Unclear on the Concept ...

... a little venting: don't mind me ...

I heard a theological postulate today that absolutely made me cringe. A friend of mine related a teaching she'd heard from a theologian who’s also something of an activist on the Downtown East Side. He re-told the parable of The Good Samaritan as “The Good Drug Dealer”. The idea, apparently, was to illustrate the extent to which Samaritans were reviled in Jesus’ time.

Nice try, but …

I have written in the past that the Downtown East Side is Vancouver’s Samaria, but this is not what I mean. The warping of this parable may give us an idea of the antipathy towards Samaritans, but I think this theologian owes the Samaritans an apology for comparing them to drug dealers. After all, Samaritans did not choose to be Samaritans, but no matter how you slice it, drug dealers are in that occupation by choice. Their sole purpose is to make money for themselves, and they have little concern for the people whose lives are ruined or cut short because of that “purpose”.

The flip side of this polemic is even more chilling: that’s the idea that we should consider drug dealers to be like Samaritans – downtrodden and discriminated against by virtue of their place in society. It sounds like the prelude to a clever civil liberties lawyer's argument for a mistrial on the basis of chronic harassment.

Now, if this theologian had used the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10 instead, that would have been an interesting parallel. Zacchaeus was a tax collector, and in those days, tax collectors were reviled for ripping off people, handing over money to the Romans and raking down a fair bit of it for themselves. Zacchaeus was so short, he had to climb a tree to get a look at Jesus as He walked by; Jesus spotted him and invited Himself over for dinner. By the time Jesus gets to Zacchaeus’ place, Zacchaeus has repented, is restoring to those he has robbed four times over, and gives half of his goods to the poor. If we substituted “drug dealer” for “tax collector”, that would have made for a great story of redemption.

Or was this theologian trying to make us feel warm-fuzzies for drug dealers and decide they’re really not so bad and are just misunderstood like Samaritans and we should let our daughters marry one?

In the words of Sam Goldwyn, “include me out”.

This is the same kind of thinking that leads purported Christian leaders to have a choir sing "Amazing Grace" when a court case involving InSite is heard: as if it's God's will for His people to be kept in a drugged-out zombie state, so long as it's "clean"; or to side with the "Occupy" movement, when Scripture calls on us to submit to authority, no matter how "bad" it may seem to us. I wonder if this is why it's so hard to get churches outside the DTES to get involved with ministry there?

InSite - reminding us of the job at hand

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that InSite -- the "supervised" drug injection facility on the Downtown East Side -- should continue to receive public funds on the grounds that drug addicts have the "right" to shoot up in a healthy environment.

Once again in this country, "rights" has trumped "right". InSite has been around for eight years, and despite its claims to having reduced the infection rate of HIV/AIDS, there are some inescapable facts:

• people are still doing drugs, many of them openly on the streets or in alleys
• there is still a "market" for drugs, because those coming into InSite had to have acquired them from someplace
• women are still selling their bodies for drug money and often getting killed in the process
• street crime has grown worse over that time
• gang activity -- fuelled by the drug trade -- has also grown worse over that time
• police are increasingly frustrated at not being able to enforce the laws that are supposed to protect people (get a cop talking about InSite and you'll see a completely different picture than the one put forward by the proponents)

Certainly, the idea that someone should be able to inject drugs with a clean needle in a more-or-less sterile environment is "good", but as we so often see, "good" is the enemy of "best". As you'll see from the Province article, the federal government argued eloquently about the mixed messages InSite sends. We try to tell people that it's bad to do drugs, then we turn around and enable it. The subliminal message from society -- as represented by certain "experts" and various levels of the court system -- is, "we really don't care if you go through life as a drugged-out zombie: that's your 'choice' and we won't take that away from you".

This just in: drugs have already taken away that freedom. You look at someone groping around the streets and alleys, looking for a grain of crack cocaine to smoke, fumbling to find a vein with a needle, or sidling up to someone passing through with the "I-just-got-a-job-in-Fort-McMurray-but-I-need-to-get-enough-money-for-the-bus" line and tell me how capable they are of making a wise "choice".

