Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea Diocese of Port Moresby

Although this segment in your programme tells you I will be providing the Church's Perspective, I must, in all honesty make it clear that I cannot promise THE Church's perspective, only MY Church's perspective. I am the Anglican Bishop of Port Moresby. I cannot speak for the other Christian denominations. We are just one part of the Church of God, one church if you will among the many.

Herein lies the first challenge for Christian people in Papua New Guinea, to find a way of speaking with one voice when there are so many different denominations, each with its own emphasis and discipline. Even if I attempt to describe the Anglican perspective on HIV/AIDS I must admit I do so with limitations. It is in the nature of Anglicanism that it respects individuality, and one often feels that the Anglican Communion is a gathering together of unlike-minded people committed to working together despite their differences. Defining Anglican doctrine is a little bit like catching a wet bar of soap, it demands patience, persistence and a firm grasp of priorities, but it is worth the effort in the end.

So, with all these limitations in mind, let me dare to present, not THE Church Perspective, but more accurately A Church Perspective.

In common with the other denominations, Anglicans must deal with the question Why. How is primarily the Scientist's question. Why is the basic question of all major religions. If we are to be true to our nature we must ask Why the HIV/AIDS pandemic has struck our world now.

I make no apologies if what I am about to say seems somewhat academic to start with. For the Churches to speak to this situation with a common voice we need to have a common understanding. At present we do not have that.

There are really two main positions or schools of thought within our Faith Community.

One school regards HIV/AIDS as a judgment from God on those who have disobeyed His Divine Law. They will cite the Scriptures, stories of God's punishment of mankind at the time of the Flood, at the Destruction of the Temple and Exile, perhaps most significantly they will point to the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. God does not change they will say. If He punished Sodom and Gomorrah, we should expect His punishment of us.

Others of us belong to a school of thought which regards this talk of punishment as misleading and unhelpful. I should come clean and tell you that, like most Anglicans I belong to this school. People like me will be at pains to point to the many other illnesses that afflict mankind, Malaria, Cancer and Tuberculosis for instance, or Malnutrition come to that, and say that if HIV/AIDS is a punishment from God, then these many other illnesses would also have to be explained as God's punishment. The starving millions would have only themselves to blame. In relation to HIV/AIDS we would point out the injustice of a god who punished unborn children of infected parents, the faithful spouses of unfaithful partners and the rape victim for the sins committed AGAINST them.

These two schools of thought can seem very similar at first glance, but in fact represent opposed points of view. We must be honest and admit that there is a deep-rooted division amongst the churches and within them, over this issue. It strikes deep at the heart of our understanding of God. Is He a God who punishes the innocent for the sins of others?

This is not merely academic. The quality of care we show to those who live with HIV/AIDS is directly affected by our attitude to them.
If we see them as sinners getting the punishment they deserve, then the care we offer is qualitatively different and the ability of those infected and their families to accept help will be impaired.

On the other hand, if our perspective as Christians responding to HIV/AIDS is that our all being God's children bearing one another's burdens in a spirit of Love, God himself working with us, then the care we give those living with HIV/AIDS is enhanced beyond measure. Their freedom to accept assistance without loss of dignity is also enhanced.

Let me give one example of what I consider false or flawed theology and how it can add to the problems of HIV/AIDS, albeit with the best of intentions. There are those who claim that they have been healed of HIV/AIDS through the laying on of hands in a prayer meeting. A person considering himself healed in this way is unlikely to seek confirmation of that fact by a blood test. Such so-called 'healing' takes place in the belief that the infected person is suffering as a result of sin, and that faith opening the channels by which God's grace can flow, brings with it forgiveness. Forgiveness, on this understanding, brings release from the consequence of the sin, in this case, HIV/AIDS. To go for a blood test would be to doubt the fact of the healing, and so to invite a return of the sickness. On the same reasoning, a person who has had sex outside marriage, or with a partner of the same gender may feel guilty about it, confess and seek forgiveness. Assured of that forgiveness they may well not have a test they should have had. On this logic, the person will say, "I have sinned. I have been forgiven. God will not punish me with HIV now, so I do not need to test. Sex with my spouse is all right. God approves of that." It is a quite respectable point of view doctrinally. Many people would accept it. They are the same people who believe Homosexuality is a sinful state from which a person can be delivered by prayer.

