THE CHURCH AND THE MORALITY OF PREVENTION METHODS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE AIDS SCOURGE IN KENYA
(A Paper presented to Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, N.C. as part of my course work in Ethics in 2001)


BY REUBEN KIGAME


OUTLINE


1. Introduction
2. What the statistics tell us
3. The ground of tension: Competing perspectives on the prevention of HIV AIDS;
4. Current moral issues affecting the role of the church in the prevention debate;
5. Towards a Biblical paradigm on the prevention debate;
6. The place of moral absolutes in a morally relativistic culture;
7. Conclusion: Undoing the fatal flaws


THE CHURCH AND THE MORALITY OF PREVENTION METHODS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE AIDS SCOURGE IN KENYA

1. INTRODUCTION

When the medical fraternity in Kenya diagnosed the first AIDS victim in 1984, the country and the world at large was unprepared for the consequences of such a new epidemic. For many church leaders, this seemed like one of the outworking of mortal sins perhaps to be dealt with via excommunication and other strands of church discipline, probably at the level of those who committed adultery or fornication with the result of divine vengeance through the contraction of venereal diseases. For a lot of politicians, it was an insignificant statistic that had little to do with the ballot box. For many a social worker, this diagnosis was nothing to compare with the challenge of street kids and biting poverty conditions. For a number of medical persons, this case did not yet warrant the spending of time and resources to research on prevention methods and, perhaps, to quarantine victims was a feasible option. In short, few knew what AIDS was all about and fewer still that it was a force to reckon with in the years to come. For this reason, when the Kenyan government declared HIV/AIDS a national disaster in the year 2000, many were unprepared for the lurking reality that came to the surface by way of official statistics and related revelations. All of a sudden, the social mutterings died down and the political rumblings stopped. From the steeples to the minarets, the sermons began to change from the prevailing detachment and careless spiritualization to a discussion of the real moral questions. Strangely, the quiet, pious congregant as well as the "happy pagan" now showed his silent wish that the church must do something. It was time for the politician to stop his vituperation aimed at reminding the Christians that they needed to separate faith and politics. Even the those who had disdain for things religious now showed signs of "giving God a chance" for the epidemic was evidently beyond human intervention. Yet, was the church prepared to take up this role in addressing an issue that was not just morally ambivalent in the society but increasingly divisive in church ranks? Even more disturbing is the question: did the Church In Kenya realize that the government and other private agencies did not consider her as a consequential player in dealing with the AIDS scourge?

This paper attempts to analyze the role of the Kenyan church in contending with the AIDS epidemic and specifically how she has dealt with the morality of sex education and the use of condoms as the prevailing alternatives in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We endeavour to answer such questions as, would the teaching of sex education in the public and private schools encourage promiscuity and moral irresponsibility in general? Besides, what ought to be the response of the Church to campaigns by certain agencies to champion what they term "safe sex" as a method of prevention and control of the scourge? Should the clergy defend the use of condoms in the pulpit and in counseling sessions for those considered unable to control their sexual appetites? What about the spouse of a man dying with AIDS? Should they have any sexual contacts, and if so, should the Church allow them to use condoms for prevention from the disease? Perhaps even more important is the question of whether there is a moral law and related paradigms that should govern our approach to the fight against AIDS. We will argue in this Paper that only when the Church can address these questions will she have a demonstrable role to play in providing direction to a society, which feels it can do without the Church in this matter. We will argue that it is not enough for the Church to condemn particular approaches to the prevention of HIV/AIDS without providing a clear alternative and framework. The Bible will be presented as providing a sufficient moral standard for dealing both with preventive methods and protective standards that could keep the epidemic from further spread.
2. THE GROUND OF TENSION: COMPETING PERSPECTIVES IN THE PREVENTION OF AIDS

There have been three major players in the discussion on the prevention of AIDS in Kenya:
a) The Government;
b) Non-governmental organizations and
c) The Church and other religious organizations.

The crucial question of ethical concern here is, of these three players, who possesses the mandate to provide perspectives on prevention? In other words, is there an ethical standard that would make any of these three players better placed in providing direction in the prevention? No doubt, leaders in each of these groups believe that they represent the final authority in directing the nation on this matter. For instance, in the introduction to the Ministry of Health's Sessional Paper No.4 of 1997 on AIDS in Kenya, the then Minister For Health, Mr. Jackson K. Mulinge, put it clearly that the Kenyan government had enough ground to be the authority behind this pandemic given research and the sourcing of information from different experts. He wrote:

“The Sessional Paper therefore represents a commonwealth of experience from individual technical experts, opinion leaders and the general public. It outlines the strategies, interventions and appropriate organizational structure required for effective implementation of programme activities, and identifies those policy issues that need to be tackled to facilitate operations of the strategic plan. With this tool, the government is now better placed to fulfil its obligations by showing the many actors the way forward.”

Notice that, given the advice from experts, it is the belief of the minister that the government should show everybody the way forward in dealing with the AIDS pandemic. In this way, both non-governmental institutions and the Church would need to rely on the expertise of government research and policy. Non-governmental institutions would be viewed as providing supportive assistance rather than direction in dealing with the pandemic. The Sessional Paper clearly states, “The Government will collaborate with other agencies to extend and intensify counseling services at community level to address family problems, enhance behaviour change and provide psychological support for people infected and affected communities.” Customarily, such a role was centered in the Church; not In the government. The Sessional Paper suggests that the government has enough expertise to guide everyone in this venture, involving the church and non-governmental organizations selectively wherever necessary. In fact, later in the same Sessional Paper, it is made clear that religious positions are inferior to government policy in dealing with HIV AIDS. We read: “Religious and cultural practices and utterances which undermine HIV/AIDS control measures will be censured for public good.” Notice that it is the government that would decide which utterances undermine or do not undermine HIV/AIDS prevention measures, and not an objective standard of truth. In spite of this view, there is the understanding that religious perspectives on practices related to HIV/AIDS could have a bearing on prevention and control. "Most religions," the Sessional Paper states, “have a stand on the issues of premarital and extramarital sex, abortion, contraceptives and polygamy in keeping with their beliefs. These in turn have a bearing on the management of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.” These positions, the paper suggests, have to be seriously examined and analyzed. According to the Ministry of Health, the major ethical concerns in this matter would include issues such as training, confidentiality, professional judgment and the guarantee of safety for health care providers.

Interesting enough, despite lack of confidence in the government's ability to manage the funding of HIV/AIDS projects, a number of non-governmental organizations equally believe that it is the government that should take the leadership role and other players simply participate. Notably, the church is not considered a distinct player in giving such leadership and guidance. To prove the point, in an exclusive coverage of the AIDS epidemic in Kenya, the editorial of an environmental organization's monthly publication called EcoNews Africa clearly put it this way:
“[The] Governments more than anybody else will be expected to provide leadership and political will, two key ingredients in the war. But,” adds the EcoNews Africa, as “they must bring into the process other actors including the civil society, business and the private sector.” Notice that the Church is not listed, perhaps because she is part and parcel of the label A civil society." But, is she really? The editorial goes on to indicate that the government ought to provide not just a sense of direction but the very logistics. Assuming that the church is included in Oceanus Africa's category of a civil society" it is believed that as “The civil society could provide the critical link between the state and business because most of them have the unique advantage of being less bureaucratic and hence are capable of reaching out to the remote rural areas without much difficulty.” In short, the civil society is merely expected to mobilize resources, which could then go towards the prevention and management of HIV/AIDS. It is clear that neither the government nor the non-governmental organizations think highly of the place of the church in fighting the problem of AIDS.