This is all in the name of "harm reduction", and as I've said before, Jesus is not into harm reduction: He's into harm elimination. The law of His time on earth banished the "woman with the issue of blood" in the name of harm reduction. Jesus turned around and healed her. Same with lepers and demonized people. So much of the Downtown East Side resembles a leper colony or Samaria. But the healing has to begin with the hope that healing is possible. The woman with the issue wouldn't have put her life on the line -- literally -- to touch the hem of Jesus' garment if she didn't have a glimmer of hope that it would work when spending her life savings on medical treatment had failed. Statements like the remark by then mayor Sam Sullivan to the effect that, while addicts want to be clean, he'd like to get up and walk out of his wheelchair, but that's not going to happen either (emphasis mine), serve to stomp that hope into ashes.

But wailing and gnashing teeth that the law is an ass won't do. The ruling simply strengthens our resolve to continue preaching the Gospel -- and with it, Hope -- to the people we serve on the Downtown East Side. Let them know that a life without drugs, poverty and despair is not some vague promise in a book, but something mandated of God and, in fact, attainable. Drugs, poverty and despair are not really the problems -- in fact, as a student from Columbia Bible College pointed out recently at the Mission, for many people, they're the solution. The problems that lead to that solution are deeper issues that only God, through Jesus Christ, can identify, expose and heal, and they involve turning to Him and letting Him do His thing. That way, people on the DTES can become a generation of Overcomers, which could be far more dangerous to The Man than a neighbourhood full of addicts.

Now that I think of it and run it through the filter of seeking God and His glory in all things, the court ruling isn't so bad, at that. It reminds us that The Man -- the legal system, social-service programs and health-care "professionals" -- cannot be relied on to save people. Only God can do that -- just as Jesus told Martha after her brother Lazarus had died, "you will see the Father glorified". So while there is still daylight, we have to keep working hard to remind people that God can be glorified in any situation -- even (or especially) in the midst of Canada's Worst Postal Code.

Live from Gospel Mission

As we mentioned in the previous posting (see previous posting), the TV is now installed in The Lord's Rain and we're ready to start our live closed-circuit feeds so that people with disabilities can take part in our services.

Now ... how to get the word out. It's to be a "soft launch", as we PR types call it. My friends, Viv Garcia and Brad Jacobsen with the BC Paraplegic Association have agreed to help publicize it within the disability community and thus inform those on the Downtown East Side that this is available.

Viv, in fact, is linking this from the BCPA Facebook page, so here are the basic details:

Services at Gospel Mission -- 331 Carrall Street -- are now available to persons with disabilities via closed-circuit TV to The Lord's Rain -- Gospel Mission's showers program at 327 Carrall Street (the ground-floor space below the Mission).

Services are at the following times:
SUNDAY 12:30pm
MONDAY, TUESDAY, FRIDAY & SATURDAY 6:30pm
(meals served after each service)

WEDNESDAY Bible study 6:30pm (no meal, but snack afterwards)
THURSDAY Movie night 6:30pm (no meal, but coffee & popcorn)

As of right now, the plan is to cut off entry at 7pm, so's not to disturb the service, but we'll review that as needed.

=====
Bravo to Daphne Bramham in The Vancouver Sun, for her column on the recent Ontario court ruling effectively legalizing prostitution. She dismisses the blather about rights and individual choice far more effectively than I could, but I look at the once-beautiful women on the DTES, whose bodies have been ravaged by drugs and who continue to sell their bodies to get more money to buy more drugs, and I wonder why anyone would want to make it easier for that to happen.

Daphne also points out that the ruling sends a message to boys and men that it's OK to buy sex. Speaking on my own account, how would they really learn about love and fidelity and the special relationship between a man and a woman if that message is coming loud and clear from legal circles?

=====
Yet another drug bust, headlined in the media with the dollar-value of the amount seized. As I ranted in another post, the media have a nasty habit of glamorizing the drug trade at the same time that they profess shock and outrage. They talk about the value of the drugs and discuss with lascivious glee the lifestyles lived by dealers and "drug lords". Let's get real: no matter how the media try to push the "crime does not pay" message, there are always going to be people reading, watching and listening, who will add "for them", and determine that, for that kind of money, they could do it better and not get caught.

Instead of publicizing the value of the drugs, why not give an estimate of the number of people whose lives were not destroyed because those drugs won't make it to market? How about an estimate of the health care costs that won't be flushed down the toilet in treating the manifold effects of drug abuse, or of the police, ambulance and firefighting costs that will be saved by not having to deal with that many more cases among the street people that the seized drugs would have created?

