WOULD JESUS HAVE APPROVED OF CONDOMS?

(dialogue between Miss Wairimu Kangara and Mr. Reuben Kigame)

The following article appeared in one of Kenya’s leading Dailies. Below it, find Mr. Kigame’s response.

Daily Nation/ Friday, January 14, 2005
OPINION page 9

AIDS: A CHRISTIAN VIEW
By S. Wairimu Kangara

Would Jesus Have Approved of Condoms?

If in Kenya today the condom is not relevant to the fundamentals of Christian life, I don’t know what is.

Using a condom is not a sin; neglecting to us one definitely is. Since our society is fast breaking under the yoke of rapid HIV infections, one must ask, where is God? Where is Christianity?

Jesus taught the love of God for humanity (God gave his only son, He is on your side), salvation (all have sinned and fallen short), repentance, forgiveness and discipline (you are forgiven, go and sin no more) and social responsibility (love thy neighbour as yourself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you).

Can condom use in any way help illustrate these principles? Might Jesus have distributed condoms as easily as he commissioned the distribution of five loaves of bread and two fish for the masses?

Like a good doctor, he allowed close contact and deep appreciation of a tax collector perched on a tree, offering to eat at his house. what do you think he would have done had he found a pack of Trust condoms in the fellow’s kitchen? Would he have still eaten at the house?

Denial of Humanity
An end to Christian arrogance –the discomfort we feel talking about sexuality and solving related problems- has found its most significant expression in the stigma associated with Aids.

It is so powerful that, it is in effect, a denial of the humanity of the infected and unaffected alike. Fear has bred arrogance. Yet, sexuality was always implicated in most of what Jesus did.

Picture Mary telling Joseph about her conception by the Holy Spirit and picture the look on Joseph’s face. Picture the many references to adultery and adulterous characters embraced by Jesus and given hope in this life and the next.

Jesus did not fear sexuality and sex talk and neither should we. Let he who has not sinned fear sex talk and be the one to cast the first stigma!

Condom use can symbolize our need for salvation and repentance, discipline and social responsibility. Condoms are not the anti-thesis of faith, but faith’s reinforcement.

If in a moment of adultery or fornication one has the presence of mind to reach out for a condom, they probably are better candidates for abstinence than not. For abstinence and monogamy in marriage require that important characteristic – presence and clarity of mind about one’s actions are sinful or not.

Condom use encourages responsibility and responsibility triggers the thought process necessary to create moral uprightness.

A culture of protected sex is far more mature in the progression to godliness than a culture of unprotected sex. Self-preservation is an important civic virtue that is consistent with Christian life.

The relevance of the condom to the Christian message is not that it should condone unauthorized intercourse, but that it should bring clarity to our thought process and enhance Christian responsibility.

It is customary for most Christian congregations to have a channel of expressing failings of the flesh and to confess sin to God and brethren. Clarity about sin leads to remorseful repentance.

Sometimes a friend will confess to having done something and you want to ask them “What were you thinking?” even as you embrace and comfort them in their remorse.

One such time is when a friend confesses to unprotected sex. Two sins here: one fornication/ adultery, and two, endangering the life of present or future partners. What would you rather deal with when you make a confession next – one or two sins?

Wouldn’t it be better if one can demonstrate that in the struggle with sin, one had the presence of mind to do some damage control – call it sin-control because unlike ordinary damage, sin does spin out of control fiercely and aggressively, affecting people near and far.

I know it does not make a difference to God that one person commits sin of unprotected fornication and the other of protected fornication. The spiritual consequences are the same.

The actual physical results are, however, different. Unprotected sex is not one but two. A congregation with more incidents of protected sex infidelity is healthier in real life than one with higher incidents of unprotected sex infidelity.

Both have work to do in establishing abstinence as the standard, but while that is a work in progress, the shepherd of the flock has a greater responsibility to keep the flock alive by encouraging “responsible sinfulness” – like you would encourage safe driving because one person crashes a car, but the fatalities could be multiple.

Aggressive Opportunistic Germs
We are in a country ravaged by rapid HIV infections in an environment of aggressive opportunistic germs that bring Aids on many quite prematurely.

We do not have a comprehensive ideology to tackle this killer because secular law cannot possibly legislate sexual behaviour, our suspicion of Western religion is grave, and our traditional values, long destroyed by colonialism and irresponsible capitalism, cannot serve us in out time of need.

I believe that there is not a greater power than the Christian message to combat the Aids crisis. It is time the church leadership in Kenya earnestly changed tactics to defeat Aids.

Where is God? God is right here with us asking the church to rise to maturity of faith and purpose required to defeat Aids.

That maturity requires Christians to “come down to earth”, leave their pulpits, and do the work of God, serve fellow men and women, go to the streets and by-streets and tell everyone that Aids can be defeated, the carnage can stop, that responsible sinfulness is a better starting point in the journey to salvation.