Several studies and discussions clearly indicate that not only is the Church excluded from the leadership role in the fight against HIV/AIDS but that such exclusion has not been undeserved. The truth of the matter is that the Church in Kenya has only recently awoken from her dogmatic slumber to an epidemic that was wiping her members in thousands. In fact, although the crisis has been with us for nearly two decades, it is only during the last seven years that we have seen any clear policy come from the Church. Personal interviews and discussions have proved that a majority of Christians wish to have nothing to do with HIV/AIDS because they consider it a judgment from God against the immoral. A number of charismatic leaders and personalities have even seized the moment and proclaimed that God had given them supernatural gifts to heal the disease in spite of the missing tangible evidence.

Only a few Christian voices ring out the need for the Kenyan Church to be involved in HIV/AIDS management and fewer still possess the burden to research and publish information for Church use. One of these organizations, MAP International, even went as far as decrying non-involvement. In her manual intended to train Christians towards HIV/AIDS management, this was clear: “As this is the time for the Church to be fully involved in the struggle and battle against AIDS,” MAP International adds, “is not only a physical problem for medical personnel to handle, but also a spiritual and social issue with which Christian leaders, pastors and lay people must be involved." It is MAP International's belief that the Church in Kenya needs to mobilize her members to become involved in helping people living with AIDS and assist others from contracting the disease.

Several other factors have challenged the role of the Kenyan Church in addressing the prevention and management of AIDS. On the one hand, there are indications that hypocrisy and mediocrity especially in the emerging Church leadership has contributed to the loss of the prophetic role of the Church. Unlike the decades surrounding the East African revival when most Kenyans understood the role of the Church as primarily being the preaching of repentance, forgiveness and responsible social living, those who speak in the name of the Church today oscillate between prosperity and political preference. No longer is the message of abstinence from sex before marriage common. In its place there is the promise that God will heal "every form" of sickness including all sexually transmitted diseases. For this reason, many Christians have ended up engaging in irresponsible sexual activity believing that God will heal any situations and that in the place of condemnation, they will be met with loving brothers and sisters. Non-Christians, similarly, feel at home in the Church, for she has lost her power to rebuke sin or instill moral absolutes. In short, as things stand, the Kenyan church is incapable of making a clear prophetic appeal, limiting her in speaking authoritatively about AIDS management.

On the other hand, there has emerged a new crop of pastors who do not believe in the need for theological education and resist the study of counseling skills with the belief that such education is not of the Spirit of God. Believing that they can hear directly from God without necessarily studying the Scriptures, they find studies in counseling carnal and hence puff themselves with the conviction that they can jump into counseling AIDS victims via instant abductions and intuition. Unfortunately, when certain non-governmental organizations emerge with clearly articulated non-biblical solutions to the AIDS crisis, they are seen as possessing better paradigms and remedies to the situation. This new crop of pastors cannot sit in a conference or workshop on the prevention and management of AIDS and present a reasonable case, say, for abstinence pitted against a social activist who logically defends the free and extensive distribution of condoms among the unmarried youth. They lack a clear apologetic to ward off the arguments of their opponents and often succumb to fear.

Yet the government still expects the Church to play a part. Non-governmental organizations still appeal to the grass root status of the Church. She too keeps falling back to the two groups for mandate and supportive information. The question remains, with these three perspectives, who ought to take the lead?

Notably, the question cannot be answered in a simplistic way. There are several reasons for this. First, there are non-governmental organizations, which look up to the Church for principles and guidance. To entirely isolate them from the Church would be somewhat misleading for they frequently serve as extensions or agents of the Church. Second, certain governmental missions are advised by Christians. Third, a lot of people in government and in Non-governmental agencies go to Church every Sunday. There is therefore a definite overlap in terms of influence.

Given this state of affairs, it is only fitting to say that each group ought to play its part effectively and recognize the contributions of the others. The Church has a clear spiritual mandate and a clear social responsibility, which must not be abdicated. Non-governmental agencies could come in and conduct research and provide relevant advice on HIV/AIDS. The government could provide the necessary organs and institutions that could make the operation of preventive exercises possible. In short there needs to be a collaborative effort among the three key players in the prevention exercise. The crucial question will remain what principles direct the entire programme. We here propose that the moral initiative remain in the hands of the Church rather than any of the other players because they do not have a sufficient justification for such moral frameworks. This Paper will attempt to outline such a justification by the Church.


3. WHAT THE STATISTICS TELL US

According to the Sunday Nation of 25th March, 2001, the Ministry of Health estimated that 2.2 million Kenyans are infected with HIV. The paper adds that an estimated 600 people die from the disease every day."

The National AIDS/STDs Control Programme (NASCOP), estimates that this number may increase to 2.6 million by the year 2005. NASCOP further estimated that the cumulative number of AIDS deaths had risen to 1.1 million in the year 2000, and that it was expected to rise to 2.4 million by the year 2005.

One of the most affected groups is the children whose parents die from AIDS. These are usually fifteen years and under. NASCOP projects that the number of AIDS orphans will increase from 750,000 in the year 2000 to about 1.3 million by the year 2005.

Consequently, it was estimated by NASCOP that AIDS would reduce the projected population size by 1.4 million by 2000, and 2.9 million by 2005. In 1992, almost 15% of all hospital beds were occupied by AIDS patients. By the year 2000, about 50% of all hospital beds were required by AIDS patients. Without AIDS, the infant mortality rate would have declined to 40 per 1,000 live-births by the year 2005, but because of AIDS, it will decline to only 55 per 1,000 live-births. The child mortality rate would have declined to about 60 per 1,000 live births by the year 2000 if we had no AIDS. But with AIDS, it is likely to rise slightly to 120-125 per 1,000 live-births.

Due to HIV, the number of Tuberculosis Bacillus (TB) cases is likely to increase. Many adults in Kenya carry a latent infection that is suppressed by healthy immune systems. New TB cases arise when HIV weakens the immune system. TB cases are projected to increase from about 25,000 new cases every year in 1985 to about 170,000 by the year 2005.

If these statistics are anything to go by, then Kenya is sitting on a “time bomb.” Unless the Church takes up her position in fighting the scourge, she will find herself running to governmental and non-governmental agencies for guidance on how to combat the problem. The problem at that point will not be that she can receive such help; the problem will be that she cannot then expect a biblical approach to the solution of the crisis. Christian leaders must quickly move from the habit of making shallow pronouncements on the question and take a keen interest in the management of the crisis. Detachment would be a wrong thing to do. Perhaps a citation of the response of one of the AIDS victims will drive this point home:

Eight days before Ruth Kasuki, an AIDS patient died at the age of thirty-five, she was asked, "What is the one message you would like to communicate to churches in Kenya?" Her answer as she lay in her bed struggling to bring her thoughts and words together was, A...the church leaders must understand this thing! ... after they have understood this disease, then they must have an interest."


