Canyon Ridge Christian Church (Las Vegas) is one of the host locations for the National HIV Testing Day on June 27, 2010.
Because of Canyon Ridge Christian Church’s commitment to “be a show of compassion” to our community and an instrumental force in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, we will be offering FREE HIV testing from 10 AM – 4 PM provided by the Southern Nevada Health District (fingerprick test with results in 15 minutes).
Canyon Ridge Christian Church also supports Martin Ssempa as a mission partner to Uganda where Ssempa is a leading promoter of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. You can see him promoting the bill in this Current TV documentary, Missionaries of Hate. The AHB would authorize the death penalty for a person who engages in homosexual touching and is discovered to have HIV. Here is the relevant section:
Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality where the…
(b) offender is a person living with HIV
Nothing in the bill requires intent to spread HIV. The bill requires HIV testing, I suppose to determine the sentence: death or life in prison.
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
Martin Ssempa once was known for his work in AIDS prevention. He was invited to speak at the 2005 AIDS summit at Saddleback Church and was affiliated with the abstinence organization Wait Training. Both groups have cuts ties with Ssempa, Warren saying it happened in 2007 and Wait Training doing so as the result of Ssempa’s advocacy of the AHB. Another one of Ssempa former AIDS colleagues, Edward Greene, criticized the AHB as damaging to AIDS prevention.
About it’s strategic partners, Canyon Ridge says:
Strategic partners are existing teams and ministries around the world we have met and partnered with who closely match our areas of strategic focus (unreached people, global issues of injustice and HIV/AIDS).
However, in 2007, Martin Ssempa said he would not include gay men and women in treatment programs for HIV.
“Homosexuals should absolutely not be included in Uganda’s HIV/AIDS framework. It is a crime, and when you are trying to stamp out a crime you don’t include it in your programmes,” Ssempa said.
Somehow I doubt that Canyon Ridge would really promote Ssempa’s position here (I will report any response I get). And yet, this was Ssempa’s position in 2007 when he was even then calling for stricter enforcement of existing laws criminalizing homosexuality. Without getting into all of the ironies raised by the National HIV Testing Day at CRCC, I have to believe that what CRCC is doing here would be pretty ominous for GLB people in Uganda and what Martin Ssempa is doing there in word and deed, CRCC would not do here. I am unable to see the strategy in the match of the “strategic partners” when it seems they are moving in opposite directions.
Warren: I just received this response from Southern Nevada Health District
This appears to be a form letter being sent in response to calls or emails.
Fine. Believe what you like.
Blessings
Their ongoing (several years now) participation in the free AIDs testing day is primarily what leads me to believe that we don’t have the complete picture. That and the tremendous growth in their congregation…theirs obviously something going on there other than the caricatures of callousness and self-satisfaction.
Makes me want to believe that the spirit of Christ is in evidence there.
Their way, not their was
Eddy,
I hope for all the good things that you hope for.
But I doubt all the quesswork that seeks to justify their public inaction.
And I denounce with vehemence the implications that they are to be commended for not being about expediency.
Finally, I am troubled by an instinct that seeks to create from whole cloth admirable qualities in the suppositions about imaginary conversations which we have no reason to assume are occurring, “feelings” notwithstanding.
It is NOT admirable to continue supporting Ssempa.
Yes, they have elected to handle it in their way. Their was is worthy of public condemnation, protest, and outrage.
Yup. And being that this is a blogsite that tries to get the big picture, it should be acceptable to present another possibility if one exists and to suggest when valid critical feelings have crossed the line into presumption and judgement.
I seriously hope that they HAVE responded….that they’ve tried to discuss the issue with Ssempa and his wife…that they’ve tried to explain that both the death penalty and life imprisonment are too severe–not based on ‘Western influence’ but from a more complete understanding of the Scripture. I know you feel the conversation needs to go much further, that it needs to address decriminalization as well. But I see that as pointless until they can get him to budge on this first step.
