufficient to infect those around the person with Ebola. I was stunned. Had he really read up on the decease and transmission issues from knowledgeable experts? If he were to claim that he has read about the decease then the readings he has accepted as being informed and valid are those produced by either the uniformed speculators or by those who twist reality for political reason. As many “social and political” commentators are more entertainers than anything else, I wondered that night, if he had shut down his critical thinking capacity for provocative tabloid like entertainment?

 

Since, what happens if I accept at face value his claim to be a critical thinker searching for truth regardless of where that truth rests. If I did that I find myself concluding that regardless of his posturing and pontificating that he is willing to set aside facts for pandering and ratings purposes, thereby pushing hot button issues while playing upon the ignorance and fears of his listeners. Masking his language in seeking truth and informing his listeners, would he not be the modern version of the traveling tonic salesman of yesteryear? Just asking and wondering!

 

I’m enraged by his implication that we are being told Ebola is primarily a sexually transmitted decease and that the government is lying to the public when it is an airborne virus that is easily caught by being in the proximity of a person with Ebola. I’ve never heard or read from an informed source that like HIV Ebola is a decease primarily caught through sexual activity. Yes, Ebola is transmitted through bodily fluids, and during sexual activity bodily fluids are involved, but that does not equate to Ebola being a decease that is primarily transmitted by sexual activity.  Can a severe flu be caught during sexually activity? Yet is can, but when was the last time you were driven to sexual activity when you had a high fever, experiencing chills and sweats, experiencing diarrhea, body aches and severely vomiting?  If you have, then you must have one of the strongest libidos in your community. Add into the mixture that  Ebola it zaps them of energy. While theoretically a person with Ebola could have sex, functionally it is highly unlikely.

 

This radio entertainer is about my age, and as such he was in his early adult years when AIDS emerged as a disease that entered our collected consciousness. Back then there was much misinformation and fear about those infected with the HIV virus. There were people who feared that being in the same room with a person with HIV let alone touching the person put them at high risk of becoming infected with the virus. Unfortunately rather than helping to inform the public, some political, religious and media leaders in the 1980s who had a megaphone used their megaphone to play upon the fears of the public and advance their personal and/or political agenda. Today it is evident that the pandering, prejudices and misinformation of these alarmist false prophets of yesteryear made it difficult for both medical community and informed civic leaders to educate the general public about AIDS and HIV how it was and was not transmitted. Today most of us are exposed several times a year to people who are HIV positive without any of us becoming infected. Since the 1980s we have become more balanced in our views and any shrill of a comment brings more discuss than a following.


Today we have a fresh crop of false prophets and uniformed alarmists. Included in that group I would include civic leaders who during an election cycle used Ebola to score points and enflame fears to help secure more votes for themselves. Do you wonder like me why so many of our elected leaders who spoke frequently about do this and than to shield America from Ebola, and who spoke of it as something that is going to devastate America have said nothing in the last two weeks. The election and their silence speaks volumes. And if they do such things on this issue, then how can I ever trust them on other issues?  

 

The gentleman I heard the other night with his megaphone into several hundreds of thousands of ears is not helping. Is he not akin to the false prophets of the prior years who make matters worse?

 

Medical personnel are the greatest at risk because they are the ones who are exposed to the sweat, vomit, diarrhea and the other bodily fluids flowing out of the Ebola infected patient. It is those fluids that transmit Ebola. It is those fluids that are covering their protective garments, garments which have to be carefully put on, removed and disposed least the skin of the medical worker becomes exposed to bodily fluid of an Ebola patient and thereby infect the caregiver.

 

Why are so many in the three African nations in question coming down with Ebola? Simply put, there issues there are cultural and economic issues at work against them, issues that the average westerner has difficulty grasping … a extremely poorly staffed and equipped health care system, a rudimentary sanitary system and absolute squalor, and a cultural that puts high importance upon the family caring for a person who is ill and when the family member passes away, prepare body for burial.  Many of those who are becoming infected with Ebola are family members and neighbors who without even the most basic protection have cared day after day for the infected person and prepared the body for burial.    

 

The radio personality in question is either clearly ignorant regarding medical personnel coming down with infectious illnesses, including illnesses such as hepatitis and HIV, or he is informed and ignoring that information. While rare medical personnel do contract such deceases from treating those with infectious deceases. Fortunately over decades protocols have been developed and followed that greatly minimize their risk. Why do think doctors and nurses in your local office always wear disposable gloves when their predecessors of forty years ago rare did so? Still each year medical personnel do become infected, we just hear about it on the nightly news. A stray needle accidently pricking a medical staff does occur, or some error in protocol does lead to a medical person being effect. The son of one of my former professors who is a medical doctor contracted hepatitis when he nicked his finger while doing surgery on a person with hepatitis.  Fortunately when these exposures occur they are caught early.