(wairimokangara@yahoo.com)

Sylvia Kangara is a lawyer and judge in the United States.

Nation : mailbox@nation.co.ke

RESPONSE (By Reuben Kigame)

Dear Miss Kangara,

RE: CHRISTIANITY, CONDOMS AND SEXUAL FREEDOM

I read your article in the Daily Nation of Friday, January 14 with both deep interest and great surprise. Sorry for joining this discussion late in view of my traveling schedule and a bit of limitation due to my visual handicap which necessitated that your article be read to me and then put in electronic form for me to re-read it using a speech programme. I thought, however, that I might give my response in writing with a view to discussing this and any other subsequent questions with you via email. I have also adopted the one-on-one approach because we can cover more ground than we would by having to pass through a series of editors who have, in any case, continued to give my articles a blackout.

Please consider what I have to say cordially and then keep the correspondence on this matter going, whether anybody joins us or not. I like to give credit where it is due, but, this time around I can only say thank you for being sincere in sharing your convictions.

Kindly tell me one thing though: Did the Nation really print what you submitted or did they edit it to what you did not intend for publication? In any case, let us go to your article as was published in the Nation.

I suggest we begin by defining Christianity as conformity to the teaching and character of Christ. I draw this from Matthew 28:19-20, which bears Jesus command to the Disciples to go into the whole world and make “disciples” … teaching them all He had taught them. We deduce here that the standard and content of Christianity are what Christ taught His disciples and commanded them to teach those who would believe as a result of their message. Christ Himself said that heaven and earth will pass away, but not His words (Luke 21:33). Anything that falls short of this standard is not Christianity, but mere opinion, and opinion is not, and should not be, the basis of any judgment where plain facts exist.

There arises, however, the question of what happens when we need to take a decision on specific subjects not directly addressed by Christ or His apostles who first spread the faith. From Christ, once again, we have direction. Before His ascension, He told His followers that He would leave them the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth. Notice the term “all” here; not just some of the truth. Jesus added that the Spirit would convict the world of sin, judgment and righteousness. Hence, regarding the necessity of condoms, a matter not directly addressed by Christ, we should at least ask ourselves whether our views are from the Spirit of God or not. Here, my immediate focus is on Him as the Spirit of truth, even though for our purpose, we must factor in His other quality as the Spirit of power (Acts 1:8). It is this fact which makes me contextualize Paul’s
Declaration that he, too, had the Spirit, when giving advice on marriage, separation and divorce to the Corinthians.

In your article you stated that “using a condom is not a sin; neglecting to use one definitely is.” You justify such condom use by pointing to the Kenyan society’s breaking under the rapid yoke of HIV infections. I am assuming that it disturbs you enough that many people are dying, and hence everything should be done to prevent them from such untimely deaths. If the use of condoms would stop innocent people from dying, it seems to me you are implying, then it is the Christian thing to do to prevent the innocent loss of life. Let me interject here and suggest that, for someone who loves the Lord as to believe in and follow Him, death is not really the worst thing that could happen. I am also taking it that when you talk about “sin” you mean disobedience to God’s divine law. This is the biblical usage of the term, and if you are going to say something is Christian or unchristian in this regard, it is the biblical usage we must fall back on. You have made a general statement to the effect that using a condom is not a sin, i.e. disobedience to the divine law of God, but that neglecting to use a condom is sin. If we are talking about the relevance of the condom to Christianity in Kenya in the face of HIV/AIDS, we cannot do without a qualification of your statement.

Before we qualify, however, let us mention here that the condom debate is not the heart of this discussion. Beyond your stated concerns is really the question of whether or not the unmarried should have sex. We may debate condoms ad infinitum, but the real issue is what Christians have taught about sexuality. The problem is not that you are unaware of the Christian position on this matter, but that you are unhappy with it. I think that you and all who keep pushing the Church of Jesus Christ to change her mind on sexuality know that God in the Scriptures has categorically outlawed sex outside marriage. It is this outlawing that you do not like and hence all the cacophony borne out of displeasure with God’s position on the matter. Here, unfortunately, you are face to face with God Himself on the question and not His ministers. It is not they who bring God’s law into being and, certainly, they cannot amend or repeal it.

