Faith responses to HIV: Mapping the future

Keeping Faith Faith responses to HIV: Mapping the future 10th October 2011, Lambeth Palace

The Road Still To Travel Major Dr Dean Pallant, The Salvation Army

Summary of main points heard today 

The value of an integrated, holistic approach



The successes should be celebrated



The ongoing struggle must not be forgotten



The frame of reference of the people must be used



“More religion”, “more good science and good theology”



The use of texts is relevant – three of the speakers used faith texts



It takes hard work and commitment to partner – and so it should! We need to do the hard work it takes to build partnerships.



Community systems strengthening must be taken seriously – and linked to health systems strengthening



Value For Money is an important agenda: “Maximise the impact of each £ spent to improve poor people’s lives” The three “E”’s are central to DFID’s thinking: Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness.



BUT – I did not hear much concern about declining resources!

The road still to travel….

In these final moments of the day, I will focus on three key opportunities/challenges 1. Appreciating and developing each other’s capacities and perspectives Warm words tend to flow freely at events like this. We have all been very complimentary about each other and rightly so. However, we also know the reality of working in tough places. It is hard work. We need to appreciate and develop each other’s capacities.

Page | 1

In particular, there needs to be a clear understanding of the terms of engagements between groups of people with different goals. I do not subscribe to the school of thought that pretends we are all doing the same thing at the end of the day. There are differences but that does not need to stop us working together.

A multi-disciplinary enquiry under the auspices of Harvard University proposed a helpful basis for “common ground” through an appreciation of the interrelated roles and functions of FBOs and the secular liberal state. Bane et al summarises: “Because so much of religion’s contributions are good for democracy and because these contributions are anchored in faithful religious practices, we propose that creative initiatives to strengthen the intrinsic religious practices of faith communities will also serve the instrumental aims of helping to strengthen pluralist civil society and participatory democracy.”1 This is a constructive starting point that seeks to find areas of mutual interest between the secular liberal state and the faith community by allowing different ends to be attributed to the same action by different groups. In other words, we can work together on the same task, even though our motives and expectations vary. People of faith can be true to their beliefs while, at the same time, the results are acceptable as they achieve the instrumental aims of the state or the commercial goals of the market. It is frankly naïve to tell people of faith to leave their God outside and operate without reference to their faith. Even if we say we will, we won’t be able to!

Bane et al. propose a “common ground” based on six interrelated roles or functions for FBOs working within a liberal democracy: 

fostering expression;



forming identities;



creating social bonds;



shaping moral discourse;



enabling participation; and



providing social services.2

They deliberately leave the provision of social services to the last point believing that too much focus is placed on it to the exclusion of other critically important roles and

Page | 2

functions. This is particularly relevant in the context of AIDS – as we have learnt for many years now, the pandemic will not be overcome with a “provider mentality”.

The first five characteristics are all about developing relational capacity. As we have heard today, we must start at the point of promoting life in all its fullness – human flourishing and justice.

This remains the key to any response to AIDS or any other physical, social, emotional or spiritual concern. Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan in the US Presidential elections once was “It’s the economy, stupid!” I am often tempted to adopt a similar slogan – “It’s relationships, stupid!”

2. Anticipating future risks The task of mapping the future has been at the top of our agenda today. This is another tough task – who knows that the future brings? A few months ago, when we talked about “fragile states” we thought about the challenges of working in Sudan, East Congo or rural Papua New Guinea. The news is now dominated by the fragility of states much closer to home – Greece, the Eurozone, even the UK and USA appear to be much more fragile partners when mapping the future of AIDS. The same could be said of corporates. Do we seriously think corporate responsibility programmes will continue to be well funded when the corporation is not providing the expected return on investment for its shareholders?

I believe this offers an opportunity for FBOs and the wider development sector. Many of us have become too used to large government grants and shaping our programmes to appeal to the funding interests of the world’s wealthiest philanthropists. To some extent, we have allowed ourselves to become little more than mere instruments of the state to be used to distribute information or goods. The risks are significant: Paul Gifford, in a recent ethnography of contemporary African Christianity, provides detailed analysis of the extent to which the Kenyan Church is engaged in the ‘development business’ but notes very few FBOs in Kenya “seem interested in even asking whether there is any specifically Christian contribution to development”.3 Gifford, who claims not to have a theological or denominational interest in his study, reaches a disturbing conclusion: Page | 3

“[The] increasing identification of mainline Christianity with Western development aid is something whose significance needs to be acknowledged.

As Africa has become increasingly marginalised, excluded from globalising movements and processes, these aid flows and what they involve have become increasingly significant for, even constitutive of, parts of mainline Christianity. This is the sense in which one can talk of secularisation in Africa.

It is not that Africans are notably becoming secularised, but much of mainline Christianity effectively is.”4 If Gifford is right – and my experience in Africa makes me think he is – this is a risk not just for the established denominations but also for governments and donors who work with FBOs. People will not find spiritual fulfilment in a secularised denomination - and will be attracted to more extreme, flamboyant worship experiences. These tend to promise earthly prosperity or eternal happiness from the pulpit but little social action in the community. If this trend continues it will result in weakened faith-based organisations with a weakened capacity to serve.

