Addendum to the Responses from the Presentation

I forgot a few things.

There were a few comments asking us to make mention of the structures and powers that promote the problem that HIV/AIDS presents. We talked about the practices through the cyclical pattern, but we didn't talk about the structures like the United States and how we as a nation, churches, and individuals may unknowingly contribute to the problem.

Also there was one comment that asked a relevant question: How do we respond to the mass of orphans? As we mentioned that this is a growing problem, we should address it with a few possible solutions.

Reporting from the Responses from Our Presentation

I would echo a lot of what you saw from the responses you took home. The responses I received were in large very similar. Many people wanted more substance in the "why Jesus followers ought to be involved" section. And that is definitely an area that we need to work on. But then, we've been talking about fleshing this out for the last two weeks so, I don't think we need to worry.

As you said also, people wanted to see a wider array of ways to get involved. One commenter said something to the effect of "Are there fast, easy ways churches can get involved without researching?" Honestly, we did emphasize educating ourselves quite a bit in our presentation, and with due reasoning. Then again, the same person also wanted to know what we can do to get churches to not be lazy about these issues. I thought that was a bit strange.

I also agree with your assessment of making the case for the cyclical connection between poverty and AIDS stronger. I'm a visual person and I'm sure many others are as well. What do you think about putting up a simple graphic that shows that pattern on our wiki? We could then flesh out the reasoning behind it in words. I'm sure I can do it.

I also got a lot of responses asking us to explain how to change churches' attitudes. I'm really not sure if this is the right way to go. Speaking from what little experience I do have in working with churches, changing attitudes and ways of thinking is a difficult and exhausting endeavor. Perhaps these responses came from previous frustrations in working with the church and seeing bad attitudes as the major barrier preventing the church from action. While this may in part be true, I find combatting value judgments and attitudes head-on to be defeating and not a good use of time. Instead, could we encourage people moved to action against HIV/AIDS to seek others who are likewise moved to action within the church, and start partnering with organizations to combat HIV/AIDS together (a more grassroots approach to affecting change rather than a top-down one).

Response to Tyler's Chapters 1-2 Comments

You are right to point to and highlight the existing and potential roles of the INGOs in the fight against HIV/AIDS. I suppose my rather pessimistic conclusion to the readings from Global Transformations comes from a limited perspective in hoping that national governments would step up. To be very honest, I didn't really see the worth of the INGOs, and that is where I most visibly come up short. In my hopes of seeing national budgets change to alleviate the plight of those affected either directly or indirectly by HIV/AIDS, I have overly narrowed my scope of view.

I think that you are right in saying that hope for churches to be involved is through the INGOs. Connecting it to what we were talking about the week previous, NGOs and INGOs can be a very concrete way to connect churches with people not of the faith to work together to combat HIV/AIDS, and thus, present the Gospel at the same time. Though church based organizations may deter non-Christians from being involved, INGOs such as Amnesty International can be a safe "middle ground" where the two parties can meet.

Responses to Our Presentation

I've read through the student responses. For the most part, people liked the presentation. The two aspects that are continually highlighted 1. are how you showed the connection between poverty and AIDS and the cycle it creates, and 2. the discussion of microfinance. Maybe we should make these even stronger sections of the wiki.

People definitely wanted to see more resources of why Jesus-followers ought to be involved. So, we need to start culling biblical and theological resources on this topic. The issue will be sticky -- as we predicted and have already seen -- about whether we go harm reduction or highlight abstinence. Within the comments, there are already different views. Some wanted us to go abstinence only and others are very critical of abstinence only programs. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to find organizations on both sides so that churches can partner with whatever agency they feel most comfortable. Honestly, trying to convince congregations to change their views on their preferred method of HIV prevention seems like an exhausting endeavor.

We did get a great question on one of the responses: is giving money the only way for churches to be involved? That's something we will have to address because as it stands, that is how we are primarily trying to get people involved, even if it is in a creative way like microfinance. Granted we have also highlighted letter-writing campaigns, but even then, it is to convince elected officials to give money.

Response to Hideyo's Week 6 Analysis

You raise an interesting set of questions. I find it interesting that we both looked at the same chapters, tried to apply them to our area, and seemingly came up with different conclusions. I think you are right to wonder where the international support for HIV/AIDS is? You ask, "Where is the global economy when it comes to global health crises? Where is the international community?" While I hear saddness in your tone, I came from to rather hopeful conclusions. I found the discussion about international regimes, especially concerning human rights, very encouraging. The different groups like Amnesty International and The Mothers of the Disappeared, and their influence on governments gives me hope that there are opportunities for the international community to fight HIV. You said that the MDGs may be an example of the international community to work together. I agree.

That is not to say your lament or concern is invalid. In fact, I found it to be necessarily sobering. As I read the reports and prospectuses (sp?) of different organizations, I can forget how far we need to go in this battle. At this point, I would say that we are losing in the fight against HIV/AIDS. As I have found hope in victory, I also forget the great costs it will take to win this fight. I think that the sobering prophetic call that you voiced this week teamed with the hopeful encouragement I expressed is the right mix needed to address this issue with the respect it deserves. We cannot be naively hopeful nor can we allow ourselves to despair. I think we will need an eschatological outlook in order to know how to proceed and to have any sense of hope.