I also believe that their public silence may be due to the fact that they see how public statements are being examined and regurgitated as tools of the ‘Western pressure’ effort. Sensing Ssempa’s and Uganda’s distaste for the jaded ‘Western influence’, perhaps they feel that, although it’s difficult, it’s best that they keep their own voice private and separate.
It would be expedient for them to make a public break with Ssempa…it would boost their image here in the states and silence most of the presumptions and judgements. I get the feeling, though, that they aren’t about ‘expedience’ and although I’m certain they care about how they are perceived, they’ve elected to handle it their way.
Someone more optimistic than I am would say “Hey, at least they didn’t show support for Ssempa by discontinuing their participation in the free HIV/AIDS screening day as a gesture of solidarity or oneness.”
Very well.
Let me see if I can clarify where I see the difference.
It is my opinion that when faced with the facts about Ssempa’s campaign, the only moral response is to separate oneself from endorsing Ssempa.
Perhaps the first step would not necessarily be to loudly denounce him, but the least that could be expected would be to put the website endorsement on hold until more information could be reviewed. And then, it is not unreasonable to expect that a review be conducted without delay, certainly by now.
I find their public inaction to be worthy of criticism.
Based on your words it appears that you do not find it unreasonable that CRCC has done nothing publicly at all in response to Ssempa’s activism. And you think that those who criticize their public inaction are guilty of presumptions.
I see fault in CRCC for their continued public affiliation with Ssempa. You see fault in those who would criticize CRCC for their continued public affiliation with Ssempa.
That is where we differ.
No, Timothy, that wouldn’t help at all. I didn’t speak to that in any way. I spoke only to the fact that we are presuming any manner of things about Canyon Ridge based only on the fact that they haven’t publicly separated themselves from Ssempa. I feel that the presumptions only further the breakdown in (or lack of) communication.
I think I’ve said that 3 or 4 times now in this post and I’ve also expressed it as a major concern in our dealings with Uganda numerous times. We’ve had a gazillion threads on this issue…some focussed on Ssempa, Bahati, Buruto…this one however is about Canyon Ridge. I noted that people are making rather public presumptions based only on the fact that they have not separated themselves publicly from Ssempa. That is all. If you want to try to understand me, start with what I’ve said.
You are right, Eddy, I don’t get where you’re coming from. I’m trying to understand, but I’m failing.
Perhaps it would help me understand if you were to address my questions about whether your response would differ if Ssempa’s target was another tribe, Lutherans, or women.
Timothy–
My comments went to nothing other than assigning and presuming motives when we don’t have all the facts. I feel that those are significant issues to call people out on because they only contribute to the breakdown in dialogue and communication. I don’t feel that we can have the real conversations that need to take place when we are constantly reading into the actions/words or non-actions/words of others AND constantly trying to put words and motives into people’s mouths and hearts that they did not speak. (That includes me.)
I will answer for the words I write. You can hypothesize, presume, judge and guess all you want about me but I’ve answered to your presumptions and judgements before and it led nowhere. I can accept that you ‘just don’t get me or where I’m coming from’. My prayer is that you will accept that too.
From my perspective – and only my perspective – you are justifying and making excuses for a position that is absent of any moral responsibility.
I wonder if your defense of CRCC would be the same if Ssempa were advocating for the execution of members of another ethnic tribe? Or if perhaps, he was supporting a bill that would make it illegal to support Lutheran theology? Or if Ssempa were seeking to ban the meeting of women together?
I wonder if perhaps your own personal opposition to the practice of homosexuality has not made you sympathetic to those who share that opposition, even if they go to an extreme that you would not.
Living in California and conversing mostly with people who value individual rights, I have too often suffered under the delusion that most of the opposition to homosexuality which I encounter is based in theology rather than in oppressive political endeavors. I am inclined to thing of Ssempa and his efforts as horrifying.
But I am now coming to see that some within the anti-gay Christian establishment are not at all horrified. In fact, some would only slightly tone down the Uganda bill and, absent any revisions, would pass it as is rather than let gay people live in peace.