 

When my baser and ungodly fears seek to take hold and drive me, I need to remind myself to take a deep breath, recall what I know and educate myself further from reliable sources, and resist chasing ghosts and bogymen.  Further, I need to reject politicians, commentators, religious and other leaders who play upon our ignorance and fears, and express that rejection to them.

The United Nations and the United States Being a Christian Nation

Within the American evangelical church for more than two decades there has circulated the claim that the United Nations no longer considers the United States to be a Christian nation. This claim is used to bolster the sermonic statements that the United States is in a period of moral decline, so much so as goes the argument that even the United Nations, a secular group, cannot recognize the United States as being Christian.

Any preacher or Christian leader who makes such regarding the United States is either showing that they are uninformed and are uncritically repeating false statements they have “heard” and accepted as being true. In other words, they are engaged in the same activity, spreading rumors and fear mongering, that they proclaim from the pulpit as being wrong. If the preacher/Christian leader is not uniformed and accepting uncritically the statements, and truly know what they are talking about, then they are willfully misleading their listeners. I prefer the former than the latter.

While it is true that the United Nations does not list the United States as a Christian nation, the same body does not list Iran or Saudi Arabia as Islamic nations or India as a Hindu nation. The United Nations has never changed the religious classification of any nation as it does not make such judgments. When the United Nations was being established in 1944 the founders recognized that the body should not evaluate the nature or quality of the nation’s religious activity, or make any such judgments in any form.

As to the changing religious life of the United States, it has evolved over the decades and will continue to evolve in the coming years as it does in every nation. The degree to which the general citizenry is more or less “Christian” is a highly subjective value judgment. That said, surveys over the decades by Pew Research and Faith Matters clearly indicates that the number of people claiming faith in keeping with traditional evangelical definitions is in decline.

In a few subsequent posts I will note some trends in religious life. Is there a decline in religiosity and spiritual faith? Maybe there is a decline, or it may be a shifting way of defining faith, just as the older generations in the 50s and 60s were concerned about lack of religious respect and spirituality from the teens to 30 yr olds of that era due to the manner in which they were dressing, being willing to go to movies, going out to eat at a restaurant on Sunday after church, going for a swim on Sunday or even put gas in their car…all of which the older generation felt were violations of keeping the Sabbath holy and contrary to holy living.

Burial, Cremation, Heritics and Limits on Divinity

The other day while reading James Michener’s Chesapeake there is a passage about the bodies of “heritics” being burned. The passage remined me of how archaic misbegotten religious notions are passed down uncritically from generation to generation shape today our lives and thinking. While it is diminishing in our society, there has been a strong reluctance against cremation due to an ancient religious teaching.

Burial is rooted in the belief in the resurrection of the dead. If there is no body to be resurrected, then the person cannot be resurrected to have eternal life or so goes the reasoning. Hence, for more than millennia, religious and civil leaders burned the bodies of “heretics” and major political opponents. The pronouncement that someone was to be burned served as a strong control over the middle age masses and burning protected the leaders from seeing their opponent in the afterlife if an injustice was carried out on them in this life…after all they assured that there would be no body for God to resurrect and correct the injustice. Today, the effects of such thinking linger effect in the number of people who see cremation as abhorrent.

For me, the ancient rationale for burial contradicts the Christian teachings about God being all-powerful, just and wise. It suggests that God is limited in his power by suggesting that the God who created the universe is powerless to resurrect someone if there was no physical body. Further, burning the bodies of heretics also suggests that God’s justice and power are limited in that the human activity makes it impossible for God to correct an injustice.

Over twelve years ago Evie and I have told our sons that we are to be cremated.

Lapsarian Debate Continues to Speak to Today's Church

A few statements earlier today drew my mind back to the lapsarian debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries when the church wrestled with what to do with those who under the threat of civil persecution, torture and/or threat of death renounced their faith. Following Constantine’s Edict of Toleration most of those who renounced their faith quickly returned…some privately continued to believe contrary to the public statements they gave publically. Could they truly be restored or once they denied their faith were they forever condemned to hell?


Though most tended to argue for restoration, the most challenging element of the debate related to priests who renounced their faith. Could these former spiritual leaders be restored? Was it possible that they were still saved regardless what they said under physical and emotional threat? Some questioned whether they were saved to begin with for if they were how in the world could they deny their faith in Jesus Christ? If they were not saved, or if their salvation was deficient, then what does that say about those who were saved/baptized by such priests? If they were not saved, then how could anyone who was “saved” under their ministry be a Christian?