Many donors and FBOs are wary of theology and faith groups taking a central role in policy and practice. “Faith” is left as a loose, undefined label rather than imbued with richness from theological resources. Many FBO practitioners are tempted into promoting the instrumental capacity of the church, mosque or temple to reach vulnerable people but perceive religious leaders and their theology as barriers to their priorities of effective and efficient initiatives to improve the health of poor people and “go to scale”.5 Most FBOs have accepted partnerships with the global public health establishment who appear, in effect, to view faith-based groups (including congregations and denominational infrastructure) as simply an effective distribution network for secular initiatives. It is not surprising that many people of faith are wary of the language of managerialism and frameworks of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The space for flourishing relationships is often squeezed out by the unswerving faith of the managerialists.

There is a risk of people infected and affected by AIDS being perceived as mere consumers or commodities. They are “persons in relationship”. One of the greatest risks in mobilizing faith communities to respond authentically to HIV and AIDS is a loss of faith in the process of being organized.

Page | 4

3. Encouraging faith It is not in anyone’s interests if faith based groups simply adopt – or are encouraged to adopt – objectives and policies set by politicians and government officials; nor determine programme priorities according to the funding criteria of the world’s wealthiest people; nor embrace the business models of large commercial health providers. Although the actions of state, market and donor inevitably impact FBOs, the direction and character of a Faith-Based Organisation should by definition, be determined by matters of faith. Therefore, the theology of a Faith-Based Organisation should be the primary influence on an FBO. If its faith does not drive an FBO, whose faith does?

However, FBOs often lack the resources to engage in meaningful dialogue in an inter-disciplinary conversation with public health. Reflecting on more than five years of such conversations in the African Religious Health Assets Programme (ARHAP), Jill Olivier writes: “In collaborative communication, Public Health discourse appears to be more powerful than that of Religious Studies not only because of its links to scientific institutions of power, but also because of its narrative authoritative style. Hermeneutics, interpretation and reflection does not fare well when it comes into competition with a discourse of certain authority.”6 Oliver is right – people of faith tend to be overwhelmed by the “certain authority” of public health discourse. A priority for relationships and people – proven to be so critically important in responding to the AIDS pandemic – can evaporate in the face of the certain authority of managerialism and science. This should be a major concern for us in the immediate future as the agenda becomes dominated by questions “value of money” and “evidence based outcomes”. But as we all know from bitter experience, the certain authority of managerialism can quickly dissipate.

What is often less appreciated is the dependence on faith of our political masters. I am not referring to the increased levels of temple going by politicians just before an election, but rather the extent to which they ask us to have faith in them and their policies. Like any faith group, if the politicians – or the corporations – lose trust, the end is nigh.

Page | 5

Therefo ore, FBOs need to be clearer a about their methodolo ogy, more transparen nt about tthe influencce of faith – there is no need fo or apology.. Equally, tthere is no room for arro ogance from FBOs. We W know b better than anyone ab bout the weeaknesses s in our organissations. Th he Harvard d Study I re eferred to earlier, e Ban ne et al, iddentify several legitima ate concerrns such as s FBO servvice capac city, a lack of a culturre of accoun ntability; an n absence of sound e empirical re esearch; concern c reggarding proselyytising vuln nerable clie ents and diiscriminato ory employ yment pracctices. They y argue it is verry importan nt for FBOs to have g greater cerrtainty whe en making partnerships with other o organisations and be explicit reg garding wh hat they ca an – and caannot – briing to the tab ble.

We havve heard a number of o times tod day about the importa ance of goood science e and good th heology. I believe pra actical theo ology is a discipline d that t brings these two o forces for goo od togetherr in a consttructive an nd creative manner. Using U the rresources of o practical theologyy, The Salv vation Arm my is using a methodo ology calleed Faith-Ba ased Facilita ation to exp plain our way w of workking which aims at bu uilding deeeper relatio onships.

It seeks to bring together t th he best ins ights of the e social sc ciences withh the richn ness of theolog gy. Visit ww ww.salvatio onarmy.org g/fbf for mo ore informa ation

Page | 6

Next steps Having listened to the discussions today I propose the following next steps 

Respecting and embracing difference BUT get on with it. This area has been well debated and scoped for many years – there is no point in trying to agree a single piece of common ground around which we will all agree. That is impossible.

However, the task is clear. Our differences should be respected and embraced – and we need to all work together better.



Don’t just measure the easy and relatively meaningless – prioritise increasing relational capacity BUT FBOs need to take this seriously. We need to up our game.



Increasing capacity for “reflective practice” – use practical theology to challenge the secularists and the religious fundamentalists



Use the “voice” we have – get to the table and do the work



Next meeting of Faith Working Group – we need you!

1

Bane, et al., Taking Faith Seriously, p311.

Ibid., p8.

3 Paul Gifford, Christianity, Politics and Public Life in Kenya (London: Hurst, 2009), p49.

4 Ibid., p50.

5 Viewing the church as one of a number of community groups rather than the prime partner for FBO health work was the World Vision strategy as explained to me at the 2008 International AIDS Conference in Mexico City by one of their leading AIDS programme managers in Africa.

6 Olivier, "In Search of Common Ground for Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Communication: Mapping the Cultural Politics of Religion and HIV/AIDS in Sub Saharan Africa" - an unpublished PhD Thesis, p133.

2

Page | 7