==============================================================================
          - Reprinted from HERALD OF THE COVENANT, Volume 7 Number 4
       Newsletter of Covenant Presbytery, Presbyterian Church in America
==============================================================================


                          AIDS: A Christian Response
                          by the Rev. Barry C. Waugh
                     pastor, Eastland Presbyterian Church
                              Memphis, Tennessee


     The Black Death which ravaged Europe in 1347 and rapidly spread across 
the continent is estimated to have killed from one fourth to three fourths of 
the populations of the individual countries of the continent.  It is thought 
that the plague killed a total of up to twenty-five million people, a total of 
one fourth of the entire continent's population.  A popular theory of the 
origin of the disease was the belief that the Jews had poisoned the wells of 
Europe.  As a result of such thinking, Jews were massacred throughout the 
continent.  In one case, twelve-thousand were cruelly murdered in the hopes 
that the killing of the Jews would end the horrors of the Black Death.

     The time of the Black Death was, to say the least, chaotic and insane.  
When one considers that the medical knowledge at the time was minimal or non-
existent it becomes easier to understand the response of the people.

     In our age we have the best of medical technique and knowledge available 
to us, but we find our fears cause us to knee-jerk reactions rather than 
thoughtful analysis of the AIDS situation.  

     When we consider the statistics given by the medical and scientific 
communities our fears increase.  As of November 1986 it was estimated that 1.5 
million Americans were infected with the AIDS virus and 15,000 had died from 
its devastation.  AIDS deaths by 1991 are projected to total 180,000.  It is 
more frightening when one realizes that as time passes the occurrence of AIDS 
outside the "high risk" groups of homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers is 
increasing.  The percentage of heterosexual cases has risen from one percent 
to four percent in recent months. (1)

     The guarded projections about the future spread of the disease are even 
more frightening.  In 1985 there were 19,081 cases and it is projected that 
for 1988 there will be over 91,000 cases.  The outlook for the United States 
in 1991 passes the quarter-million mark. (2)

     The disease is not limited to the United States.  It is believed that up 
to 10 million people worldwide carry the AIDS virus and are potential victims.  
We must remember that there is a difference between carrying the virus and 
having AIDS in it's advanced stages, but as study continues and the years pass 
it is being discovered that a greater and greater percentage of the carriers 
of the HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) do come down with the disease.  
These 10 million victims represent about eighty nations that have reported 
AIDS cases. (3)

     It is believed that the AIDS virus originated in central Africa.  At the 
present time it is central Africa that is facing the greatest devastation by 
the disease.  The countries of Zaire, Uganda and Kenya are facing the pain of 
many of their citizens and loved ones dying from the virus.

     An article by Robert Bazell, science correspondent for NBC News, in the 
NEW REPUBLIC cites the destructive power of the plague.  Bazell estimates that 
the disease will kill millions in central Africa as it spreads in the coming 
years.  Bazell said, "In the six years I have been reporting AIDS, I never 
imagined it could become so horrible." (4)  Researchers in Kinshasa, Zaire 
report that one-fourth of the deaths in the city's main hospital are now from 
AIDS.  In Nairobi, Kenya scientists have watched the number of infected 
prostitutes climb from 4% in 1980 to more than 60% at the present. (5)  In 
1985 in Kinshasa, Zaire four cases of AIDS were being diagnosed every day and 
almost all were heterosexuals. (6)

     Why are statistics from Africa so important?  Because if Africa is where 
the virus originated it means Africa has a longer history with the disease and 
more years for the progress of its devastation.  In other words, what we now 
see in the African nations is a picture of what may await the United States 
and other nations if the spread of the disease progresses unchecked.