At the end of the day the church decided that salvation/baptism were effective independent of the priest. Salvation/baptism’s efficiency depended upon the faith of the individual and the power of God, not the purity or non-purity of the priest. Hence the church concluded that God can and does work in and through non-believer leaders whether those leaders are in secular positions in the world at large or in holy orders within the church. Since then this conclusion has been the orthodox position of the church.

There is a tendency today for Christians to forget the orthodox position and imply in its language that the church’s ministry can only be fulfilled and fully effective if it retains only dedicated Christians. Besides being rooted in mystical and holiness teachings, this fallacy is also grounded in the human bent to shape simplistic thinking.

Clearly those who have made a personal commitment are in the best position to be faith teachers such as preachers, and congregational and denominational instructors. That said, if whose in those positions are later to be found lacking, the impact they may have had upon the spiritual life of others is still in effect and valid. In a host of positions ranging from social workers and counselors to finance and fundraising staff is still effective even if they are filled by non-believers. The central issue is their willingness to understand, respect and support the mission. Another key is leadership who are mature in the faith as well as committed and spiritually attuned to the mission as such leaders are critical to helping the church remain focused upon its spiritual ministry..

Religious People Are More Generous and Voluteer More

Are religious people more involved in their communities and more generous than their non-religious neighbors? Every year when I read philanthropy reports I have asked myself that question. By using IRS data there have been reports for decades indicating that religious people have higher charitable deductions (about three times higher) than those who do not attend a house of worship There have been similar surveys regarding volunteer activity. For years I have wondered if giving and volunteer activity directly related to the person’s house of worship was subtracted if religious people are more engaged in philanthropic giving and volunteering?

Faith Matters has helped to us to understand the nature of difference. Their work shows that when direct religious activity is taken into account, religious people are more generous and more engaged in volunteer activities than their secular counterparts. Except for arts and cultural groups, religious people give at a higher rate and volunteer more hours even to secular organizations than their non-religious neighbors. What is clear that the difference is evidenced most clearly with services to the poor and elderly.

Eighty percent of Americans claim that they have contributed to a nonprofit in the prior year. When religion is take into account 94% of those who claim to be religious make such contributions compared to 70% of secular citizens.

What is not defined in the studies is whether faith itself creates the difference or if it is in some way tied to a collective cultural expectation and a vehicle for providing information and linking members with opportunities. While data indicates that those who attend a service almost every week are more generous than the occasional attendee, care must be given to view it as evidence that belief in Jesus Christ is what creates the difference. Care must be taken as those who attend a church service only two or three times a year, those who are not normally viewed as being committed believers, are more philanthropic and engaged in volunteering than their secular neighbors and are not that far behind their highly religious friends. Additionally those who are part of non-Christian faith communities also show a higher level of generosity and volunteering. Hence, one may tentatively conclude that there is a sociological dynamic within faith-based communities, not faith itself, are helping to create the differences.

While data from similar indicates that religious people are more generous and volunteer at a greater rate than non-religious people, the same data also indicates that non-religious people are significantly more tolerant on a host of civic issues from religious diversity to social issues to education than their religious neighbors. For the most part, the difference in this area is not surprising.

Love the Sinner Does Not Apply to Gays

“Love the sinner but hate the sin” as been an evangelical mantra for generations. Preachers point to Jesus as an example of living this out. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, both of whom were the lowest of sinners in his culture.

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality I question if this is true. One senior Salvation Army officer said to me back in 2002 that in many ways the evangelical church, including many Salvationists (officers and soldiers) treat homosexuals as the modern lepers. I agreed then and still do so. Jerry Falwell blaming homosexuals for the 9-11 attacks is an example of how homosexuals are viewed as the escape goats for society’s problems. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in tossing his evangelical rage far and wide has proclaimed homosexuality to be “abhorrent, immoral, detestable…and a crime against nature.”

Dr. James Kennedy, another major evangelical leader, has stated about gays in the military, “would you want your son, daughter, or grandchild sharing a shower, foxhole, or blood with a homosexual?” Dr. Kennedy’s statement along with Moore, Falwell’s and hundreds of other evangelical leaders are similar to the racist statements made about Jews, African Americans, Latinos, Italians, etc. Such fear mongering statements were unacceptable back in the past about ethnic groups, they are unacceptable today.

