On Swine Flus, SARS and perspective

This article from The Age pretty much sums some of the things going through my mind as people squeal in fear from the possibility of a pandemic from the H1N1 flu outbreak that will kill us all:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fears-distorting-reality-20090429-ancz.html

Some extracts:

...why do the deaths of only some people from obscure diseases cause us to panic? And how can we be so unfeeling when we have the power to save the lives of millions by relatively simple, inexpensive precautions and treatments?....

...it seems that only when we perceive that infectious diseases threaten "people like us" do we respond with real urgency. The millions killed by TB, AIDS, malaria and other mass killers are doomed to fit the stereotype of people who live and die like that. We can accept it as the way of the world. Aboriginal Australians are just as much victims of the indifference that flows from such stereotyping.

In all reality, we only have 7 confirmed deaths from the Swine Flu (based on WHO analyses - Mexican databases aren't exactly stellar), in a country that is known for its gross inequities and dodgy standards of health and living. In contrast, the normal flu kills 250-500,000 people a year, of which 2000 are in Australia. Yet, all of the sudden, we have the leaders of the known world speaking up and declaring that they will spare no expense to contain this outbreak.

I admit the need for an effective public health response, and even acknowledge that there is more to gain from stoking people's fears and insecurities, hence keeping them on the alert, as compared to calming them. It's good to take appropriate measures at disease containment, for epidimiological reasons, but probably more so for political ones (this is already turning into opportunities to score political points if you read the news).

However, despite all the fearmongering about it being the "next big pandemic" and how we are "overdue for a massive outbreak"that "threatens the existence of humanity", in all likelihood this H1N1 virus thing is going to become something of the past, just as SARS did. Does anyone remember the HK flu from the 1960s that killed over a million people worldwide-no? In addition, the world of international communications and public health is incredibly different from what it was in the century of the last pandemic. Just google something like "Developments/achievements in the last 50-100 years" and you'll see what I mean (this includes the internet btw).

And so I come back to my original point - lots of fearmongering and scares at "possibilities" that are in reality mere shadows, revealing a distinct lack of perspective on disease and illness. This is in stark contrast to our ignorance at the daily epidemics and massive numbers of deaths in poorer nations around us. I believe these events do something more than threaten the health of us all - they reveal the hypocrisy and lack of perspective in our lives, how we spend with reckless abandon at anything that immediately threatens our welfare, but live in gleeful ignorance what happens beyond our own world (I'm just as much guilty of this). I cannot help but think about God's anger - not expressed through disease as a punishment, but against us, for our indignancy, and our love for evil, not good.

PS: For those who are freaked out by the WHO near declaration of a pandemic - look up the definition first, see see how vague it is. The only thing that separates a "pandemic" from something like the normal flu, is the fact that it's new to populations.

A Review of The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible, by Ben Witherington III

In this book, Witherington writes in response to 2 unhealthy patterns and attitudes to the bible he sees in today's world - on one hand, we have the fundamental conservatives who insist that everything in the bible is literally true, and understand the "authority" of scripture in a straightforward, literal sense, as demonstrated by Christians who insist the world is flat and square because Revelation speaks of how "angels came from four corners of the earth". On the other hand, we have the liberals, demonstrated by Erhman and his new book "Jesus Interrupted", pointing out that the bible is full of contradictions and cannot be trusted.

In both cases, Witherington argues, there is ironically the same problem - a straightforward, simplistic approach to scripture that neglects fundamental issues that arise in the study of any piece of literature (religious including). In both cases, there is a neglect of the complexity of scripture, with both groups forgetting that texts can and should primarily be understood as they were meant to be understood - eg: we should not be reading a comic strip as if the statements within where academic literature.

For example, liberal theologians often have an issue with the chronological differences between the four gospels - forgetting that biographies written 2000 years ago were not seeking to establish historical chronicity or accuracy, but rather sought to demonstrate and describe a persons life in particular themes. In essense - biography is different from history (especially ancient biogrpahy and ancient history).

Witherington spends much of the book look at specific issues and case studies - for example household regulations found within colossians and whether Paul is inadvertently promoting slavery and patriarchal systems, and discussing how a surface interpretation of the text will not suffice to do justice to it and the theology drawn from it. He also devotes 1/4 of the entire book to a QnA section, where he answers some of the most common questions he receives from the general public about the bible.

This book probably underachieves - it is entitled "rethinking the theology of the bible", but in reality Witherington does little more than to put forth a solid, well thought out argument for the proper and careful exegesis of scripture and its application to Christian life. His arguments are nothing groundbreaking, and would be what you expect from any reasonable book on hermeneutics.

Where it does shine, however, is the (rather slim) chapter on postmodernism - and a brief commentary on self proclaimed postmodern christians, such as Brian Mclaren, Rob Bell and Dan Miller. In this, he effectively argues that they aren't true postmodernists, demonstrating that Christians, both professional and lay, often have a misconception of what true postmodernism is, and how it impacts the way we read scripture. Alas, this chapter is rather short.

In summary, "The Living Word of God" puts forth a good case for the need to properly and carefully handle the Christian scriptures, and warns against the fallacies committed by both liberal and fundamentalist camps. It is a book that is perhaps written more for the student who is beginning his/her journey in the study of the scriptures, than for the seasoned and experienced exegete. Nonetheless, the QnA sections, the Case Study sections and a few others do provide some gems and food for thought for someone more experienced.

Here it is from koorong.com.au

Camps, Love and Couples

Our mid-year church camp's theme is "true love awaits", and as the name suggests, it's about "how to love". As one can guess, the promotion so far seems to suggest that while it is not exclusive to couples, it is significantly focused on these relationships.

Apart from the obvious theological issues of asking an anthropocentric question of "how do WE love", I have been wondering whether this is an insensitive and inappropriate theme for a combined church camp.

Within any church, including ours, there is a mixture of singles and couples, and I do wonder whether having a COMBINED camp that focuses on couple relationships does little more than to rub in the fact that the singles are single. Yes they have said that the camp is not just for couples, but the promotional material seems to suggest that singles are more of a "not uninvited" group.

Perhaps it's just been the way it's been promoted, and the actual camp isn't about about couple relationships. But looking at the way it's been going, it seems like it's going to be more segregating than unifying.