I’ve heard someone say that AIDS is a divine judgment on practicing homosexual men, and therefore, they’re getting what they deserve.  In fact, maybe they should all just be quarantined until we rid ourselves of this horrid disease.  Is this an appropriate response to such grave human suffering as what is experienced by those dieing of AIDS?  How ought followers of Jesus think through and respond to so critical an issue?

I appreciate some suggestions offered by John Stott in his book, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today, on how Christians should respond to AIDS.  He offered a three-fold Christian response: (1) theological; (2) pastoral; (3) educational.

THEOLOGICAL
To the question of whether or not AIDS is a divine judgment upon practicing homosexual men, we can answer “yes” and “no.”  Let me explain.  We must answer “no” because Jesus warned us not to interpret disasters as the hand of God (Lk 13:1-5).  Similarly, it would be arrogant to assume to know whether or not a natural disaster or tragic event is due to a person or group of people’s sin.  We can also answer no because there are more than homosexual men who suffer from AIDS.  Though in the minority, there are still women, hemophiliacs, and children who suffer—many for no fault of their own.

Yet, we can also, in a sense, answer “yes.”  The Apostle Paul warned, “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows” (Gal 6:7).  God seems to have built into His moral world the principle that actions (good or evil) bring consequences.  Therefore, we can’t think it is an accident that when we disregard God’s mandates there are natural consequences that logically follow.  If I were to engage in promiscuity I would expose myself to both physical consequences (venereal diseases) and immaterial consequences (loss of true intimacy with my wife).  If I were to take up smoking I would stand a much higher chance of lung cancer.  If I were to not watch my diet I would be in danger of heart conditions.  God, being infinitely just, promises a consequence for everything we do, say, or think.  Even if we escape obvious consequences in this 70-80 year time span, we are assured that everything will eventually be answered for (Mt 12:36; Heb 4:13).   

PASTORAL
While we don’t deny that many people have contracted AIDS as a result of their own sexual decisions, we must not fail to respond to them in love and comfort—just as we would to someone injured in a drunken driving accident even if they were at fault.  A person suffering, regardless of the cause of the suffering, must never feel isolated, shunned, or condemned by the church.  Rather, they must experience her as people experienced Jesus.  One of the most common descriptions of Jesus’ initial response to those who suffered was summed up in the word compassion.  The word literally means “to suffer with.”  The world must see the church (exhibited through individual followers of Jesus) as caring for the hurting and binding up their wounds.  Often the person who lives with the consequences of their own poor decisions feels continual condemnation and judgment.  I don’t mean judgment as merely social shame (though that exists too), but living with the day-by-day reminder of destructive consequences.  Stott quotes the words of one AIDS patient named Jerome who said, “Don’t judge me.  I’m living under my own judgment.  What I need is for you walk with me.”

EDUCATIONAL
A third response by the church must be one of spreading information.  This means at least two things.  First, it means a program or mission to communicate the real danger of AIDS and how it spreads.  As an example, a friend of mine just returned from an eight day missions trip to Franshoek, South Africa where he worked with adult and AIDS orphans.  Second, and equally important, it involves the church teaching and exemplifying God’s standards for sexual morality—either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.  C. S. Lewis calls this description of chastity possibly the most unpopular of all Christian virtues (Mere Christianity).  The sexual revolution told us that sexuality was all messed up because it had been hushed up and suppressed for so long.  However, the past few decades, characterized by “free love”—a  ventilation of sexual expression—have shown quite the opposite.  Rather, it’s made the pre-existing problems with sexuality much worse.

Let me offer a final comment by Stott: “At the heart of the homosexual condition is a deep loneliness, the natural human hunger for mutual love, a search for identity, and a longing for completeness. . . .The alternative is not between the warm physical relationship of homosexual intercourse and the pain of isolation in the cold.  There is a third option, namely a Christian environment of love, understanding, acceptance and support.”

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Do you think it’s true that the homosexual person (with or without AIDS) is the modern equivalent of the leper in Christian circles?
2. What other responsibilities does the church have today in responding to AIDS (both in America and overseas)?
3. Do you tend to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual offences or sins?  Why?
4. Describe the tension that exists between expressing godly love (toward the homosexual person) and maintaining godly standards (toward homosexual practice).