     It is necessary for us to understand what we can about the way the virus 
is transmitted.  The present medical opinion is that it is transmitted in 
three ways:  intimate contact, contaminated blood, and to children born to 
infected mothers.  We also know that the virus is not only present in the 
blood but in secretions, saliva, sweat, tears and various body tissues 
including the brain and skin. (7)

     When medical doctors or research scientists give us information about 
AIDS they will inevitably qualify their findings with statements like, "as is 
known at this time," or "according to our present research."  Medicine, like 
any other science, is based on research, statistics and experimentation.  If 
the information available tells us the disease is only transmitted in the 
three previously mentioned ways it is on the basis of WHAT IS PRESENTLY KNOWN.  
What about the possibility that the evidence is deficient?  What if, since the 
virus is present in many body fluids, it can be transmitted through spit, 
tears or urine?  We should be careful to not conclude it is necessarily true 
the disease can be transmitted through these fluids but we better be sure it 
CANNOT if we are to say it cannot.

     What about something as simple as kissing?  When you kiss you are making 
contact with saliva and if you have bleeding gums or chapped lips, what then?  
One health professional has been honest about his lack of certainty in this 
area when he said, "I, and just about every health professional, would like to 
duck that topic.  (The topic of kissing as a way of transmission.)  Designate 
kissing as a transmitter and, deep panic, all human association will carry a 
sudden deductible clause." (8)  There is a hesitancy among some in the health 
care community to eliminate kissing as a possible way of transmission.

     It could be that some of the responses to AIDS seen today are plain old 
superstition or reactions based on fear and not fact.  In the case of Rock 
Hudson we find that the nurses who attended him while in France burned their 
garments and destroyed the utensils he ate with. (9)  If the French nurses 
attending Rock Hudson acted in such an extremely cautious manner, it might be 
appropriate for all who have contact with AIDS victims to take more caution.  
It would be tragic for us to discover in the future that AIDS is transmitted 
in more casual ways than the three previously listed.  The tragedy would be 
that we were not as cautious with this deadly disease which is admitted to be 
a unique virus by the medical professionals.

     AIDS is a disease of utter devastation and destruction.  We have all 
viewed the news reports showing victims with a drawn appearance, bleary eyes, 
and a body covered with sores.  It is a pitiable condition.  The destruction, 
though, goes beyond the ones infected and touches family, friends, fellow 
workers and society in general.  In one case, an American soldier stationed in 
Africa in the late 1970's made use of the services of a prostitute.  On 
returning home to the States he married and fathered three children.  At age 
37, about ten years after his African tour of duty, he developed AIDS and 
died.  His widow and their fifteen month old toddler are severely ill with 
AIDS.  The older two children show no infection. (10)  The disease is rapidly 
spread through illicit physical contact and the result in most cases is death 
and destruction that reaches beyond the one originally infected.

     Another case involved chief warrant officer Martin Gaffney of the United 
States Marines.  He is suing the Navy for 55 million dollars alleging that its 
doctors botched the care given Gaffney's wife during her first pregnancy.  
Gaffney himself is suffering from AIDS and his 13 month old son died last 
summer from the disease.  The first child died in the womb during the mother's 
complicated pregnancy in 1981 and it was at the time that Gaffney's wife, 
Mutsuko, received two units of blood, one of which was AIDS contaminated.  The 
second child born in 1983 was not infected with the virus, but the third born 
in 1985 was the one who died at 13 months of age.  This is a real tragedy 
especially in light of the fact that the victims were not infected through 
promiscuity, as the G.I. in the previous example, but through receiving 
contaminated blood. (11)

     Fear is good when it makes us aware of danger.  To be afraid of fire, 
electricity or power tools makes us more cautious when we use these forces.  
Fear of AIDS is healthy, but we should direct our fear in a proper manner.  
This kind of disease could easily bring rampant paranoia and emotional strain 
(if it hasn't already).  The fear factor has been influential in all areas of 
our society.  "The Episcopal Bishop of California, for example, recently 
issued a pastoral letter in response to the fears of parishioners that they 
could get AIDS from drinking Communion wine from a common cup.  In his letter 
Bishop William Swing said he would not prohibit the use of the common cup.  
However he urged 'pastoral understanding' for those who choose not to drink 
from it." (12)  Is it unreasonable for a person to not want to drink from a 
common cup in light of AIDS?  It seems good to me to be cautious in the light 
of what is not known about AIDS. 