Are not the dangers of this position obvious? IF the person was genuinely infected by HIV then all the evidence points to there being no easy solution. IF an HIV Positive person has a spiritual experience, and believes themselves healed, but takes no measure to verify that fact, then there is every chance that they will infect others. Let me make it very clear, I am a great believer in miracles and especially miracles of healing but I know of no medically proven case of miraculous healing of HIV/AIDS. There is plenty of hearsay, I know of no proven case. What I have seen, over and over again, are People Living With HIV/AIDS whose faith has been renewed and for whom the miracle is no "quick-fix" instant healing, but the strength to meet each new day knowing God walks beside them.

He does not take their Cross away, but He helps them carry it.

The problem we are facing is really too serious for sloppy theology, and sentimental wishful thinking.
Lest you think I am sniping at other denominations, a nasty preaching habit, let me come clean and tell you that I have even seen Anglicans wearing tee-shirts with the slogan, 'HIV/AIDS - Jesus is the only vaccine.'

I repeat, what we believe about God is not just an academic matter. It affects our attitudes, that affects how we treat people, all people and not least people living with HIV/AIDS.

I think we would all agree that, in this country the Church has a tremendous power to influence opinion, but if our theology is narrow and judgmental that power will be damaging instead of healing. Get the theology right and our Churches become our most powerful ally in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

I would want to say to my fellow-Christians that the language of punishment is all right as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. We are in error if we attribute the suffering of the individual to that individual's personal sinfulness. That understanding of God belongs in the primal stage of religious belief. In the teachings of Christ we find a more developed understanding. It is the sinful state of all mankind that allows sickness and suffering to abound. Those who suffer worst are by no means those who deserve it most. Look at Jesus' words at John 9:1-4 for instance. Because we have the corporate responsibility for the sinfulness of our World we share too the God-given duty to fight against disease and prejudice. As an Anglican I believe it to be true that the sinfulness of the human species has terrible consequences for Planet earth and all living creatures upon it, but I reject with every fibre of my being a view of God that has him gloating over the misery we cause ourselves. God is not penalizing us for disobedience, but through the Church he does warn us that our behaviour for good or ill has consequences which we must live with. An analogy might be the difference between a parent who slaps a child for playing in the road (Saying in effect "I am punishing you for disobedience") this is the kind of god some Christians believe in. My view of God is that he is like the parent who warns a child that playing in the road can damage your health!

We know that the teaching of the Church, for centuries has been that sexual intercourse belongs in the context of a loving marriage, to be shared between people who care about each other and are faithful to each other. The Church has taught consistently that adultery is wrong. It has taught that infidelity, promiscuity and de-personalized sexual activity is bad for people. It must be acknowledged that HIV/AIDS would not have happened if Christian teachings had been adhered to. We live with the consequences--- all of us do. All of us live with the consequences. It is not God punishing us, it is life doing what it always does and following the rules even when we ignore them to our peril.

If we gave medical research and care our priority instead of nuclear weaponry we could eliminate malaria, cancer and tuberculosis. Malnutrition is a direct consequence of financial greed and injustice in the allocation of resources and skills. If our population is decimated by HIV/AIDS that will be one consequence of the terrible sin we commit by ignoring this disease, or sitting in judgement on its victims. You see what I mean? Sin carries its own consequences, and the sin of smug self-righteousness is one of the most dangerous sins of all. Corruption in Government leads to impoverished medical care and the explosion of disease and early death. The fight against HIV/AIDS is a fight against injustice, prejudice and complacency. And the Church's place is on the side of the victim against those evils within our society. If we fail in this, as we have often failed before, the consequences will be immeasurable.

So, where does my Church stand?

I believe the Anglican Church has a very distinctive contribution to make, but one which I hope will have benefits for other churches too.

How is this expressed in practical terms?

