John Holloway received a diagnosis of AIDS nearly two decades ago, when the disease was a speedy death sentence and treatment a distant dream.
Yet at 59 he is alive, thanks to a cocktail of drugs that changed the course of an epidemic. But with longevity has come a host of unexpected medical conditions, which challenge the prevailing view of AIDS as a manageable, chronic disease.
Mr. Holloway, who lives in a housing complex designed for the frail elderly, suffers from complex health problems usually associated with advanced age: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, kidney failure, a bleeding ulcer, severe depression, rectal cancer and the lingering effects of a broken hip.
Those illnesses, more severe than his 84-year-old father’s, are not what Mr. Holloway expected when lifesaving antiretroviral drugs became the standard of care in the mid-1990s.
The drugs gave Mr. Holloway back his future. But at what cost?
That is the question, heretical to some, that is now being voiced by scientists, doctors and patients encountering a constellation of ailments showing up prematurely or in disproportionate numbers among the first wave of AIDS survivors to reach late middle age.
This is very sad. Sounds like these folks must navigate between Scylla and Charybdis. Thanks for sharing it, Canon Harmon.
This article is a good reminder of the importance of ministry to those struggling with AIDS. Imagine going through this and being without a faith community behind you.
I know that Anglicans in Africa are dealing with this on an even more intense and dramtatic scale. My concern is this: Are/will/do any of the reasserter parishes involve themselves in ministry to people, like in this artice, living with AIDS in their own towns and communities. It seems like the conservative Anglicans care about and support ministries to AIDS sufferers in Africa but that it is only or primarily the reppraisers who have real hands on parish based ministries to AIDS sufferers in their local communities. Is this accurate? If so (and I believe it is… the greatest exception being the wonderful All Saints Sisters of the Poor and their Joseph Richey House) why is it. It makes me believe that the pius talk of loving the sinner and hating the sin is a sham and a lie. Please offer me real live examples that this is not so based soley on Network churches. I want to be wrong on this.
I’ve been flipping a coin and for some reason elderly shut-ins keep winning over the AIDS patients, the vast majority of whom could have easily prevented their disease by abstaining from high-risk sexual activities with members of the same gender.
The people who got old couldn’t help it at all.
Charley- your response absolutely confirms my fears and beliefs about Anglican conservatives. The Church is meant to be a hospital for sinners and you have exemplified by your statement that because growing old is not a sin that resources, care & support should be reserved for them. Have you read the Gospels or the lives of the saints? That you would respond in such a manner, utterly devoid of grace and mercy, makes me wonder who has hijacked Christianity now?
archangelica, the Church may be a hospital for sinners but it doesn’t pay for triple drug cocktails. You, Charley and I and the rest of the taxpayers and/or people with health insurance do. When a twenty year old travels to California and intentionally “goes bare” (has sex with an infected male without barrier protection) so that he becomes HIV+ and may then start, himself, the anti-retrovirals and freely engage in promiscuous sex, the proper response is frustration.
When a type II diabetic smokes, drinks, and is totally non-compliant with his glucose control and ends up in renal failure on very expensive dialysis, the proper response is frustration.
I have a medical practice with a high Medicaid population. Foolish yes, but I can’t say no to kids. However, many of my colleagues have giving up on Medicaid because reimbursement is so pathetic. It actually costs me money to see kids most of time because of staff time dealing with the cumbersome bureaucracy to recover the pittance they pay. Why is Medicaid reimbursement so bad? Because Medicaid is too strapped for funds to pay for kids to see their pediatricians because it paying out so much for medical care of people with preventable diseases like the above examples. As a result, if a child wants to see a pediatric specialist, the parents need to travel to an academic medical center which can be hundreds of miles away. Because of parental circumstances, the trip is never made, and the child suffers. I see this all the time. Indeed, the proper response is frustration.
So, archangelica, you’re saying that any kind of mission and service to the Africans with Aids doesn’t count as “grace and mercy” — it’s gotta be our kinda people over here in the States?
Sheesh.
There are no words.