     With ever increasing numbers of AIDS cases occuring, it is correlative 
that the economic cost will rise as well.  It is estimated by one study that 
health care costs for AIDS patients will run between eight and sixteen billion 
dollars in 1991. (13)  As the cases increase the long term hospital stays will 
increase as the patients face sure death from the disease.  The figures 
mentioned are not comprehensive in that they do not include the financial 
loses arising from the lost employment of the ill nor the costs to family and 
friends as they personally care for the victims.

     AIDS is not only a national problem but a world disaster.  As Christian 
citizens of the United States we should be doing what we can to see that our 
governing bodies do their duties as the protectors of the population.  We have 
heard about the danger of AIDS and we know our own concerns firsthand.  It has 
been argued that the main issue in the 1988 elections will not be Iran-gate, 
nor the budget deficit, nor defense spending, but AIDS.  The NATIONAL REVIEW 
reported, "Four specific issues are emerging (for 1988 elections):  AIDS 
instruction in the public schools, AIDS testing, AIDS quarantining, and 
federal funds for AIDS research and treatment." (14)  In the light of the 
nation's concern in this area we find that our government is doing little about 
protecting the uninfected citizens or our nation.  What we find instead is 
concern for the rights of the AIDS carriers.

     The Department of Health and Human Services charged the Charlotte 
Memorial Hospital with discrimination when it fired and AIDS carrying male 
nurse.  The charge was based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or 
activity that receives federal funds.  It was argued that the nurse could have 
been transferred to a unit in which his AIDS would have not been as great a 
threat to patients. (15)  Is there any such location in any hospital?  Nurses 
change bandages on open wounds.  They come in contact with the mouth, eyes, 
nasal passages, and excretory system.  A small cut on the nurse's hand could 
transmit the disease.  Is this protecting the rights of the majority, or is it 
catering to the desires of a special interest group whose lobbying is more 
effective than that of the majority?

     What should our government do?  Should the present inaction continue or 
should we lobby for action to protect our families?

     One article expresses the problem well, "The responses of governments and 
public agencies to the threat to mankind from the rapid spread of AIDS and its 
related diseases have been dangerously and perhaps fatally inadequate.  On the 
one hand, they want to prevent the disease from becoming one of the biggest 
killers man has known.  On the other, they are over anxious to avoid offending 
high risk groups or arousing unreasonable discrimination against known 
carriers of the disease.  They are allowing an understandable sensitivity to 
the rights and feelings of minorities to outweigh their higher duty to protect 
the lives of all their citizens." (16)  Christopher Monckton goes on to call 
for:  monthly testing for AIDS and the quarantining of known AIDS carriers 
from the uninfected population.  It seems to me that monthly testing of the 
entire population of, in Monckton's case, Great Britain is a logistic 
nightmare and would be a financial and social disaster.  If we were to expand 
this ideas to the United States the problems would be four to five times 
greater.  The idea of quarantining, though, may become necessary in the light 
of the potential danger to the world.

     The purpose of quarantining is to protect the mass of the population 
from contracting the disease.  Through history the quarantine has been used 
to protect people from cholera, leprosy, and tuberculosis.  We find the basis 
for the quarantine in Scripture in Leviticus 13:46 where we see that the 
person tested for leprosy and found contagious should "dwell alone."  Some 
might argue that AIDS is not transmitted as easily as leprosy, tuberculosis or 
cholera, which on the basis of present knowledge about AIDS is true.  The 
danger of contracting the disease from casual contact may not be a real one, 
but the danger of purposefully being given the disease is very real.

     Those that argue against the use of quarantining AIDS carriers say the
"quarantining will help no one.  Most AIDS patients are too sick to be 
transmitting the virus.  The virus is being spread largely by people who do 
not have AIDS but are infected with the virus, and they may or may not even 
know it.  Quarantining would be totally futile." (17)  Maybe the main problem 
is the unknown carrier, but does that mean the known carrier should be running 
free to infect the population?  In an incident in Birmingham, Alabama a 26 
year old AIDS carrier intentionally threw rocks at a young woman and spit on 
the woman's infant child. (18)  One homosexual dying of AIDS has said: "There 
has come the idea that if research money is not forthcoming at a certain level 
by a certain date, all gay males should give blood...whatever action is 
required to get national attention is valid.  If that includes blood 
terrorism, so be it." (19)  Most recently, a man who had purchased the 
services of a prostitute woke up the next morning to find scrawled on the room 
mirror in lipstick, "Welcome to AIDS."  The man had been intentionally 
infected by the woman as he sinned with her.