To my dismay, this is not limited to African nations or to the Phelps family.
The Texas GOP platform as just revised calls for recriminalizion, for making it a felony to marry a gay couple, to revoke health insurance for gay people, to reverse the laws of states who do not agree, and – no, I’m not making this up – to take the children of gay people away from them.
So perhaps I have misjudged you, Eddy. Perhaps I falsely assumed that you found such provisions as are in the Texas GOP platform and the Uganda Anti-homosexuality Bill to be as repulsive as I find them.
Yes, it bothers me.
But it clearly also bothers me how much we are presuming that goes beyond the only real facts we have.
1) They have had a long-standing relationship with Ssempa and his wife that goes beyond the HIV/AIDS issue.
2) They cite that partnership on their website.
3) Ssempa has come out strongly in support of a very nasty bill.
4) They have made no public statements (either for or against the bill).
From that, you paint callousness and self-satisfaction. You see a PR campaign. Warren sees ‘support of the harsh treatment of homosexuals’. Based on the only facts we have, I see those all as presumptions and judgements. I have a bias that presumptions and judging muddle communications and have a negative impact on positive results.
Eddy,
Here’s what I see:
1) Ssempa is conducting a campaign of villifation, lies and death
2) CRCC has been informed of the campaign
3) CRCC has chosen not to speak any public word of opposition to Ssempa’s campaign and instead tout him on their website
4) This doesn’t bother you.
The article Michael cited is one of the articles that references Warren and the discussions here.
Many people will see callousness, self-satisfaction and a PR campaign instead of seeing Christ; those would be the people with an ear to this PR campaign and that of the gay press. For those who haven’t been influenced by these opinion sources, they may actually see Christ reaching out to a community.
Canyon Ridge has hosted free HIV testing sites several times in the past and there were no scathing reviews of their efforts or even a hint that they were being callous, self-satisfied and engaged in a PR campaign.
If people don’t see Jesus this year, it won’t be because He has left the building; it will be because they’ve been told that Christ CANNOT be there….that the only response that Christ could possibly have to Martin Ssempa is to ‘issue a public statement of separation’ from him.
Many didn’t know to be outraged at Canyon Ridge until Warren’s campaign. Warren was cited in at least two of the articles I read.
There is yet no evidence that Canyon Ridge supports the ‘harsh treatment of homosexuals’ as Warren’s question suggests; all we really know is that Ssempa does and that Canyon Ridge has not publicly distanced themselves from him.
Quote from “The Audacity of Canyon Ridge Christian Church Participating in National HIV Testing Day” by Michael A. Jones
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/the_audacity_of_canyon_ridge_christian_church_participating_in_national_hiv_testing_day
Michael – Good questions. I don’t know. I am looking into the whole funding thing today a bit. I suspect it comes from the feds and is routed through the local health authority. I doubt CRCC makes any money from the deal and probably spends some.
Sorry if this has already been asked, but where is the money for this coming from? Do the funding sources, the HIV testing personnel, the Southern Nevada Health District and the local HIV/Gay community understand the kink between Canyon Ridge and Ssempa?
Unless and until CRCC clarifies exactly why it is that they continue to support Martin Ssempa (as they have been invited to do), I’ll not imagine excuses for them.
Jesus often used imagery of visibility and clarity as an indicator of God’s people. The world would see His followers and know them by their good. In my opinion, when the world looks and instead of seeing good sees callousness, self satisfaction, and a PR campaign, they aren’t seeing Christ.
I would also prefer to judge them separately. In the demand for statements and for publicly breaking ties, we presume that they may not have their own way of disagreeing with Sempa and attempting to coach him into a more balanced response. That doesn’t happen in a severed relationship; it happens through dialogue and example. I’m not saying that that IS what’s going on but I’m acknowledging that it’s a possibility.