The Church’s position on condom use has primarily remained that condoms are acceptable between two married people because they have to do with sex, which is permitted only between a husband and a wife. If one partner becomes unfaithful, there are Church measures to deal with this. Most congregations will advise that it would be the loving thing to do for the affected couple to use condoms in the face of HIV/AIDS. Right here is the qualification I mentioned earlier. Condom use is, therefore, not sinful between a husband and a wife. However, it is sinful, according to God, for the unmarried to use condoms not because they cannot use them when they get married, but because they are associated with doing what He says should not be done between an unmarried man and woman. The same prohibition extends to unfaithfulness in marriage as well. Part of the problem is that condom use in itself spells out two sub-problems: first there is the question of mistrust where sex is not enjoyed as God intended in the atmosphere of deep trust. Right here, I must say that a name such as “Trust” given to a condom brand is both misleading and contradictory. Trust condoms are only necessary because the users do not trust each other. Secondly, there is the issue of guilt. The unmarried who use condoms have a guilty conscience to deal with because anyone who reminds them of God’s prohibition of sex outside marriage is fought for being inhuman, naive or anti-establishment. They not only operate under the great fear of STDs but also pregnancy. This further minimizes the enjoyment of sex.

Miss Kangara, if people are going to have sex anyway, if they are going to use condoms anyway, then the Church should not be fought for saying they should not. Once we begin to discuss whether the Church should echo God’s law prohibiting sex outside marriage, then those who fight the Church in this way display the fact that they are guilty and that nobody should make them feel guilty. If it were all ok, then nobody would be discussing the matter.

I think the questions, “Where is God?” and “Where is Christianity” just because people are dying from disobeying God’s laws on the matter, are out of place, when it is God and Christianity the critics of biblical sexuality actually fight. Yes, Jesus taught the love of God for humanity, but true love is not measured by erotic stimuli but by sacrificial commitment. Sacrifice may include giving up sex until you are married. God never said you shall not have sex. Just like you lawyers prohibit those undergoing pupilage from judging court cases until they become judges, so does God say sex is judged most responsible in the marriage context. You do not provide legal exceptions to allow them to. It is not because they cannot sit at the bench. If you provided the exceptions, they might, but it is not right and it would mock the entire legal fraternity. Jesus also taught salvation and repentance, indeed, but who of those clamouring for free condom use want to heed the words of Jesus on sexuality? Are they not instead interested in blurring the distinctions between what is sinful and what is not? Even in matters of social responsibility, the truest biblical expression of the love for neighbour and doing to others what you would like them to do to you, is realized in reducing the worth of a person to how much sensual gratification he/she gets. True humanity consists of living as bearers of the image of God and not as helpless victims of sexual stimulation. Condom use does not provide a good analogy let alone an illustration of the above principles. On the contrary it illustrates one of the highest abuses of them.

“Might Jesus have distributed condoms as easily as he commissioned the distribution of five loaves of bread and two fish for the masses?”, you asked. I think not. When He performed this miracle, He was not on a feeding but teaching assignment. Abstinence from sex outside marriage would have perfectly fitted His teaching on this occasion. Bread and fish were what the masses needed to meet their real need for food. If they did not eat they would faint and die. If somebody abstains from having sex until they get married they will not die. On the contrary, people may use condoms and still die, even from HIV/AIDS.

“Like a good doctor, he allowed close contact and deep appreciation of a tax collector perched on a tree, offering to eat at his house. What do you think he would have done had he found a pack of Trust condoms in the fellow’s kitchen? Would he have still eaten at the house?” Here you are confusing two issues: Love for the sinner versus the condoning of sinful practices, or the encouragement of such sin. Jesus loved Zachaeus redemptively as He did the woman caught in adultery. He did not go to Zachaeus’ house to help him steal safely for the reason that he was a helpless tax misappropriater. This is the mistake many people make when dealing with things that touch a guilty conscience. They misread biblical passages or accord to them clandestine applications to justify what even the Scriptures themselves prohibit. If what they insinuate should be driven to its logical conclusions, then rapists should be issued with Trust condoms to help them not infect the victims. Stealing should be decriminalized and corruption in Kenya accepted as a vice we just cannot deal with. If in Zachaeus’s case we were dealing with sexual infidelity as for Jesus to find Trust condoms at his house, then, certainly, Zachaeus would have been repenting of that infidelity with the same passion he did forsake his monetary exploits to the point of practical repentance involving restitution. Jesus and His followers to this day still reach out to the sidelined of the society. It is so easy today for the media to shout that the Church falls short in this area, but quite uncommon to recognize what countless pastors, Christian individuals and organizations have been doing to reach out to the affected. They are blamed when a few of them fail, but never congratulated when the faithful majority of true Christians do it. Instead of asking the Church to distribute condoms, we should be hailing the ministers who preach abstinence because they voice God’s perspective on the matter and are focused on the real problem. Augustine said it well, that we must not judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Regarding the stigmatization of persons living with or affected by HIV/AIDS, I really wonder who is to blame? Your pen seems pointed to the Church again. This is rather surprising. Is it not the Church you blame that has opened its doors to such persons? Is it not the Church that has built home after home for them? Isn’t the government just catching on? I think we need balance here. Yes, some Christians may have spoken unkindly about these persons, but again where is our definition of a Christian? Do we not see people call people Christian and apportion arrogance to them who defend certain African cultural values? Most of us in Kenya are first African culturalists and then converts to Christianity. Christians may not have done enough to address the HIV/AIDS scourge, but saying they display arrogance for not talking about sexuality is an unfair assessment. What do you think pastors and other Christian ministers keep talking about in seminars, sermons, counseling sessions, etc?