     In the light of such militant and hateful actions, is it unreasonable to 
require AIDS carriers to be quarantined?  The quarantine is not a means of 
oppressing the diseased, but a means of protecting the public.  "Throughout 
history true humanitarianism has traditionally involved the compassionate but
firm segregation of those afflicted with communicable diseases from the world.
By carrying out such a policy, diseases have been contained." (20)

     It is argued that getting AIDS has nothing to do with who you are in 
terms of race or sexual orientation.  It is said it is not who you are, but 
what you do that brings the infection. (21)  To a degree this is true, but our 
society is increasingly being victimized by those who DID do something.  The 
innocent victims who received the virus through blood transfusions, or the 
medical technicians and nurses who contracted the virus through open cuts that 
were exposes to AIDS infected blood, the innocent children born to AIDS 
infected parents, or the women assaulted by AIDS carrying men did not do 
anything other than be unwilling victims.  Marital fidelity has been under 
attack since the Fall of Eden and it seems that those who are promiscuous do 
not care if they infect the obedient.  Yes, "what you do" is a major factor, 
but those who have been involved in nothing are suffering the ravages of the 
disease as well. 

     The fight against the disease should be through the proclamation of 
marital fidelity and faithfulness to sexual activity as defined by the Word of 
God.  "Unless HIV (AIDS carriers) unknown subjects are tested and develop 
mutually faithful monogamous relationships with tested partners of similar HIV 
status, intercourse, even with condoms, will carry some risk of HIV 
transmission." (22)  The question arises here whether the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL 
OF MEDICINE sees monogamous to mean heterosexual marriage in fidelity or if 
monogamous is being used in a homosexual sense.  That is, the homosexuals 
should be tested and then remain "faithful" in their perverted living.  I 
think the language is ambiguous on purpose.  This article does point out that 
the only safe sex for heterosexuals is that limited to the bounds of marriage.

     In a recent publication the author tells of a "safe sex kit" that was 
made available to all Dartmouth University students during the winter term of 
1987.  The author describes the unbelievable contents of this "kit" which are 
intended to protect people from AIDS.  The instructive brochure enclosed with 
the kit mentions heterosexual practice in passing, but it is obvious the kit 
is intended to reach homosexuals.  In the Dartmouth kit and literature there 
was no mention of abstinence, only the instructions concerning the use of the 
mechanical devices enclosed. (23)

     There is no doubt that the society we live in is extremely promiscuous 
and adulterous in the way it lives.  Man continues to stand in the face of God 
and shake his fist proclaiming, "I will do it any way but God's way!"  
Homosexuality, adultery, and perverse practices are sin.  This raises the 
question that is common in the Christian community: "Is AIDS a judgment from 
God?"  What is usually meant by this question is, did God specifically send 
AIDS to judge the promiscuity of the human race?

     In order to understand this issue we must understand the nature of sin.  
Sin has contaminated all of creation.  This does not mean that all creation is 
evil, but that evil has made a mark on what exists.  We can enjoy a beautiful 
flower and then we must bend to pull the weed from its base.  Disease is a 
result of sin.  The flu, cancer, pneumonia, etc. are here because of sin.  In 
the eternal state we read in the book of Revelation, "And God shall wipe away 
all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, 
nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are 
passed away" (21:4).  The affliction of the body is here because of sin, 
whether it is the "sweat of the brow" in laboring for a living, or the painful 
death of cancer.  So, disease in general is here because we are sinners living 
in a sinful world. 