Sarah, you are misintrepreting my words. Let me be more clear. All acts of charity for all people in all places at all times are laudable. I only mean to say that I think it is telling that conservatives seem more comfortable with extending this grace and mercy to those in far off lands (who also are their theological allies) when the mission field for this kind of ministry is ripe in our own cities, towns, streets, and neighborhoods. Charity starts at home. A protestant minister once gave this example regarding missions that applies here I think. Many are those he said, have come to me and shared the call of the missions in their heart as they shared their desire to serve God in far off and exotic places. He always asked them (to test their motives and their vocation) “Tell me about the mission work you are currently engaged in here and now.” Most of the time, though not always thanks be to God, the answer to that question is uncomfortable silence. Of course we should be contributing to the welfare of our African brethren but not at the expense of ignoring the plight on the street where I live. Example: Mothere Theresa started her ministry on the streets of Calcutta where she witnessed the suffering of those who were all around her and called out for mercy and grace. Her eventual world wide ministry started in her neighborhood with the obvious and local afflictions that were close by. From there she wrapped her arms around the world but it always starts in my heart, my family, my neighbors, etc. How can one not be suspect of a charity that fulfills it’s duty exclusively at a very great distance and only with those sinners we deem most worthy? This is not an either or but a both and propisition. I’m willing to bet that people living with AIDS here in the U.S. are most certainly not your kind of people anyway.
archangelica, Mother Theresa was Albanian so your example of “starting at home” is somewhat lacking to say the least.
There are a lot of reasons to do ministry abroad. I usually take two medical mission trips a year. For example, I am preparing to go to the Philippines in a couple of weeks. Why not go to Missippi or urban Atlanta or the like? Well, I don’t have medical license to practice in those states. Domestic missions are good. International missions are good. The Episcopal Church supports the least number of overseas missionaries of almost any mainline denomination. It is truly pathetic. Pretty much all Churches that have strong support for international missions also strongly support domestic missions, but the converse is definitely not true with the TEc providing a glaring and sad example.
“I’m willing to bet that people living with AIDS here in the U.S. are most certainly not your kind of people anyway.” What a snotty remark.
robroy, I am not denigrating foreign missions. I applaud and thank you for your service. What I am saying is that there is a glaring disparity in the area of AIDS ministry between reasserters and reappraisers. Specifically, I want to know why Network churches and their allies seem so unwilling, uninterested (and from the responses on this thread) downright hostile towards anyone who dares to ask the question?! And yes, my remark was snotty but surely “Sheesh…there are no words” is not dripping with charity either. I responded to that barb by offering one of my own. I was wrong for that and I am sorry. The thread on this issue makes me want to weep. Having to defend acts of mercy done at home AS WELL AS ABROAD has me distressed and astonished. Why are we not encouraging eachother to do more in our hometowns and in far off lands? If this is truly how most reasserters feel about this issue than I am finally persuaded that we are practicing two differnt kinds of Christianity and the kind that turns a blind eye to a brother or sister’s suffering at home and has the gall to defend that stance in the name of supporting foreign missions is deluded and has created a strawman. Reasserters should be encouraging and challenging reappraisers to do more abroad (although I’d bet they already do more than Network folk in this area anyway but I am happy to be proven wrong!) and reappraisers should be encouraging and challenging reasserters to do more in their own backyard. Wouldn’t that have the effect of more good being done in the name of Christ by more people in more places both here and abroad?
The best ministry we could do in our hometowns would be to have the sort of campaign against promiscuity that we had against smoking. We should have big warning labels on birth control pills, condom boxes, alcohol bottles saying stuff like having sex outside a faithful lifelong partnership with a single person increases your risk of HIV, cervical cancer, rectal cancers, venerial warts, and a host of other infectious diseases, many of which are incurable. Wearing a condom will diminish but not eliminate this risk. Please carefully consider the likelihood that alcohol or other agents may decrease your ability to avoid unwanted sex.
Such a campaign would do more to help folks (of whatever theological or sexual persuasion) than any other “ministry” the church might devise.