You wrote, “Fear has bred arrogance. Yet, sexuality was always implicated in most of what Jesus did. Picture Mary telling Joseph about her conception by the Holy Spirit and picture the look on Joseph’s face. Picture the many references to adultery and adulterous characters embraced by Jesus and given hope in this life and the next.”

I am assuming that by “most of what Jesus did” you have a little more than you cite. “Most” to me means “a larger part of”. Is this really true, Miss Kangara? Besides, what has the conception of Jesus got to do with Jesus’ teaching? Did He teach before/upon His conception, let alone teach sexuality by using His parents as an example or illustration or a “crisis pregnancy?” As mentioned earlier, is the Church really afraid of addressing sexuality? You repeatedly castigate stigmatization in your article, maintaining that we should not stigmatize those who use condoms. The Church does not set out to stigmatize. The Church sets out to love the stigmatized and persuades them to look beyond sex for their worth.

You further observe, “Condom use can symbolize our need for salvation and repentance, discipline and social responsibility.” I do not think so, Miss Kangara. This is a bad use of symbols. A good symbol must be equivalent to its referent. Condoms contradict each of these virtues. In fact, abstinence does a better job in this symbolism. Abstinence is sacrificial; condoms are too “cheap” to be sacrificial. Condoms display indiscipline rather than discipline. They also show irresponsibility in sexual matters than the responsibility you suggest. You also are wrong in concluding, “Condoms are not the anti-thesis of faith, but faith’s reinforcement.” Anything that encourages a violation of God’s law is faith’s antithesis.

You have added: “If in a moment of adultery or fornication one has the presence of mind to reach out for a condom, they probably are better candidates for abstinence than not. For abstinence and monogamy in marriage require that important characteristic – presence and clarity of mind about one’s actions are sinful or not.” If one talks about “adultery” and “fornication”, one automatically binds oneself to the fullest definition of those terms as used in the Bible. Nobody who begins to commit these two sins ever does so without the ring of the conscience. To reach out for a condom is not to appease but to sear such a conscience.
I think we also have two different definitions of the term “abstinence.” Pulling out a condom when preparing to commit adultery or fornication does not make one abstain from committing them. It makes such a one bolder to do so then and in the days to come.

You then say, “Condom use encourages responsibility and responsibility triggers the thought process necessary to create moral uprightness.” ARE YOU REALLY SERIOUS? Are you saying that those who use condoms have a bigger capacity to pursue moral uprightness than those who, by strength of will, or call it divine help, choose to abstain from sex? Even if it is when faced with a decision to use or not use a condom when having sex, the choice is really one of flying in Business class or Economy, not whether you are on the plane or not on the plane.

“A culture of protected sex is far more mature in the progression to godliness than a culture of unprotected sex. Self-preservation is an important civic virtue that is consistent with Christian life.”

MISS KANGARA, THIS IS EVOLUTIONISM AND NOT BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. Self-preservation is selfishness that is inward-looking and which camouflages for virtue or even civility. It does not factor in the love of neighbour. It asks, “What will happen to me if I do or do not use a condom?” It will hardly ask, “What will happen to him/her if I use or do not use a condom?” This is consistent with the common Swahili phrase, “Chanuka” (get wise) often used in the promotion of condoms.

You have addressed the issue of the relevance of the condom to the Christian message in the following statement: “The relevance of the condom to the Christian message is not that it should condone unauthorized intercourse, but that it should bring clarity to our thought process and enhance Christian responsibility.” My understanding of “Christian responsibility” in matters of human sexuality is that the true Christian wishes to obey God’s injunction on sex, making it unnecessary to debate whether or not to use condoms before marriage, and certainly within marriage based on a responsibility fired by the quest for holiness rather than mere self-preservation. The true Christian has the “mind of Christ” even regarding the place of sex in his/her life and will not seek to develop another way of thinking about this matter. The “clarity of thought processes” is thus a given for such a Christian because he/she willingly chooses to see things the way God sees them.

In conclusion, let me say that we share the common belief that it is important to preserve life, but such a preservation must not then undermine what God says on how to live that life. We are agreed that faith in God has the solution to the AIDS scourge, but we are not agreed on the definition of that faith. Certainly, the Church needs to do more in this matter, but this is not the same as saying that the Church is doing nothing. I do not even think the Church needs to “grow to maturity” as you recommend, if by “maturity” you imply the humanistic approach to the crisis. The Bible is sufficient for the Church because in it God has given clear direction on this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Reuben Kigame
Director, Word of Truth Ministries