4. CURRENT MORAL ISSUES AFFECTING THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN THE PREVENTION DEBATE

Two main issues have internally divided the church and equally estranged her from the government and non-governmental agencies with regard to AIDS control: the legitimacy of teaching Sex Education in schools and the free distribution of condoms as a means to enhancing what is customarily termed "safe sex." With regard to the teaching of Sex Education, it is the feeling of many in the government and in non-governmental agencies that since a bulk of the educational community is rapidly disappearing because of contracting AIDS, emergency efforts should be made to draft a syllabus that could expose the youth to the facts about AIDS and teach them management tips such as the use of condoms. The Church, no doubt, has not readily welcomed this approach to education. The argument is further sharpened by emphasis on the fact that abstinence from sex both before and during marriage is an unrealistic approach to the solution of the problem. It is considered antiquated and socially unhelpful. For this reason, the government and many players in the private sector advance the idea that potential victims of the disease be enabled to practice what is termed "safe sex" through a free or affordable distribution of condoms. The 1997 Sessional Paper No. 4 cited earlier clearly stated the government’s educational plan. It was made clear that AIDS education will focus on assertiveness and skills needed in discussing “AIDS prevention with potential sex partners.” The Church leadership feared that failure to teach abstinence in this setting would expose the youth in schools and encourage irresponsible sexual behaviour. Before too long, multi-nationals and several private agencies began to distribute free condoms in the Kenyan institutions and numerous social places, prompting a public outcry from numerous Church leaders. They argued that such an idea and consequent move was morally wrong because it encouraged promiscuity among members of the society and especially among the youth. It is here that the moral issues are sharpest and hence in need of clear address. Perhaps a citation of the ethical dilemmas would be appropriate to this end.

A High School student named Nancy returns from a Christmas break and notices, after testing, that she is pregnant from a romantic relationship that took place during the break. During the school term, several male students at the High School compete to enter a relationship with her by virtue of her exceptional beauty but soon keep off when word spreads around the school that she is pregnant. The man responsible for Nancy's pregnancy is a handsome university student with a track record of several brief relationships, which ended up in the suicide of one of his girlfriends and attempts at his life. The reason is that he has AIDS and feels that, to punish the society that exposed him to such a disease, he needs to infect as many people as possible with the AIDS virus.

One year later, Nancy decides to find herself a healthy relationship, perhaps a man who could love her and help her and her baby whom she has decided to keep despite overwhelming persuasion that she aborts. She becomes a Christian six months before meeting a fine Christian music leader at a community church who loves her and is willing to marry her and take care of her baby as well. Should she tell him that she and the baby have AIDS? Should they have any sexual intercourse during their marriage? Should he vow faithfulness to Nancy alone? Should they as Christians use condoms being members of a church that believes and teaches that the use of condoms is not Christian because it is prostitutes and the immoral that use them?

Although many moral issues emerge from this scenario, the need for sex education and the issue of the use of condoms will be focused upon basically because of their ambivalent nature in the Kenyan Church. The question is, should the Church support the introduction of Sex Education in school to prevent both immoral conduct and the possibility of contracting AIDS by students? Besides, in the event that many students are freely engaging in sexual activity, is it immoral for the church to support the government's efforts to avail free condoms to students to avert the contraction of AIDS as in the above scenario? There is even another dimension to this. Should the church condemn the use of condoms by Nancy and her husband?

The Church and the Morality of Sex Education

When the government and other agencies speak of sex education, they often mean the exposure of students and other affected parties to human sexuality with a focus on responsible sexual behaviour and the need to avoid consequences such as sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, the government often speaks of "Family Life Education" rather than just "sex education" thereby implying that the goal is holistic rather than what the average pastor in Kenya thinks, a masquerade for promiscuity. Nevertheless, the criteria and procedures of curriculum content are not necessarily Bible-based. For this reason, the pastors may have a point in being suspicious of the syllabus for the reason that they are defenders of a Bible-based education.

As a matter of fact, the Kenyan Church has not entirely been opposed to Family Life Education. Most of her leaders have simply been opposed to the potential abuse of such an education. Certain denominations have even had structured programmes that have proved successful enough in creating awareness and assistance in the prevention and management of HIV/AIDS. A good example is the Methodist Church, which launched a programme called "Education for Life" in 1987. The Church defined this programme as purposing to “... help parents by means of teaching, discussing together and sharing together to take up their responsibility of giving counsel to their children and grandchildren, so as to mold them into responsible adulthood.” Out of the eight main objectives, the following were included: increased ability to communicate ideas, beliefs and feelings with peers and parents, responsible sexual behaviour, decrease in teenage pregnancies, decrease in trial marriages, and the avoidance of sexually transmitted diseases. One could argue that, by employing biblical principles, the Methodist Church had a unique opportunity to impact the youth with regard to moral purity. The evidence of the effectiveness and success of such a biblical education on sexuality was the decision of the Church to adopt it in all her divisions in Kenya.

In short, the Church is not entirely lacking in the necessary manpower, ideas and procedures to implement a national Family Life Education programme. It is the morality of such a programme in the hands of a secular government that is the question.

While various ethical systems would respond differently to the implementation of such education in the Kenyan schools, it must be argued here that whichever system a church leader adopts in answering this question must be biblically sound and rationally satisfactory. Notably, certain Christians could be Antinomian in the sense that some Kenyans have argued on this question, i.e. God has not addressed the question of AIDS in Scripture and so it will depend on the individual case and how it affects those involved. Here, the "law" is that there is no law to govern our thinking on the question. Nevertheless, Christians who think this way are few.

Apart from Antinomians, perhaps the largest number of Kenyans who have respect for moral values at all are Situationists. Whether Christian or otherwise, the common denominator is that of love. "Let us love them" and be concerned. Many argue that if the loving thing to do is to distribute condoms or educate the youth so that they can be free from contracting the disease, then that is the one norm that must be followed. Yet there are Unqualified Absolutists among the Kenyan Christians as well who believe that the Law of God cannot be broken and so the contraction of AIDS is a sin and it must be judged. To educate the young on prevention especially via the use of condoms is to encourage immorality and so it must not be accommodated in the school setup. Conflicting Absolutism would have no problem with Sex Education being taught in both the school and the church because of the belief that if this is the lesser evil, then it must be done to save a generation from destruction.

A more satisfactory view would be that held by Graded Absolutism which would castigate many Kenyan Christians both in their detachment from doing something about AIDS victims in the name of piety, and failure to follow the compassionate example of Jesus Christ. Graded Absolutism would argue that Jesus was willing to "break" the Sabbath law in order to save a life. As Kenya Youth for Christ Director, Mr. P.J. Coolie would argue, sex education needs to be taught at home, but since it is not, if implementing it in the school was the option, then we should settle for it for that very reason. In an interview with the Missions, Training and Research Coordinator of Word of Truth Ministries, Nairobi, (August 2001) Mr. Coolie said, "The youth are exposed ... in the wrong way already, through TV, billboards and magazines. If they are doing it wrongly, the school should do it rightly." Mr. Coolie strongly believes that when the government finally permits the teaching of Sex Education in schools, such teaching should be handled by Christians. It may, therefore, be argued that if the standard is information for the youth, then for the church to refuse to endorse such an education programme for the fear that it could be abused is both naive and unkind. The alternative would be that the Church itself offers biblical education in this area, which it does not in most cases and which would not be available or even received in certain non-Christian school settings. In this Paper, we will argue that it is not realistic to assume that Kenya will have enough Christian teachers to handle such a programme and, besides, abstinence as an emphasis has not worked in church settings. There would e an added problem of complaint from other teachers that they were being segregated in the teaching of professional subjects on religious grounds. In short, there will be the challenge of expecting a secular government to uphold Christian standards in the schools.

It is not a debatable issue that the government of Kenya would rather uphold an education that is culturally relevant than religiously inclined. Arguably, if religion is part of culture, the question would be why religion is repeatedly critical of culture. In many cases, Christians feel that the Bible and its moral principles are superior to culture because unlike the Bible, culture keeps changing. The government clearly would prefer such cultural sensitivity that it would be clearly articulated in her strategies in preventing HIV/AIDS. The 1997 Sessional Paper No.4 states: “The AIDS education programme will be based on culturally acceptable moral values and will be integrated in ongoing school programmes.” Here, the Church may have to deal with the clash between certain traditional African values and Biblical moral standards. Missionary-started/sponsored schools would have the extra challenge of resisting a government curriculum on the basis of this clash. On the other hand, such schools would need to answer the question as to why Bible-based programmes have not been stressed before in the area of AIDS prevention, even as extra-curricula activity.