With that approach in mind, Canyon’s hosting of the event wouldn’t be so much a public relations gesture as it would be an example to Sempa of another way of responding that demonstrates caring, compassion and effectiveness while still holding fast to moral convictions…or extending care and concern without succumbing to ‘Western influence’. (‘Western influence’ seems to be a catchphrase for the Ugandans…a rallying point.)
I’m not particularly skilled at surfing but I noted that as recently as last year, Uganda was trying to address the AIDS crisis predominantly among heterosexuals. It seems that an ‘aggravated’ offense heterosexually was for an HIV+ person to have sex either without a condom or without informing their sex partner. The proposed sentence was 10 years and/or a fine. (It cited item 39 under section 1 but assumed the reader knew what document or bill they were referring to.)
It’s not a complete or satisfactory solution but I would like to move Sempa to the point where he recognizes ALL sex outside of marriage on the same level. Why impose a more severe penalty for a homosexual offense than for a hetero one? (I realize that this doesn’t consider that gays don’t have and likely will not have the right to marry in Uganda. But it would be one small step in addressing this immediate concern over the severity of the penalty.)
I think if they are compassionate and community minded it will be evidenced by providing the test along with the results as an anonymous and private and personal matter, with nothing else attached. If they do this then they will truly have distinguished themselves. Ssempra and his ilk will be brought down – one way or the other – until then, the pressure to make this happen is continuing and mounting.
Ann – I cannot speak to their motivation as yet, although that is a good question. I have asked them for a reaction and will print what if anything they send.
The church is acting as a host location but I think their support of Ssempa’s approach to HIV and gays in Uganda is not at all what they are doing here and he would not do there what they are doing here. Odd partnership. They are getting a PR benefit here by appearing to be compassionate and community minded while he is presiding over a reign of terror for gay people there.
David,
You are incorrect in your assumption so there is no need to be disappointed.
Dr. Throckmorton,
The partnership between the two does sound odd and contradictory with all we know now. I am wondering if CRCC’s motivation is solely to offer this service for anyone interested and leave it at that and the person leaves with their result and no further obligation to the church or if there are obligatory steps attached after the result. I know what they are saying, and I think it is a great service to provide, however, just wondering if there is something else that might feel like an instusion into someone’s personal life.
Good luck Dr. Throckmorton on your summer project and all your other endeavors – I will try back another time. More important than all this, Happy Father’s Day!
All – I have deleted several off topic comments. This post is too important to get off the thread. A church that is supporting financially and otherwise the face of the AHB around the world wants to be show compassion to the community via participation in the HIV Testing Day. I think that is a profound issue which either strikes one as offensive or not. I am interested in how people see it. Can this church really demonstrate concern for global injustice and HIV sufferers in the US when they support a person in another country who seeks life in prison for homosexual behavior? Can a US church be relevant to a group here and support harsh treatment of the same group in another country? This is a difficult issue for US churches to confront and one which the Uganda bill has brought into stark relief.
Please don’t get off on to details; there is a very big deal here.
Ann – PS – Thanks, it was a nice day…
Ann, after 15 months and all the intense discussion. you still hadn’t read the bill even once? I don’t think I’m out of line at all to say that is really disappointing, particularly for someone who wishes to participate in discussions here.
HIV is very difficult to transmit in the first place. While no one would recommend rubbing an open, bloody wound against another of an infected person (which is hardly the image conjured up by “touch”), I’m not sure there is a single report of transmission in this manner. I am aware of only one report of transmission via deep kissing with an infected individual (who reportedly had bleeding gums).
Doctors wore gloves long before HIV and for many reasons. Perhaps you should ask your own physician if one of those reasons is to avoid HIV transmission. You might be surprised.
Casually mentioning that HIV can be transmitted by “touching” is irresponsible, and displays a severe lack of knowledge on the subject. This has been known for at least the past 25 years. Even a basic public awareness pamphlet would explain this. Would you insist on gloves before shaking the hand of an HIV positive person?
There is nothing redeeming about the Uganda bill. That Canyon Ridge will not renounce their connection with Ssempa, and condemn his actions is cowardly and reprehensible. Every news and advocacy organization in Nevada should be made aware.
excellent,
then we all are in agreement.