I am working on trying to find the exact number of foreign missionaries. I did find the results for the presbyterian churches. The relatively liberal PCUSA has 1 foreign missionary for every 8000 members. On the other hand the more conservative PCA ratio is one missionary per 450 members, and the EPC’s is one missionary per 1,200 members. I recall the TEC is worse than the PCUSA.
Robroy, I count 62 TEC missionaries
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/30703_6428_ENG_HTM.htm
Archangelica,
I believe prevention is the key here and wonder if it makes sense to disregard the behavior that causes these illnesses, not just drugs and alchohol but the actual behavior risks.
Do you think I would be accused of homophobia if I copied this article and gave it to a young person who was confused about his sexuality and who thinks “AIDS is treatable now”?
Do you think I would be accused of homophobia if I gave young people information about organizations that would help them get out of destructive gay life styles and change their behavior?
Karen B., thanks for the link. Did you count the missionaries to those wild and woolly lands of England and Alaska? Anyway, so we have 62 missionaries for two million. That would be less than one missionary for every 30,000 members! Mind boggling minuscule.
RE: “I only mean to say that I think it is telling that conservatives seem more comfortable with extending this grace and mercy to those in far off lands (who also are their theological allies) when the mission field for this kind of ministry is ripe in our own cities, towns, streets, and neighborhoods.”
And yet, you provide no evidence of any kind for this assertion other than your suspicions and prejudices.
I’ll respond with my assertion [no evidence] — reasserters do all sorts of mission and ministry at home, including work with those suffering with HIV, as well as many other illnesses.
RE: “I’m willing to bet that people living with AIDS here in the U.S. are most certainly not your kind of people anyway.”
And what “kind of people” exactly are those “people living with AIDS,” archangelica?
RE: “Having to defend acts of mercy done at home AS WELL AS ABROAD has me distressed and astonished.”
But of course, you are defending neither one. All you are doing is making the weird claim that reasserters don’t serve sufferers of HIV at home — a highly prejudiced statement — than compounding your prejudice by implying that “serving at home” is somehow purer than serving abroad, not to mention that those suffering with HIV are somehow a certain “kind of” person.
Are you actually a closet-conservative just trying to give all the reasserters a bad name by playing some sort of joke in this thread?
RE: “What a snotty remark.”
Robroy, no offense was taken. Whenever someone attempts an insult, I consider the source and judge whether I am actually insulted by that consideration.
Think of the impact if the first thing the homosexual community thought of when someone mentioned evangelicals was that they were the people who lovingly ran the AIDS shelters and tenderly cared for them down to the last gasp.â€
—Ron Sider, quoted by Philip Yancey in his book, What’s So Amazing About Grace?
This article is saying, hopefully with more clarity, what I have been trying to convey here. I especially hope that Sarah might read it and respond.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-30-aids-evangelicals_x.htm
archangelica, I appreciate your comments on this thread. There’s much truth in what you write.
I do know of some Network parishes with pretty strong outreach to the homeless and to AIDS sufferers. Truro helped found a large ministry (drop in center) for the homeless in Northern Virginia (the LAMB Center).
I believe St. Michael and All Angels in Manhattan has a ministry to people with AIDS, but their website is down.
It is true, probably, that we evangelicals are not known for our ministries of compassion, at least not locally, and that’s a shame, but it could be that parishes are wise to focus and prioritize as to their callings, and if they choose foreign missions or evangelism ministries (like Alpha), or ministries to youth, that may not be a bad thing. Hopefully there are some parishes that will make local outreach a priority.
Karen B.
Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. I also thank you for sharing with me about the Truro ministries. You are very right to gently remind me that our individual parishes have unique charisms and callings for ministry. Your last sentence is the heart of what I have been trying to get at: we can’t all do everything everywhere but we can all do something somewhere. Network folk outshine, out perform and challenge us reappraisers in many areas; most especially and much to our shame in foreign missions and evangelism. You all are strong in ministry where we are weak and I think too that reasserters do some things especially well i.e. mercy ministries and local social outreach. To my own way of thinking this is only one of the reasons why we need one another in this church. All of us will be depleted & diminished if TEC and Network people divorce…we will be breathing with only one lung. Anglican conservatives keep us rooted, stable and anchored. Anglican liberals give us wings, stretch and challenge us. This tension sometimes get very uncomfortable, even painful, but most growth seems to happen that way. Thank you for reminding me of this Karen and may God heap blessings on your head and Our Lady lead you (and me) ever closer to her Son.
OK, archangelica: I have never been to Africa, but I did go to the hospital to visit Larry one summer. Larry was dying of AIDS. It was a horrible thing to see. Larry was the first person I had ever known who admitted to being a homosexual, and the only good that came out of that summer was the joy that Larry experienced through his spiritual healing.
I did not want to go visit Larry once a week for 3 months. I did not want to take my guitar and sing Christian folk songs for Larry. It was not my idea. I did it because someone else encouraged me too. If it did any good, then let God be the judge. Maybe it wasn’t good for much else other than saving it up to throw in your face in response to your ridiculous accusation.
DLewis: Thank you and bless you for the gift of your music and your presence to Larry. Thanks be to God also for the one who encouraged you to go where you did not want to go and do what you did not want to do.
There is certainly truth to archangelica’s comments. In general, Episcopalians stink at missions both local and foreign. We are the richest of the rich and Matt 19:21-22 applies in spades to us, [i]”Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”[/i] I read the USA Today article and am glad that Rick Warren and others are taking up the call of service to the “lepers” of our society. God bless.
Just thinking out loud – Is there anything to the thought that some people value mission work more in areas where, supposedly, the people there have not yet “heard the Gospel”, than in areas where there are those who have heard it, but still have yet paid no attention, as alleged about those who suffer from AIDS here?
Rob: your observation has good insight. I would want to say that the U.S. is a country in which most people have heard the Gospel. Perhaps not always presented well or thoroughly but certainly most would be familiar that for Christians, Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Post-Moderns in general have not and are not responding to “old time Gospel preaching”, witnessing and old school evangelization. In fact, most are repelled by these methods. This era, like everyone before it has unique needs based on their historical, cultural and sociological formation. What post-moderns seem to be very interested in and respond well to is St. Francis maxim: “Preach the Gospel always, use words when necessary.” Emergent church evangelicals have tapped into this. Experience is the defining word for post-moderns. Here is where the historic churches are able to offer an ancient/future faith. Hence, works of mercy are not only avenues of sanctifying grace for believers but are incarnational/relational signs to non-believers, especially jaded post-moderns, of a vibrant, authentic, transformational Christianity.
Archangelica,
Regarding post 26: “Post-Moderns in general have not and are not responding to “old time Gospel preachingâ€, witnessing and old school evangelization. In fact, most are repelled by these methods.”
It seems to me that “Post- Modernists†are over reacting if they are “repelled” by any method of sincerely presenting the Gospel. Maybe this emotional response is due to a need to deny what the Holy Spirit inspires in them, in favor of what they have been taught by other Post-Modernists. I pray that they will mature and see that it is reasonable to at least listen to what Christians have to say about the Gospel, they may be enlightened rather than “repelled“.
P.S. I hope you are not suggesting that we should disguise the teachings of Christ and the Bible in order to make it acceptable to Post-Modernists.
I am not sure that post modernists have been exposed to old time gospel preaching but rather to new time preaching on the television which is a sad caricature and is often repugnant to me as well. It certainly makes it hard to preach with words which the post modernists associate with the televangelists. Thus, I try to live out St. Francis’ words daily. Peace.
I really don’t believe that the reason “Post-Modernists†are so tuned that they are instantly repelled by Christian evangelism is because of televangelists, I rather think it is because of the glamorous, sophisticated appeal of those who would lead them astray from truth by telling them what they want to hear.
Regardless of the reason I hope we all overcome our emotional reactions enough to hear and accept the message of the Gospel even if it does come from a lowly evangelist.