In short, there is nothing morally wrong with the government teaching Sex Education in schools that are not under the control of the Church. For Church schools or those with her influence, then there is a spiritual obligation not just to warn the students about AIDS but, perhaps, to develop a curriculum that has strong Biblical principles such as abstinence from sex. What is more, it is better to teach it at school because it is not being taught at home. Chances are that a warning about HIV/AIDS given by a non-Christian is far more useful and life redeeming than lack of it for the fear that it might be issued wrongly. The pornography on the streets, the X-rated movies on TV and in cinema halls, the pornography sites on the Internet and certain cultural practices in Kenya are far worse for the youth to be exposed to than what some church leaders oppose by way of what they consider misleading education.

We will, therefore, argue strongly that the Church ought not to not fight government attempts to introduce and implement Sex Education in schools in Kenya. She should instead seek to influence the inclusion of abstinence from illicit sex and behavioural change in the syllabus. After all, the government is still sympathetic to the possibility of such inclusion. Schools are a better place to teach Sex Education than most of the other sources the youth are exposed to. In fact, the Church should consider building more Church schools and pioneering Moral Education programmes, which the government could learn from. She could also begin community programmes and Church-based programmes to educate adults on responsible sexual living including the dangers of contracting HIV/AIDS. The teaching of Sex Education cannot expose the youth to immorality and irresponsible sexual behaviour compared to the other clandestine sources of information on sexuality. It would not encourage promiscuity, and hence to attack the teaching of Sex Education in schools for the reason of promiscuity is to attack a straw man. The Church must not do this.

The Church and the Morality of Condom use

The thorny issue in the position of the Church on the use of condoms is the express view by Church leaders that abstinence alone is the solution to HIV/AIDS, STDs in general and premarital sex. In marriage, too, it is argued that abstinence from sex outside marriage is the surest way of being free from AIDS and related vices.

A careful consideration of this position will prove that the Church has a strong point to advance here. Abstinence from sex before marriage and illicit sex by married spouses is the surest guarantee that one will not contract AIDS as 75 per cent of all AIDS cases are as a result of sexual intercourse. To say "no" to illicit sex is a costless solution which requires nothing but self-control and discipline and is affordable by all. The Church champions abstinence not just because the Bible teaches it but because it is the logical solution to the crisis. Yet this solution has not been communicated sufficiently from the pulpit. In some cases, it has been, but in an arrogant manner with an outright attack on what is termed "safe sex." While there is nothing safe about illicit intercourse, the Church has not always been successful in explaining her objection to it. More often than not, bigotry and unfeeling dogmatism have characterized such communication, turning away many non-Christians from the message.

An interview between Mr. Fredrick Kinuthia, a short-term student at Word of Truth Ministries, with Fr. Peter Migwi, Assistant Parish Priest at the Holy Family Basilica, Nairobi, revealed a strong stand by the Roman Catholic Church in Kenya. When asked what the Roman Catholic Church stand was on the use of condoms in the context of HIV/AIDS, Fr. Migwi declared emphatically that the Church forbade the use of condoms for several reasons:

First, condoms make the union between the two bodies impossible in a sexual act, as, instead of union with the body, there is union with the condom. That lack of the physical union denies God's will concerning sex especially in love and procreation.

Second, Fr. Migwi argues that the condom contributes to the reduction of human dignity as it affects freedom of choice to either consent to or deny the will to enter a sexual union. Consequently, he sees it as reducing people to instinctive animals that cannot control themselves. He argues strongly that condoms encourage immorality in society and must be condemned. He put it strongly to Mr. Kinuthia that the Catholic Church opts rather for total abstinence and fidelity in marriage. A few evangelical denominations hold this same position but most of them allow for considerable use of condoms in cases such as spouses threatened by the unfaithfulness of their mate.

On the other hand, The general premise advanced both by government and non-governmental agencies is that the use of condoms should be encouraged for those who reject abstinence. The dilemma comes in that there are Christians who believe that nobody ought to reject abstinence because it definitely works. The problem is not so much that this is right or wrong, but that this is considered by many as the unshakable Christian perspective. If anyone upholds the atheism of people like Julian Huxley, such abstinence would not only be difficult to practice but actually unwanted. Huxley confessed in his book titled Ends And Means that he wanted the world to have no meaning basically so that he could practice political and sexual freedom. Condoms would be a very welcome idea for Huxley and all who think like him. It would be impossible for the Church to impose abstinence on a people with such a worldview.

An added challenge is that of the Kenyan Church having to decide whether or not the number one question for persons such as commercial sex workers is abstinence or a total change of lifestyle. In this case, the Church leader would need to decide whether, in the event that the conversion of such people takes long, they should actually use condoms when in danger of AIDS. In a nutshell, it would seem unrealistic to say you must abstain or do not just use condoms. This is the dilemma.

Once again, the different ethical systems would respond variously on whether condoms should be used in the above circumstances. Antinomianism with its feet planted in relativism would resound, if it works for anyone, he should not be forbidden to use them for there is no absolute moral standard to determine the matter. Some Kenyan Christians equally come close to this position in arguing that the Bible has not addressed the matter and that condoms are a recent (19th century) development. At best, most end up with a utilitarian position, which says that the end justifies the means. Unqualified Absolutists would outrightly castigate any thought or use of condoms as a means of fighting HIV/AIDS because love of the neighbour is not proven by giving him something that breaks the law of God. In this case, Huxley must not be immoral but also, if he must, then he must not use condoms because they encourage him to do the very thing he must abstain from. The argument is that both the first absolute of abstinence from sex and the second absolute of abstinence from justifying such sin by using condoms, must be refrained from.

Conflicting Absolutism would say, the use of condoms is the lesser evil for those who cannot abstain. Graded Absolutism would arrive at a similar conclusion, only that the higher good would be the consideration and emphasis, not the lesser evil. If it is known to be an evil at all, then it must be avoided at all costs. However, the higher good is the preservation of a life from the scourge of AIDS. For those who cannot abstain at any given time, it would be the loving thing to advice rather than encourage the use of condoms. It is here that Graded Absolutism which we defend in this Paper parts ways with Situationism for the latter ends in the particular moment. The former would urge the victim to consider abstinence as the lasting solution. The justification here is that God treats humanity in this manner. When we fail to obey Him, He does not obliterate us from the face of the earth. He allows our mistakes to teach us and humiliate us into realizing that we are on the wrong track. If He was to deal with us according to what our sins deserve, we would not survive, for His eyes are too pure to look favourably at sin. It is the God who blesses Ishmael according to Genesis 17 even though he was the offspring of an illicit relationship between Abraham and Sarah's maid named Hagar. This is the same God who blesses the Hebrew midwives in spite of (not because of) their lying and includes Rahab in the genealogy of Christ in spite of her lying to save the Israelite spies. We suggest that God's character in dealing with people who sought to protect lives by telling lies be considered a clue in deciding how to deal with those who must use condoms after rejecting God's solution of abstinence. It is not the best but the second best and God has used those where bests have not been opted for.