Loving the sinner but not the sin is not practiced by the evangelical church when it comes to gays. Family Research Council’s posture and admonition against church-gay community dialogue is outrageous and shameful. The Family Research Council has more to do with resisting dialogue and acceptance of gays in society than with building of strong families. Their definition of family is narrow, a married man and woman with children who all go to church every Sunday.

Gays are all around us. We marginalize them and those within the church live in fear of being discovered. While at Asbury College four guys I knew were gay, three of whom were Salvationists. One of the four was in the elementary education program and when it became known to the administration he was gay he was not allowed to do his student-teacher practicum. He was thereby shamefully forced to transfer to a secular school.

The evangelical church by enlarge talk of gays as if they have some sort of contagious disease that can be cured once and for all with the conversation prescription. Such a view is naive and is out of keeping with research that indicates for many gay men and women there may be a genetic and a biochemical basis. Regardless of what Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council claims, such research and evidence is not questionable science. Dobson and his friends at the Family Research Council are like the Church during the 1400s in denying that the world was round. They clung to their understanding of the Bible rather than wondering if their interpretation of various passages was sound. Eventually when ships traveled around the world the evidence was so solid that they changed their interpretation.

According to the Barna group 91% of non-Christians between the ages of 16-30 believe that Christians are “anti-homosexuals” and are confused as their meanness towards homosexuals is out of keeping what non-Christians understand about the teachings of Jesus. I agree with these young non-Christians. Fortunately for the church a rapidly growing number of the Christians in the same age group are coming to the same conclusion.

Medical Health and Religious Belief

A recent Newsweek article noted that since 2000 there have been over 6,000 studies regarding healing and spirituality. Studies have examined if there are correlations between the rate of healing, quality of health and religious life. While not all the studies are conclusive there is evidence that prayer and faith does impact recovery and health. The medical community is coming to recognize the value of religious life in the healing process.

People who attend religious services on a regular basis live three to five years longer. Those who have faith seem to recover quicker from illnesses than those who do not.

Evangelicals hold that intercessory prayer works, and several studies show that it does work but with an important caveat. Those who are ill recover quicker with intercessory prayer when they that others are praying for them and the recipients of the prayer have some level of faith. If the person is unaware that there is intercessory prayer taking place, there is no affect.

Before Christians get excited by this news there is another factor we must take into account. The same dynamics happen regardless of the person’s religious tradition. If a person is Jewish, or Hindu, or Muslim, or an animist, as long as they believe that there is some power beyond themselves, that there is a hope of healing, recovery takes place at a more rapid rate.

Religion in America

Last night on the news it was reported that 15% of Americans do not believe or adhere to in any organized religion. During the discussion I found most three things to be most interesting:
1. That 76% of American adults claim they are Christians.
2. That two religion commentators said that most of those 15% are not atheists or agnostics.
3. That Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, an evangelical group, claims that as the economy declines, more people will turn to faith.

Perkin’s statement is most interesting in that by implication he is suggesting that faith has more to do with warm fuzzies and a general sense of security in tough times than it does with true heart-felt convictions. Such a view is different than what I have understood as the evangelical definition of faith.

Church leaders like to grasp onto that 76% as an argument for claiming that America is a Christian nation. Though the Christian faith has influenced the direction of the nation, such a claim is doubtable, particularly more than ever. Church attendance is declining, and for those churches that are growing, the bulk of their growth is coming people who have been attending other churches. In total, fewer and fewer people are attending church each decade.

That 76% of American adults claim they are Christians is a clearly a cultural definition rather than a faith definition. Weekday mornings between 7 and 9:30 the roads are clogged with cars as about 60% the adult population is on the move during that period traveling to work. The one morning a week when the roads are nearly empty is Sunday morning. Less than a quarter of those who claim to be Christians attend church on a regular basis.

I it is interesting that the two religion guests, one evangelical and one Roman Catholic, argued that very few of the 15% who do not have a faith expression are agnostic or atheists. While in a sense they are right, if they were to open their eyes, they could not reasonably hold such a view. They are right in that few have intellectually concluded that God's exisitance can be proved or that there is no God. That said, functionally the vast majority of that 15% by claiming to have not faith or belief in the supernatural (or supranatural as some Christian apologists call it) are living their lives as agnostics/atheists.

Furthermore, a good number of that 76% who claim to be Christian, do so in name only. Many are cultural Christians in that it is their family background/heritage or that they acknowledge that they will be married and burried "in the church", and that Christian values of right and wrong have colored their values. As many of that 76% never darken a Church door even at Christmas, they too are living a life of unbelief. If a person really does not believe and lives out their life part from the church and its values, what does that make them functionally if not at the very least an agnostic.