In my own Diocese of Port Moresby, much of our work on HIV/AIDS and related problems is through our Anglicare organization and its StopAIDS programme, Here is something I wrote last year on behalf of that organization

As an organisation our intention is primarily to express Christian concern through practical assistance to those who suffer. This concern we share with many other Christians, not just the Anglicans. However, we believe we have an advantage over many of the other churches in that our Church has no prohibition against most methods of contraception. This means that it is quite acceptable for us to recommend the use of condoms as a defence against contracting disease with the full backing and support of the Church authorities

There is also an advantage in Anglican ministerial style. By its nature, the Anglican Communion is very inclusive, able to contain within itself a membership of very varied viewpoints and customs. The style of the Anglican Communion is to exercise compassion rather than condemnation, humility in service rather than condescension and preferring to include rather than exclude others. I believe this way of working suits an Anglican organization's work with AIDS victims, who need reassurance that they are accepted on equal terms, as people who need help, not as sinners to be judged by others.

A great advantage of undertaking HIV/AIDS Prevention from an Anglican viewpoint is that Anglicans understand the Gospel to be concerned for the whole person. We are concerned for the soul, the mind and the heart as well as for the body. We do not treat medical conditions, we treat people.

Because we are all of us fallible human beings needing to help each other deal with life's problems, we try to treat the people we serve with respect remembering that to serve another person is to serve Jesus Himself.

Anglican teaching does not prohibit the use of most prophylactic methods. It should be said that many Anglicans disapprove of Abortion on ethical grounds. Methods of pregnancy control that involve termination of pregnancy, such as inter-uterine devices that prevent implantation, are in a "grey area" ethically, and opinion is divided. However, on the prevention of conception occurring our position is very clear. It is a matter of conscience for the couple themselves as to whether they use contraception, which method they find most appropriate and when they should discontinue its use.

Anglicans share with other Christian denominations the belief that sexual intercourse is meant to be in the context of a loving relationship which is both permanent and caring. We believe Marriage is the right and proper place for such a relationship to be expressed. Realistically, we accept that many people have sex outside Marriage, and indeed much of that sex is simply promiscuous in that no deeper relationship of mind and heart is involved. This runs counter to the Church's discipline, but we would still be concerned for those who endangered themselves and others this way. Consequently, as a Church we entirely endorse the position, "It would be better if you avoided sex with someone you do not know, but if you feel you must have sex then use a condom."

Anglicare Port Moresby does not evangelize for the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea in the narrow sense. We seek to serve anyone regardless of their personal faith or ethnic background, regardless of their bank balance or lack of it, without prejudice on grounds of status or creed. We respect the rights of all people to believe as they wish. We believe all people have a right to make their own choices about their lifestyle, whether we agree with their choices or not. Whatever people may decide, we protect their right to choose for themselves. We serve because of our Anglican beliefs not theirs.

In conclusion, please let me dare to say a few things to other Christian denominations. I do not presume to speak for you, but I am immensely grateful for the wonderful work that so many Christians of all the major denominations are doing in the battle against HIV/AIDS. I have spoken of the Anglican contribution, I know you too have your distinctive gifts to share.

On a personal level I have a special admiration for the contribution being made by the Roman Catholic Church, knowing that since the Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae the many Roman Catholics doing heroic work in the care of those living with HIV/AIDS do not have the freedom to encourage the use of condoms. That they continue to do such good work despite that problem is a shining example to us all. The problem of HIV/AIDS has arisen since that encyclical was written. I hope and pray that the Pope will review the ruling in the light of this new situation, and perhaps in the future it will be possible for the use of condoms in the prevention of illness to be permitted, not for the purpose of contraception but for the prevention of disease. The principle of "secondary effect" may be one that will prove helpful in this regard. Meanwhile, thank you for your example of loving Christian care in such difficult circumstances.

To all my brothers and sisters I say, there is one practical measure you can undertake. There are wonderful, helpful courses being run by organizations like Anglicare in collaboration with the National AIDS Council, in HIV/AIDS Awareness and specialized Counselling in that field. If you have not undertaken such a course, it need not cost you a toea, but you will find it time well spent, and will help you to minister so much more effectively. By God's grace there are those who can help us learn about the disease, and show us what we can do to help win the battle.

Let us continue to pray with one another.