     I think that Christians need to be very careful about calling anything a 
judgment from God.  It is tragic that Christians sometimes, with the best 
intentions, counsel one another and blame each other's problems on a sin that 
was committed.  It is true we "reap what we sow," but not all we reap can be 
traced back to some particular sin.  We cannot forget that for the Christian, 
"...all things work together for good to them that love God..." (Romans 8:25).  
The Christian needs to see the Lord's forgiveness and blessing and not get 
hung-up on "judgment from God" ideas in his life, nor should the Christian be 
ready to jump on an evangelical bandwagon and call every natural disaster and 
epidemic a venting of the wrath of God.

     With the preceding in mind we need to look at the AIDS epidemic in the 
light of Scripture.  In the book of Revelation, chapters 5-11, we read the 
apocalyptic language describing the pattern of human history.  From the seals 
and trumpets we know that history is marked by times of famine, death, 
destruction and drought.  The Apocalypse displays the purpose of these events 
is to bring people to repentance.  When the Black Plague fell on Europe it was 
an instrument of God to convict the people of their sin and need for 
fellowship with Him.  When the tornado strikes and loved ones die, the purpose 
of the tragedy is to bring the victims, family, and friends to the Lord.  So, 
is the AIDS epidemic a judgment from God?  In one sense no one can answer this 
question absolutely because no one knows the mind of the Lord, but in another 
sense we can say yes, God is judging the sin or promiscuity with the intent of 
bringing the elect to repentance and the reprobate to destruction.

     If AIDS is a judgment in this sense then how should the Christian respond 
to AIDS victims?  We should recognize that when the drug addict or homosexual 
feels guilt as a result of his disease it is because of his sin.  In one 
example a homosexual "minister" in Chicago acknowledged in TIME magazine that 
people intellectually don't buy the idea of "God's judgment," but in their 
feelings and emotions there is guilt and conviction. (24)  AIDS, like cancer, 
a death in the family, a lost job, or a home lost in a fire, can be a tool to 
bring people to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus.

     Should we be concerned to see strenuous efforts made to find a cure for 
AIDS?  Some would say that if AIDS is a judgement from God we better not 
interfere. (25)  I doubt that the same group would argue against ministering 
to the alcoholic or drug abuser, even though, like the AIDS victim, these are 
suffering the results of their sin in their bodies.  The plagues and problems 
of life are a result of our condition as sinners, but at the same time we are 
to fight these difficulties as we "fill the earth and subdue it."  For a 
Christian organization or individual to be against AIDS research is as wrong 
as not stopping to help the beaten man in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

     It is difficult to maintain a balance between recognizing that a person 
is ill because of their sin and rebellion, and being willing to show 
compassion and the ministry of the Word to that person.  In the case of AIDS 
as in alcoholism, prostitution, child abuse, or drug addiction, the Christian 
must be willing to minister to those in need.

     Another side of the AIDS epidemic is to see that the disease has changed 
people's behavior to conform more to the Bible.  Some have come to the Lord, 
but many who lived promiscuously have cleaned up their private lives.  In 
Nevada, where prostitution is legal, health officials say patronage of the 
local houses has been off as much as 40% since the publicity about AIDS began.  
In Japan the drop has been more dramatic in some cases as business has 
dropped up to 90%. (26)  AIDS shows the world that if you step out of God's 
defined biblical bounds of marriage and sin in promiscuity you will reap that 
which was sown.


                               CLOSING THOUGHTS

     What should concerned Christians do about this disease?  It is the kind 
of situation which breeds deep feelings of helplessness, but I believe there 
are courses of action believers can take.

     1.  It has been proposed by President Reagan that immigrants seeking to 
enter our country be tested for the AIDS virus and denied entrance if found to 
be contaminated.  This is a good move toward the protection of the citizens of 
the nation.

     2.  Support the efforts of those proposing AIDS testing for marriage 
licenses.  If people are tested for other social diseases prior to the issuing 
of a marriage license, why not such a deadly disease as AIDS?

     3.  Though it may be distasteful we must consider the use of the 
quarantine to protect the population from the AIDS carriers who intentionally 
seek to infect the nation and the world.