In this Paper, we wish to propose the following as a position on the place of condoms in the debate without giving the slightest hint that they should be encouraged or preferred in the place of abstinence:

First, we argue that it is not the loving thing for the church to condemn the use of condoms without qualification. To do this would be putting the cart before the horse. The real issue is that the Church must teach abstinence. If she fails to impart such abstinence in the youth, then she should not hasten to condemn them for protecting themselves against the AIDS virus. In short, instilling abstinence through the pulpit and in the family is able to prevent the use of condoms, but a condemnation of the use of condoms in itself may never instill abstinence in people. It can only encourage hostility towards the Church, especially where it is done arrogantly. The Church in Kenya needs to repent of her laxity to talk about human sexuality from the pulpit. She needs to repent for not holding enough seminars for parents and the youth on human sexuality. She needs to repent for rising to the occasion by accident rather than by loving care. In fact, many pastors need to repent for being dragged kicking and screaming into the hall of death, having previously insisted that AIDS is nothing but God's judgment on man for immorality. As a matter of fact, one AIDS sufferer in Southern Africa put it very well: AIDS is not a mark of God's judgment; it is a great manifestation of His grace because it allows the AIDS victim to think and make up his/her mind concerning God before dying.

Second, for the church to insist that non-Christians who do not uphold Biblical standards must abstain from the use of condoms when engaging in their immorality is rather unkind. We argue that the use of condoms by such unregenerate persons might even prolong their exposure to the Gospel. Such exposure to the Gospel might then lead them to repentance and hence abstinence not just from promiscuity but from the use of condoms.

Third, we argue that the use of condoms is a consequence of promiscuity rather than its prerequisite. It is only promiscuous people who need protection. Even in marital unfaithfulness, the need to use condoms to protect oneself from a spouse who has AIDS is due to a promiscuous inclination rather than lack of it. To condemn the use of condoms by such promiscuous people is like removing all the fruits from trees and assuming that by so-doing you have dealt with the existence of the tree itself. If such a tree is poisonous, one would need to cut the tree and thereby deal with the problem. The Church must get to the root of the problem rather than keep throwing stones at the fruit. We argue here that filling the newspapers with condemnation of condoms without offering a solution to promiscuity is both impotent and useless.

Fourth, the Church in Kenya should not make blanket condemnation of condom use because it is the only effective way to protect the faithful spouse in a marriage against contracting AIDS from the unfaithful partner. Through brotherly kindness, the Church leadership needs to counsel a couple through the tough decisions rather than add another burden on them. Although the natural consequence of such unfaithfulness, let alone one coupled with AIDS, is normally divorce, the Church leader needs to understand that if the couple chooses to stay together in spite of this, then the Church leadership have one less problem. To allow them to use condoms in this situation would be the loving thing to do. MAP International has put it well: "Condom use and its proven success record is good news especially for the spouse of a person infected with HIV or for the spouse of a person who continues to remain unfaithful." As a matter of fact, since some couples prefer to use condoms for purposes of birth control, it would still be absurd to enforce a religious reason against them only because HIV/AIDS was involved. In other words, condoms are naturally permissible by most Churches in marriage anyway.

Lastly, we argue that, although there has been a misuse of condoms and a limited failure rate in general, the Church must not hide behind limited scientific information in a bid to condemn the use of condoms. The regular rush to indicate to spouses needing help that condoms have a high failure rate because of the "microscopic holes" in them through which the AIDS virus can pass is too weak an argument to advance in the debate. In fact, it can lead such spouses to engaging in sex without the condom and hence exposing them directly to the virus. But, more important here is, is the need for pastors to avoid formulating Church policies on wrong or meagre scientific facts. Since condoms are made from LATEX, THE SAME MATERIAL USED TO MANUFACTURE THE GLOVES WHICH ARE USED BY DOCTORS IN SURGERY, IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO CONDEMN CONDOMS ON SUCH SCIENTIFIC DATA AND EXCUSE THE USE OF latex gloves by surgeons. In this way, such Church leaders can only scare the uninformed congregants but not those who know the scientific data behind the manufacture of the condom. No doubt, it would be hard to convince a promiscuous doctor against the condom on this ground.


5. TOWARDS A BIBLICAL PARADIGM IN THE PREVENTION DEBATE

As mentioned earlier, the Bible will be considered as the standard against which prevention methods in the fight against HIV/AIDS will be considered. There are at least three reasons for this:

First, the timelessness of the Bible. Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away but His words would never. The Psalmist wrote, “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.”

Second, the Bible is universal and free from prejudice of any kind, be it cultural, social or spiritual. In Galatians we read: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” For this reason, the Bible can be trusted to inform us on how to relate to various people and cultures using an objective standard from God.

Third, the Bible is divine enough to deal thoroughly with the constant deceit that inhabits the hearts of men and women. It can scan and discern man's motives and ways in general, whether they be religious pretences or mere acts emanating from social stereotypes. With the advent of new publications, films and workshops on the management of HIV/AIDS worldwide, every thought and principle must be brought under the authority of the Scriptures. Not everyone who is publishing or making films appeals to Biblical values, and hence the need for the Church to uphold what the Bible has to say on this question. We are reminded in Hebrews that: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
Although the Bible does not contain the term HIV/AIDS anywhere on its pages, a lot of principles can be clearly seen in its message. Judging from how Jesus treated outcasts and the terminally ill during His earthly ministry, we could say that His followers cannot claim to have no moral or spiritual example to follow when dealing with AIDS victims or decisions emerging from related moral dilemmas. It is by looking at what Jesus would say to all His modern-day disciples that we propose a Christocentric paradigm in contending with a scourge that is being met with considerable disinterest by many Christians.

From the ministry of Jesus, at least two parables and two healing miracles directly address our modern-day approach to the problem of AIDS. First, there is the parable of "the Good Samaritan" in which a man walking on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho is beaten, wounded and left near dead by robbers.

First, it is obvious that any traveler could fall victim of such violence. Yet Jesus implies that every such victim be shown compassion. Similarly, the Church should show this same kind of compassion to all the AIDS victims, whether such victims contracted the disease through sexual involvement, blood transfusion or prenatal infection. To pass by such need is both unchristian and unkind, whatever our religious defense.

Second, we notice a clear rebuke of the religious response to the wounded man. This rebuke is communicated through the contrast of the levite and the Samaritan. It is as if Jesus is saying, how good is your religion if it cannot reach out to a dying, lonely man? Incidentally, this is a common thing today in Kenya. While the government and many non-governmental agencies are daily involved in helping AIDS victims and potential ones and are busy in the prevention campaign, several Christians and even Church leaders are both unconcerned and unmoved by the crisis. All they can do is condemn the victims for starting on the AIDS road. There is hardly any visit to affected families nor counseling for the affected. In a nutshell, it is unspiritual, even unchristian to claim a prophetic or even a priestly role and then bypass the thousands dying from AIDS and the hundreds of thousands of orphaned children. As James would remind us, "Faith without works is dead." No doubt, Jesus' presentation of the Samaritan as helping the man and those who were expected to help as simply passing by is a sharp rebuke for His Church today. Put in modern idiom, how come the N.G.Os are more ready to help AIDS victims and the pastor simply mutter detachedly, "let the dead bury their own dead!"

The second parable we will cite is rather self-explanatory. It is recorded for us in Matthew and because of its powerful presentation by Jesus, we will cite it at length:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. “Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. “Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?” “The King will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” “Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.” “They also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?” “He will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

AIDS victims in Kenya often live in squalid poverty conditions. To live longer or stay healthy, they need a constant supply of healthy food. Most of them can hardly afford clothes and so, besides the HIV infection, they constantly become victims of other diseases, which then weaken further their immune system. They are sick, hungry, thirsty and without clothes. Jesus' words would find ready application without much qualification in the Kenyan Church. It is evident that failure to be compassionate and caring is not just unkind and unchristian but deserving of eternal damnation. It is as if Jesus were saying, "I care and if you do not, you are not worthy of me." The late Christian musician, Keith Green, put it well in his song, "The Sheep and the Goats", "... the only difference between the sheep and the goats according to the Bible is what they did or didn't do."