Perhaps that would make a good little J-school assignment.

It's the drugs, stupid! (a response)

Yesterday, we posted a rant about drugs on the Downtown East Side, in which I noted that, while the US War on Drugs has been, by many accounts, unsuccessful, Canada's apparent "peace treaty" with drugs has hardly wrestled the problem into submission, either. This brought a considered response, and with the permission of the writer (who's asked to remain anonymous), I'm posting it here.

Usually I read your emails and always find some inspiring message in part or in whole . Today I found it interesting that the usual message of salvation and GODs work took on a political tone speaking to the issue of the drug problem. As I consider myself somewhat of an expert I felt compelled to respond.

As someone who has personally experienced the US federal penal system I would like to educate you a bit as I constantly see misinformation being put forward. First I would start off by saying the US policy on drugs has been a complete failure and my opinion is in accordance with many groups , politicians and even federal US magistrates. The US incarcerates more people per capita that any other country in the world for non-violent drug offenses. This leads me to my second point, the US prison system is more and more being privatized in an effort to enrich individuals that under the guise of saving the tax payers a small amount of money, have almost cut off basic services health care,dental and definitely any and all forms of programs designed to rehabilitate offenders and actually does the exact opposite by seizing all assets of people, alienating them from family and loves ones by placing undue burdens on them in respect to where they are serving their time usually 500 miles from their home.

I say usually cause that is the policy of the USBOP (United States Bureau of Prisons. I am very concerned here with the Conservative party taking steps to emulate them. We have to first of all accept someone using drugs (including alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine ) included is a consentual crime . Can we expect the Canadian government to legislate morality. isn't that defeating the purpose of exactly why GOD has put us here and given us FREE WILL . Aren't we responsible for the choices we make ? Why are we always looking for someone to blame ie the drug sellers . Isn't a simple case of supply and demand ? Would there be a supply if there was no demand?

I think our generation and maybe our society is too easy to blame others for our actions. I also find it ironic that the real problem the alcohol and cigarettes and prescription drugs get little to no mention even though the evidence supports that alcohol and tobacco alone kill more people every year than all other illegal drugs combined. So doesn't that make the provincial and federal governments the biggest traffickers of all. Not to mention the huge multi-national drug companies that fly under the radar and to the contrary boast of their multi-billion dollar fortunes. Hasn't prohibition taught us anything ?

Can't we look at modern examples in Europe and see that decriminalizing has stabilized the new youth wanting to experiment with the banned substances and moreover provide these substances in a clean safe place. The fact that they treat it as a health issue and realize that the people will steal, rob and worse to get it accept that although this is controversial, it actually saves the tax payers in the end.I think we get a mixed message here whether it is viewed as a health or criminal issue and personally would like to see the spaces in prison used for violent offenders and pedophiles.

The fact the federal government is using tax dollars to in effect to try and shut down alternative programs the safe needled injection site for example proves this theory, and would only compound the problem with the transmission of diseases, HIV AIDS to name a few seems quite ironic to me. Can we not be resigned that a percentage of people will continue to use no matter what programs or treatment options are offered. This may sound pessimistic to some , but I see it as realistic. I personally grew up in a home where alcohol destroyed mine and my siblings childhood and although the media like to glorify the DTES drug problems I find little to no mention of this huge problem.

After living in Rio De Janeiro Brasil i was shocked to see that the standard police stance there was to exterminate the problem literally, i still find that so cruel that it is almost unimaginable and it has done little to nothing to curb the problem. Even under the assumed penalty of death , the youths are not discouraged and have little to no alternative. The human being is capable of extraordinary things when faced with hunger, starvation or the difference of a their child dying if they aren't able to provide a simple medicine that we take for granted here, but there means the possibility of life or death. Do we want to follow that example I think not.

Usually a country in part can be measured on how they treat their incarcerated . I consider myself very fortunate to be born a Canadian citizen and be afforded these rights ands freedoms that my forefathers fought and died for and would consider it a national tragedy to follow any part of the the US judicial system or any example or policy for that matter. We are a sovereign nation and we shouldn't look at their many failed examples as a guideline.

In closing i would like to add that it is my opinion that the media play an intregal part in perpetuating this problem in an attempt to sell advertising space and newspapers and the facts suggest we are still a very safe place to reside in relation to other North American cities and worldwide for that matter.