CHRISTIANS, SEX AND SUFFERING
Brent Stirton / Getty Images file
Steve Behlke
April 4, 2009
Many in our church are currently purchasing care-giving kits to benefit those who are suffering with HIV Aids in Africa. Thanks, Pamela.
So it is particularly interesting that I recently read a charge that Christians don't care about human suffering. In fact, the charge is made that Christians care more in their opposition against "sex outside-of-marriage" more than they oppose suffering on a global scale.
The clues to this are said to lie in the countries of Aids-stricken Africa.
In much of Africa, many self-sacrificing and compassionate Christians are teaching one thing in the fight against HIV Aids: sexual abstinence. I believe this is a good thing. Sexual abstinence is still the surest way to protect individuals and communities from Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
I believe, in fact, that Christian opposition to suffering is a great argument for Abstinence Education in Africa. Christians might counter those who oppose Abstinence Education with the charge, "For us, it appears immoral to oppose Abstinence Education in light of the tragic human suffering that it could help to prevent."
While sexual abstinence, if practiced, would surely help to stem the tide of Aids in Africa, the real problem is that not everyone will practice what Christians preach.
So, here's where we're at: Abstinence is an effective way to tide future suffering and shouldn't be discounted by anyone who opposes human suffering.
Yet, if young, single Africans don't immediately and perfectly choose abstinence as a way of life, or if husbands do not choose sexual faithfulness to his own wife, even after compassionate and rational argument, what then? Does our compassion run out? Are Christians pro-abstinence only? Or would it actually be wrong to give condoms to married couples, for instance?
Here is the question: Is it immoral for Christians to be pro-abstinence and also to distribute condoms among Aids decimated tribes and villages who may not value the sexual abstinence message? Or can it be argued that condom distribution among these villages also merits a moral argument: the argument of compassion, the argument against human suffering.
Particularly in light of the Aids epidemic in much of Africa, if Christians oppose condom distribution, is the charge fair that Christians oppose sex outside-of-marriage more than they oppose human suffering on a large, national level?
I do not believe that Christ-formed Christians hate the notion of people having unmarried sex more than they hate the fact that people are suffering from the heartwrenching plague of Aids. But this may, inadvertently, be the very image that we portray on this and other social issues. So let us think critically on these issues and offer the world informed, compassionate, and truly wise alternative.
A very good topic Pastor Steve, thank you for your thought provoking message. I believe that if Christians act with compassions FIRST, then there will be time to try to change behavior. First end the suffering. I think that we here at College Church, as a church, act with compassion first. Our medical clinic treats people, we don't ask if immoral behavior led to their medical problem, we treat the suffering. Our message will be heard better after our compassion is demonstrated.
Reply to this
Steve,
I am excited to see you writing on this topic. It seems as though many Christians forget the basis of Christ's work. Meet people where they are, meet their needs. By distributing condoms missionaries can come with open hands, not a wagging finger.
If it were any other protective gear, hard hats, safety glasses, we would not balk. Chris Rice once said the "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."
Would it not make sense to immediately stop unprotected sex, show them the love of the Lord, and then nurture abstinence.
*shrug* just my two cents worth.
Reply to this