     4.  Support efforts to tell the public that the only "safe sex" is in the 
monogamous marriage as God has ordained.  In an article in the JOURNAL OF THE 
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL SOCIETY, Joe S. McIlhaney Jr. M.D., makes the point that it 
is the duty of Christian physicians to tell their patients infected with the 
various venereal diseases, including AIDS, that their illness is a result of 
promiscuity.  The author states further that Doctors should tell their 
patients that abstinence is the only "safe sex." (27)

     5.  Support efforts to find a cure for AIDS.

     6.  Remember that the presence of AIDS in anyone, whether homosexual, 
drug addict, hemophiliac, or victim of a contaminated blood transfusion may be 
the tool the Lord will use to bring His sheep to the fold.

     7.  In the midst of the terrors of the Black Plague of the early 
fourteenth century both victims and the uninfected were looking for someone to 
blame.  One of the solutions seen as viable was the alleged plot by the Jews 
to contaminate the drinking water of Europe.  It is inherent in man's nature 
that he will always look for someone "to pass the buck to" or someone to 
become a scapegoat.  Homosexuals and drug abusers are the primary groups that 
carry the HIV and develop AIDS.  It may be the feeling of our society that 
such people "get what they deserve," or there may be indifference about AIDS 
because it is seen to be the disease of homosexuals and addicts.  It is 
important for the Christian that he not find a scapegoat to vent his anti-AIDS 
wrath against.  There is always the danger of developing the mentality that 
killed the Jews during the Black Plague.  Homosexuality is sin.  Adultery is 
sin.  Prostitution is sin.  We must learn to look past the actions of the 
sinful heart and see the need of the homosexual, addict, or prostitute to be 
redeemed by Christ.

                                 ------------                  

1.  "A Dose of Straight Talk of AIDS," U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 11/3/86,p8.
2.  "AIDS, At the Dawn of Fear," U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 1/12/87, p61.
3.  ibid, p64.
4.  "NBC's Bazell Claims AIDS Is Devastating Central Africa," WORLD, 5/25/87, 
     p4.
5.  ibid, p4.
6.  "AIDS: A Growing Pandemic?," NEWSWEEK, 4/29/85, p71.
7.  Barnes, Deborah M.,"Grim Projections for AIDS Epidemic," SCIENCE, V. 232, 
    6/86, p1590.
8.  Mano, Keith, "AIDS Update," NATIONAL REVIEW, 2/14/86, p60.
9.  "The AIDS Question," NATIONAL REVIEW, Universal Press Syndicate, 10/18/85, 
    p63.
10. "AIDS: At the Dawn of Fear," U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 1/12/87, p60.
11. LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER, 6/8/87, pA-2.
12. Frame, Randy, "The Church's Response to AIDS," CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 
    11/22/85, p51.
13. Barnes, p1589.
14. McLaughlin, John,"AIDS in '88," NATIONAL REVIEW, 5/8/87, p24.
15. LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER, 8/9/86.
16. Monckton, Christopher, "AIDS: A British View,"  THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, 
    1/87, p29.
17. "Quarantining Will Help No One," U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 1/12/87, p70.
18. "AIDS Carrier Accused of Spitting on Baby," THE MIAMI HERALD, 3/5/87, pA-
    31.
19. Provan, Charles, M.D., "A Doctor Warns of the AIDS Plague," CONSERVATIVE 
    DIGEST, 2/87, p31.
20. Restak, Richard, "Society's Survival, Then Victim's Rights," CONSERVATIVE 
    DIGEST, 2/87, p31.
21. "AIDS: At the Dawn of Fear," p62.
22. Goedert, James J., "What is Safe Sex," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V. 
    316, No. 21, 5/21/87, p1341.
23. Hart, Jeffrey, "Safe Sex and the Presence of the Absence," NATIONAL 
    REVIEW, 5/8/87, pp43,62.
24. Miller, C. John, "AIDS: The Gay 80's," ETERNITY, 11/86, p16.
25. Frame, p50.
26. "Fear of AIDS Chills Sex Industry," U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 2/16/87, 
    p25. 
27. McIlhaney, Joe S., Jr., M.D., "Here's What a Christian Physician Can Do 
    About Sexually Transmitted Diseases," JOURNAL OF THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL 
    SOCIETY, V. 13, No. 1, Winter '87, pp26-30.


                                    THE END