In His healing ministry, Jesus demonstrated to His disciples of all times that God's love is both unconditional and impartial. On two occasions, this clearly comes out. In the one instance, Jesus heals ten lepers but only one, a Samaritan, comes back to give thanks. Not only are we reminded here that Jesus showed compassion to strangers regardless of existing prejudice but that He reached out to the outcast of society. Leprosy was a deadly disease that required the quarantine of victims in Israel. To avoid the infection of other Israelites, victims were expected to go about ringing a bell and shouting, "unclean, unclean." The fact that Jesus reached out to such outcasts is lesson enough for the Kenyan Church. The fact that He healed them all is a reminder that Christians should be involved in the management of diseases that make people outcasts, AIDS notwithstanding. The prophets of old were deeply involved in similar needs and reached out a helping hand. God expects the "modern prophet" to do likewise.

In the second instance, Jesus heals a man by the pool of Bethesda who kept trying to enter the pool when the angel of the Lord would stir up the water. Someone else would always get in ahead of him. The fact that Jesus gives specific attention to this man while everyone else had neglected him is a sharp reminder for the Christian today not to concentrate help on those who can exert themselves physically, those with the hope of recovery only but also for those who seem beyond help. AIDS victims are often in this state.

With Jesus as our role model, it is without debate that He expects us to follow His example. Drawing from the manner in which He dealt with terminally ill persons, a clear paradigm can be suggested here. Compassion and undetached involvement must be the two ingredients of our attitude in ministering to the affected. Not to do this is simply unchristian. “Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus walked.” When Jesus looked at the multitudes, He saw them as sheep without a shepherd and presented Himself to them as the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep. Showing compassion and helping the needy is not an option for the Christian. It is a must if he must thus be called. John put it strongly, “If anyone says, “I love God” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And He has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”

In the previous chapter, John indicates that to love or not to love is a matter of attitude and that if our actions and attitudes are as such we will naturally behave like Cain to his brother. “This is the message you heard from the beginning,” he writes, “We should love one another. Do not be like Cain who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous.” Yet this is nailed down in what he says: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” Here the laying down of life is equated to death and the provision of material needs for the needy. We argue here that AIDS victims are not excluded from the picture. They are sickly and needy. They need medical care, food, clothing, love, visitation, counsel, and hope. To neglect them is to be unchristian. Jesus would not neglect them, no matter what the cause of the disease. In His healing ministry, Jesus did not first ask the sick what caused their illness in order to decide whether or not to be compassionate and heal them. The Church should, likewise, treat AIDS victims with the same approach. This is how it ought to be in Kenya today. Love and compassion is a direct result or outworking of the fruit of the Spirit.

MAP International has correctly observed in this regard, “To lack love and not to express it to the people living with AIDS is a denial of saving faith.”

Yet is there any clear imperative regarding sexual purity and the protection of the sanctity of marriage? We argue that, among other passages in the Bible, provides a very clear guideline for sexual purity as a guarantee against the current AIDS scourge for Kenyans today as it did against sexual sins in Paul's day. Notably, the Church at Corinth fought sexual problems beyond anything else due to the rampant immorality in the city including pagan temple prostitution. Someone has observed that it is even a miracle that a church survived in Corinth. The Church in Kenya, just like that in Corinth, must determine to live by the dictates of God rather than the traditions of the society. Such traditions may very well encourage illicit sexual behaviour and a ready culture for the spread of AIDS.

The Corinthian Church situation is direct help for us today because a lot of young people burn with sexual lusts and hence the AIDS disaster. They wish to be involved sexually whether they have AIDS or not. Paul advises that it is better to marry than to burn with sexual passion. No doubt, God has provided the marriage institution partly as a way to meet sexual needs without sinning sexually. God does not forbid the fullest enjoyment of sex in the context of marriage. Marriage is also given as a way out for those who cannot stay sexually pure while single. Paul says, “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” Except for prayer and mutual consent, the gift of sex is not even to be denied to the marriage partner at all. Yet, it would, definitely, be wrong for a partner who has AIDS in a marital relationship to insist that his/her spouse fulfil this sexual requirement whenever and under whatever circumstances for the reason that no one should deny his partner the gift of sex. Understanding would have to be stretched to the possible danger of the unaffected partner contracting the disease. God honors the institution of marriage and protects the spouses from external sexual danger. For this reason, there ought not to be any tendency towards promiscuity. This is the surest guarantee against AIDS. To walk outside this bracket is to endanger oneself. In the above Scripture Paul equally indicates that God expected marriage to be monogamous and hence free from external sexual invasions. Monogamy, too, is a guarantee against possible contraction of AIDS. If sexual needs are fully met in marriage, there will be no temptation to go out and satisfy them through extra-marital relations. Besides, with the satisfaction of marital needs including sex, separation and divorce will be taken care of in that they would hardly take place.

In short, is a good paradigm for both the prevention of the Christians against AIDS and a sure protection of the marriage institution which is the fullest guarantee that HIV will not be spread to the children of God. In other words, given the example of Jesus and the advice of the rest of Scripture, the Church in Kenya should be able to address the sexual crisis sufficiently.


6. THE PLACE OF MORAL ABSOLUTES IN A MORALLY RELATIVISTIC CULTURE

Kenya, like most parts of the world, has been invaded both by ethical relativism exemplified in postmodern thinking and a wild brand of secularism which resists anything Christian. Through films, Dailies, billboards, magazines, symbolic art, formal college classes and informal religious sessions, the average Kenyan is drilled into desiring a society without rules and regulations, a utopian world where everything is right and nothing is wrong. Because of the prevalence of this worldview, the Christian finds himself increasingly lonely when he stands up to defend the biblical position on morality and the absolute nature of truth. In short, there is no place for truth. Everybody learns to live with contradictions no matter the implications and consequences.

In the marketplace of ideas, the Church in Kenya tends to lose the fight in her defense of abstinence primarily because of intimidation. Often she is faced with hostile critics who insist that you cannot force someone else to believe the way you do. In other words, you cannot legislate morality. Truth becomes what you make it to be and something may be true for you but not for me and vise versa.

Yet a close look at the critics position will reveal both how shallow and mistaken their worldview is. It is packed with contradiction and self-stultification. If the leaders of the Church would understand this, they would learn the secret of boldness and they would speak in defense of the biblical position on questions such as abstinence without fear. Perhaps a study of Christian Apologetics might be of help in this regard.


The Psalmist asked correctly, “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” It is our conviction that while certain foundations of absolutes are being shaken, the problem is not God's but the believer's. He is the one, and not God, who refuses to look at the rationality of Christian absolutes and hence gives in so easily to the intimidation by critics. We will illustrate this point by looking at two aspects of moral relativism and how Christianity cannot be rationally challenged in her hold onto moral absolutes. Our concern is those in Kenya who argue that nobody should impose moral standards on someone else and those who believe that something true for someone does not have to be true for someone else.

In their book titled Legislating Morality, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek correctly argue that imposing moral standards on others is unavoidable. “Ironically,” they argue, “Those who most loudly protest legislating morality believe it is morally wrong for others to legislate morality. ... They are in effect saying, “You ought not to impose ought nots.” Such people do not wish to do away with moral standards altogether but those that do not agree with theirs. In the same way, the Church need not be intimidated by people who argue that they are imposing moral standards on them when it comes to legislation's leading, say, to the preference of abstinence from sex before marriage. To say the Church should not tell anyone whether or not to live a moral life is itself a moral imposition. It must be remembered that the moral question here affects several persons including family members, friends and innocent children. Not to legislate morality on AIDS is in itself a legislation but equally a clear lack of concern for victims.