Timothy,
Dr. Throckmorton has answered my initial question and I do not need any further directives to the bill. Also, I am not going to refer to ehealthmd as a source for HIV. The medical organizations that I volunteer with have provided me with the necessary information I need regarding the transmitting of HIV.
Eddy,
I’m sorry for being confusing.
I sought to do two things: 1) clarify that touch cannot pass HIV, and 2) provide the language of the bill.
I hope there is not further confusion.
Ann,
If you have further questions and wish to avoid biased perspective, the bill is available to be read in its entirety here.
ehealthMD provides the following:
I received this after my last post. Thank you for the clarification. I did not know the definition before and would think most outside in the big world do no know it either. An assult involving any kind of sex that is unwanted usually indicates a rape, regardless of the gender or sexual act. Touching does not equate to an assult to me, however it can transmit HIV if blood is exchanged and/or mixed. One of the main reasons, in addition to infection, that the medical profession uses gloves for protection.
Dr. Throckmorton and Timothy,
I asked for a clarification based on Dr. Throckmorton’s comment. I didn’t think it was an unreasonable request, was it? While I understand the need to be succinct and cite references, not all of us think or write that way. Patience is a virture when the goal is communication. This blog is dwindling down to a few people now and I understand why. Balance and fairness seems to have taken a back seat to biases and egos. Oh well.
Eddy,
I understand what you are saying. It is all confusing and especially so if one is trying to understand it from another’s perspective.
Ann – Stated simply, aggravated homosexuality is not limited to assault but is any kind of same-sex intimacy where the person is HIV positive whether he/she intends to spread it or not. There are other aspects to the offense and you can read those in the bill.
Timothy–
I’m confused. First you corrected Ann by saying “There are no instances of HIV ever being transmitted by touch” but then you move on to define touching and say
“and in particular includes touching amounting to penetration of any sexual organ, anus or mouth.” Are you saying there are no instances of HIV being transmitted by penetrating touches? Or that Ann had a different definition of touch?
I found it odd that Ann was asking a question and saying she wasn’t sure how to interpret what had just been said and you somehow found her making a statement. And then, your explanation, as I demonstrated in the previous paragraph, only muddied the waters further.
I find the phrase “with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality” a bit confusing. It would seem that if it’s a touch or caress that isn’t leading to ‘the act of homosexuality’, then it doesn’t qualify. But ‘the act of homosexuality’ is confusing in itself…I’m supposing there are several ‘acts’ available to both the gay men and the lesbians. Am going to assume that it involves the sex parts of at least one of the participants and then contact or stimulation of that part by another of the same gender…regardless of how they achieve the contact or stimulation. So, again, a lot of caressing and touching might be excluded…anything that isn’t leading up to ‘the act’. But then that is in disagreement with your concluding statement that ‘touching would include any form of caress’.
Please no more comments on the bill without referring to the bill. The bill defines touching. Timothy provided that reference. Any part of the body is in view. A hand is a part of the body. A shoulder is a part of the body. Another hand is a part of the body. The bill language is so broad it can include anything.
Timothy did not confuse anything. He simply quoted the bill. There is confusion raised by the bill which is one reason why so many people are opposed to it.
Ann,
I am uncertain about what you are saying. Are you saying that you can transmit HIV by touching another person?
If so, you are mistaken. There are no instances of HIV ever being transmitted by touch.
The “touching” the bill discusses is:
and touching is defined as
So touching would include any form of caress, even with the greatest precautions.
so sorry – I meant to say interpret instead of interrupt.
I understood aggravated assults to be different from touching even though both can transmit HIV.
Are you saying that homosexual touching is the same as an offense of aggravated homosexuality? The latter sounds more like a sexual assult as opposed to touching. I am not sure how to interrupt what you are saying or what they are saying. Either way HIV can be transferred to another individual, however, I doubt that is the intent.