Often, the Church could find herself fighting against Libertarianism which argues for uncontrolled freedom for "consenting adults" to practise whatsoever they see fit. Many pastors could be intimidated by this position in that it argues that it does not force anyone to do anything. In their argument that freedom is absolute, they undermine the very absolute nature of freedom. If anyone is free to engage in sexual activity regardless of the consequences, the Church should argue, then there would be no control of the HIV epidemic. Unlimited freedom is both catastrophic and anarchic. To grant too much freedom is just as harmful as restricting any freedom at all. There is evidently the need for a moral law, otherwise society would fall apart.

Geisler and Turek have aptly observed that excess freedom for some people ends up hurting others. “...Legalizing prostitution would grant more freedom to some sexually consenting adults, but it would also impose an environment of immorality on you and your children if a “legal; house of prostitution set up shopped next to your house. Such an activity would further spread venereal diseases in the community, diseases which often infect innocent spouses.” Their conclusion is striking “ ... Those who say they want no morals imposed on others really want their own morals imposed on everyone.”

The other factor, which intimidates the Kenyan pastors, is a strong hold by some people to the fact that morality is relative. As observed earlier, Antinomianism champions this perspective. It is a direct challenge to Absolutism, which holds that truth is applicable and true for all people, at all times and in all places. Yet a close look at relativism would reveal a number of fatal flaws in its assumptions: First, to say all morals are relative is self-defeating. This is because one would be making a moral statement. If it were to be true, then the statement "all morals are relative" would not be binding on anyone because, for it to be binding, it would have to be absolute. This is the same end for someone who argues that all truth is relative. The question would be, is this a relative statement as well? It is impossible for one to uphold relativism and do so relatively. It would land one in the same place Joseph Fletcher found himself in his "Situation Ethics" when he said we should "never use" the word "never." It is not possible to deny moral values without imposing a moral value of your own. Even the one who denies all values has a way of valuing his right to deny them. In short, moral relativism destroys itself right from its own definition.

Second, the fact that paradigm shifts are possible is an indication that only our beliefs about absolute truth do change but not absolute truth itself. For a time people believed that the world was flat. Scientific investigation proved that it was spherical. This is to say that the truth was always that the world was spherical. It is people's perspectives or beliefs that were mistaken. This implies that truth does not change with time. But neither does it change with place. If I said that the door to this room is on my left, to say that it is untrue because it is on your right would be missing the point because it would be true everywhere in the world - whether in Sidney or in Siberia, Kisumu or Mombasa - that for me reading this Paper the door is actually on my left. To add that it is on your right is not a relative truth but a second absolute truth, making it possible to have a declaration of two absolutes about the door to this particular room. In short, there are no two right ways of looking at a moral situation. One way would have to be right and another wrong. Time or place or reference point does not change the truth or make it relative.

Third, without a clear absolute standard, we could never speak of right and wrong. To say truth and morals are relative is the same as saying everything is changing or everything cannot be relied on. Yet, how possible is it to know that something is changing without a fixed point? If I was in a moving car, it would be impossible to determine that the car was moving if everything around was moving as well. The unmoving trees and buildings by the roadside make it possible to perceive real movement for such real movement requires a fixed point. Measurement is only possible with an objective standard. Morality would make no sense if there were no reference point. This is what we refer to as an absolute standard. Without an absolute moral law, statements like "AIDS is destructive" or "rape is bad" would not make sense.

Fourth, if moral relativism were to be true, it would imply that nobody has ever been wrong at any time. There would not exist any liars, swindlers, extortioners, and corrupt or any other kind of wicked persons. Any evil acts would have to be excused merely as perspectival, simply one's way of looking at a particular issue. In this way, Sadam Hussein should never be blamed for killing the Kurds; Slobodan Milosovich should be seen as a Yugoslav saint, Id Amin hailed as a righteous man and Hitler an extremely humane person. Yet how would anyone distinguish between a humane person and an inhumane one, a righteous and an unrighteous one without an absolute moral standard? The only way we can say Adolf Hitler was cruel and Mother Theresa humane is if there is a moral standard to determine what is good from what is evil.

C.S. Lewis has summed this well in his book, Mere Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

This is the only way we can judge and say the Church ought to do something about the AIDS scourge or factors like prostitution which contribute to such an epidemic. Yet again, AIDS could only be known to be a scourge and prostitution worth condemning given an absolute moral law. The question must, nevertheless, be driven to its limits. How could we have a moral law without a moral lawgiver? Christianity argues that the only final moral lawgiver is God. The Kenyan pastor has a unique avenue to introduce the supremacy of Christ in this discussion.

In a nutshell, whether in governmental or non-governmental forums, the Christian has a unique rational position from which to operate when discussing the nature of Family Life education; the unchallenged role of abstinence from illicit sex as the surest solution to AIDS; the place of biblical truth in a relativistic society, etc. He must not succumb to intimidation but speak boldly by the Spirit of God who leads into all truth. It is by the Spirit of God that the rebel thoughts of man can be taken captive and blinded minds brought to the light of the Gospel. The Kenyan Church leader must not give in to intimidation. He has a superior position.

7. UNDOING THE FATAL FLAWS AND THE RESTORATION OF HOPE IN A DYING SOCIETY

In conclusion, it must be admitted that the Kenyan Church has made several fatal mistakes in contending with the AIDS epidemic. These mistakes have to be dealt with if she is going to have any impact in the prevention and management of the crisis. More significantly, if the Church is going to stand out as a voice of hope in this crisis, she has got to live up to her spiritual and social expectations. These flaws will be cited here briefly and an outline of some remedial possibilities suggested as the bedrock for the dawning of hope in an increasingly hopeless society.

First, it is obvious that the Kenyan Church leadership increasingly suffers from the traditional cultural position that sex must not be talked about in public. No doubt there is a positive dimension to this view because part of the joy of sex is its privacy accentuated by an element of shame and secrecy. It is so sacred that it must not be casual. Yet there is another side to it. So many people are acquainted with numerous unhealthy patterns of sexuality that a balance has to be ensured by the Church minister. If the youth are picking up unhealthy sexual habits from pornographic literature, movies and peer discussions, unless they are helped to have a healthy perspective they are bound to make all kinds of mistakes in this area. If the pastor does not talk about healthy patterns of sexuality from the pulpit, he should not be surprised if he encounters numerous sex-related problems in his congregation. If he makes the healthy public pronouncements on sexuality a private affair, he will soon have many private messes to deal with in public. Thus, every pastor must teach biblical standards and patterns of sexuality or encourage programmes at the Church to address such issues on a regular basis, as sexuality is not a seasonal theme. If the pastor views sex as a dirty thing that defiles the church premises, he will soon be called upon to solve many dirty things in dirtier places.

A related mistake Church leaders in Kenya make is to decide that AIDS is God's final judgment for the immorality of mankind. For this reason, they want nothing to do with AIDS victims or their families. These are considered wicked sinners who deserve the wrath of God and for whom there is no forgiveness. Yet this is not a biblical teaching and, as observed earlier, AIDS could also be viewed as one of God's most gracious provisions for man's repentance and turning to Him because it gives man time to reflect with the full knowledge that he is going to die soon. Victims have time to think about salvation before they die, unlike some accidents or cases where people die in their sleep. Any pastor who develops a "holier than thou" attitude may soon find himself pushing for a space on God's own judgment seat. Unfortunately, he himself would have to be judged, perhaps even for this very attitude.

Another mistake the Church in Kenya is constantly making is to view members of the Church as corporate assets rather than individual sheep in need of shepherding. A good and successful congregation is seen in terms of how many people come to the services and how much is given in tithes and offerings. Individual struggles with habits including sexuality, emotional breakdowns and let downs, illnesses, hunger and "nakedness" are not an issue in the light of needs such as a large meeting hall, a new public address system, new church furniture and, most importantly, a second or even fourth car for the pastor. To have such needs is to be unspiritual. In other words, Church is not a place for needs. It is a collection den for weekly earnings and resources. It is not a place to hear from God and be led to the green pastures anymore. It is a place to be entertained by the latest achievements, jokes and jest of the pastor in readiness to make him a little richer. AIDS victims in this setting are outcasts; helpless sinners who are where they are because they refused God's voice and must serve as a living illustration that if you do not stay in church meetings and give faithfully financially, the Lord might just afflict you with one of those horrible diseases. One denomination with serious doctrinal issues was even known to refuse to bury anyone who died before age 70 for the reason that such a person was cursed. If the Church leadership in Kenya does not challenge or turn away from this state of things, hundreds will continue to flee the Church and hence risk HIV infection. Many people will run to non-church agencies both for counsel and help. This must not be allowed to happen.

Some Christian leaders to this day still deny the existence of AIDS or erroneously think that it is a curable illness like the regular STDs. They are so ignorant that they think it can only be transferred from one person to another through sexual intercourse. When members of their congregation die from AIDS acquired through blood transfusion or children of victims die, other factors including demonic attacks, witchcraft, disobedience to God and the like are advanced. Such leaders have problems counseling spouses of victims who may be without AIDS supposing that to protect themselves with condoms is behaving like prostitutes. Unless leaders who think this way are awoken from their dogmatic slumber, they will remain a liability to the Body of Christ rather than responsible shepherds of the flock.

Worth contending with is also the tendency by some Church leaders to fight anything that comes in the name of Sex Education or Family Life Education as long as it is proposed by the government. While the government of Kenya may constitutionally defined as "secular state", the graciousness that has constantly been extended to the Church must not be taken for granted. Not only does the government of Kenya still permit the teaching of Christian Religious Education (C.R.E) in schools but allows the teaching of Social Education and Ethics. Any suggestion and move by the government to allow the teaching of Family Life education or even Sex Education ought not be entirely fought by the Church because different parties (including Christians) are often included on the panel of curriculum developers. Besides, as already mentioned, since it is not being taught at home and since the youth are more exposed to unhealthy patterns of sexuality, it would be better to have Sex Education taught in school than through pornographic sites on the Internet or through X-rated movies. What the Church should champion is the inclusion of an explicit section on behavioural change and abstinence from illicit sex as the surest guarantee against contracting AIDS.

One common mistake that is peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church in Kenya is the blanket condemnation of the use of the condom particularly issued by priests who are not married themselves or intend to. It is no wonder that in some Catholic circles some priests have had to transfer burdens from dealing with the allowance of the condom to contending with abortions and related vices. It is here that we will dare defend the fact that certain sins are qualitatively worse than others. Murder is definitely worse than a sexual act even though both of them are extremely offensive to God. There is even a sin that is unto death and others which can be prayed for. We argue here that it is better to excuse the use of a condom in the event that one is going to commit a sexual sin anyway no matter what you tell them, instead of having to deal with both the sexual act and a possible abortion which is a common practice in our day. The Roman Catholic priest needs to be a lot more lenient to the spouse of a victim of AIDS and should not condemn the use of the condom if it is in a bid to protect such a one from being infected. It is easy to tell such a spouse to sacrifice his/her sexual appetites for the sake of the other spouse, but indeed, that is easy for the person who neither is married nor is contemplating getting married to say. This could easily be insensitive.

Perhaps one of the greatest and yet subtle flaws of the Church in Kenya that has led to the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS is her neglect of the family. The Church has not laboured hard enough to protect the institution of the family and to safeguard and teach family values. Couples easily pull away from each other and find other partners outside the home. Pastors and friends are only there to witness couples get married and the next time they appear by their side is to bury a loved one. Occasionally, a few appear at the baptism or dedication of children born to the couple and that is it. Duties and responsibilities of husbands and wives are not taught and neither are parents instructed on how to deal with their children's adolescence and emerging issues in sexuality. In short, we live in a fragmented society and in turn a fragmented Church. When people walk away from each other, many times it is not the fault of one person. It is a corporate responsibility, and the church's part is not small. Unless the Kenyan Church protects her marriages, there will continue to be many wanting to walk out of them and not entirely without cause.

Another evident mistake the pastorate has made is failing to prepare church members for ministry to AIDS victims and potential contractors. They have not shared statistics and other facts about HIV and so many live in ignorance. They do not know how to care for the sick or the dying. They do not teach arguments in defense of abstinence and so few are acquainted with them or are interested to find out.

In the book, AIDS, Sex and Family Planning: a Christian View, Baker and Ward have put the point well through the words of one of their characters, the Doctor: “We cannot force young people outside the Church to live as Christians should, but at least we can point out the problems and the dangers, and help them if they come to us asking how they should live ... We must make sure that our Church members know what answers to give, when they are questioned about AIDS by people outside the Church.”

Finally, the Kenyan pastors need to take time and study the Scriptures and related disciplines such as Theology and Biblical Counseling instead of jumping into ministry with a puffed ego. Counseling AIDS victims needs a careful study of the Scriptures and a heart ready to listen and reach out. The minute the Kenyan Church leader will feel he knows all there is to know will be his moment of failure. Besides, it is impossible for the Church leadership to effectively involve members of their congregations in reaching out to victims unless they themselves are moved by the gravity of the epidemic.

The Church is called to minister to everyone; not just the converted. All must be prevented from catching the AIDS-causing virus. It is the loving thing to do and must be approached with what Martin Luther King Jr. called in his book, Strength to Love, "a tough mind and a tender heart."






BIBLIOGRAPHY


Baker, K. and Honor, W.: AIDS, Sex and Family Planning: A Christian View. (ACHIMOTA: African Christian Press, 1990.)


Forsythe, S. & Rau, B.: AIDS in Kenya: Socioeconomic Impact and Policy Implications. (ARLINGTON: AIDSCAP, 1996.)


Foster, G.: Facts About AIDS …(THIKA: Mambo Press:1998)


Geisler, N. L. & Turek, F.: Legislating Morality. (MINEAPOLIS: Bethany House Publishers, 1998.)


King, L. M.: Strength to Love (PHILADELPHIA: Fortress Press:1963)


Lewis, C. S: Mere Christianity. (NEW YORK: Scribner, 1952.)


Maina, S. Pastoral Care and AIDS (Unpublished)


MAP International: Choosing Hope: The Christian Response to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic, Curriculum Modules. (NAIROBI: MAP, 1996)
… AIDS in Kenya: The Church's Challenge and the Lessons Learned: (NAIROBI: MAP:1998)
… AIDS in Africa: The Church's Opportunity: (NAIROBI: MAP:1996)
… Sunday Nation, 25th March, 2001


Mulinge, Jackson K.: Ministry of Health Session Paper No.4 of 1997 on AIDS in Kenya. (NAIROBI: MOH, 1997.)


… EcoNews Africa: Environment, Trade and Development, (July 2001)


IBS, The Holy Bible, New International Version: 1984