Response to Tyler

I particularly appreciated your take on the "In the Zone" article. Paternalism vs. quietism. Very true. I think we can both agree that remaining quiet is not an option for Jesus followers. But the danger of paternalism is very real in those who want to become active.

Personally, I believe that the danger of paternalism will be rendered irrelevant when we finally meet the people. Paternalism I believe is far more prevalent when we are helping from afar, from the comforts of our own home, where we can do something noble. When we come face to face with those afflicted, however, I think something happens where natural bonds and relationships can finally occur, and true love can be expressed. It is far more difficult to remain up above it all when we are at the same level. And that's where I find that some of the Western resources we've found are particularly great. Many of them do have representatives who work actively with the very people they are helping. I don't find that to be paternalistic but rather a friend helping another friend in need.

Response to Hideyo's Analysis:

You are right that fighting HIV/AIDS is going to require costs to us in the West. I wonder how often we are actually aware of that. While we are not necessarily playing a zero-sum game in terms of costs and benefits, some sacrifice will need to be made. I like the practical question you ask of churches: "are we as churches willing to sacrifice buying a multi-channel sound board, and instead opt to support World Vision's work against HIV/AIDS?" It is sobering to remember that in churches we are really no different than the rest of the world. We want fancier equipment. We want better facilities for our kids and ourselves. I hope that does not come across as overly critical, just a sobering reminder. I wish I saw more churches doing something for World AIDS Day, but I don't. Again, I don't think it's because people don't want to care, but AIDS is not a reality for many people in our churches, especially if they are not in urban settings. Out of sight, out of mind. And therein is one of our main challenges: awareness. When the terrorists attacked on September 11, or when Hurricane Katrina hit, the churches in the US responded and responded with gusto. We can do something similar for AIDS. Perhaps there will be compassion fatigue, but we have to do something. I'm done preaching.

Response to Tyler's Week 8 Post

I like the questions you are raising with the Global Transformations book. I agree in wondering how the quote in page 266 works in conjunction with the reality that many people suffering from AIDS aren't receiving the treatment they so desperately need. May I hypothesize that both statements are true. Held seems to overstate the progress of globalization today but his assertion is most probably true in saying that pharmaceutical MNCs are expanding beyond the borders of the developed world. At the same time, many countries in AIDS stricken Africa do not house MNC branches. Perhaps what Held is stating is an optimistic look into the very near future but not a comment on current state of affais.

As for your comments on the Pieterse book, could it be possible that a large majority of our indifference to the global AIDS crisis is that it doesn't seem to affect us daily? That is, could the epidemic be so far removed from our "reality" that we don't care to respond? "Out of sight, out of mind," seems to be an appropriate addage here.

In light of this, what does Pieterse add to the conversation? Could a world without borders breakdown move us beyond our borders of "reality"? Could we eventually see our brothers and sisters in Uganda truly as brothers and sisters? That is, are our conceptions of nation/state/people hindering us from reaching out with compassion? I realize that I'm leaning toward the possibility of an unrealistic utopian society, but I think they are questions worth asking.

Response to Hideyo's Week 8 Analysis

Again, I like the questions you are raising. While Held et al are not hyperglobalists, they do still seem to see globalization as a positive thing. Sometimes I wish they would incorporate the concerns of the skeptics more into their arguments, or at least give those concerns more discussion. As the son of small business owners, I have benefited from and am wary of MNCs (particularly Wal-Mart), so I would like to see more information about how MNCs have affected the developing nations they enter. Some I am sure are very beneficial and have helped create stability and infrastructure for healthcare and education. Others, I believe have probably strip-mined the nation of its resources.

I like the questions you raise of education. That seems to be very important. How do we encourage and increase the efficacy of education, without moving towards hegemony? As I said in my post, the breakdown of societies into social networks seems to be creating a significant shift in how we develop education. Groups are becoming more localized as it becomes more difficult to discuss socieities on national scales, but economies between those groups are highly interdependent. How do we ensure that different groups with their different values are able to compete (horrible term, I know) in the same market?

Short-term missions seems like an interesting idea, but one wrench I want to throw into our whole project is that I want to make sure we're not becoming paternalistic, which is the danger of many short-term missions, in my opinion. (I don't want to do away with short-term missions, however.) Many times short-term missions are more about us than they are about participating in the kingdom of God through serving others. Someone in class suggested we check out Touch Africa: a group seeking to help Africa and it seems very thoughtful (perhaps we can use this as an example of churches doing something). But notice that on the front page nearly every picture is of an Asian-American student. What does that communicate? What do these pictures have to do with Africa? Where is the focus of the group?

Response to Tyler's Week 7 Comments

I particularly liked how you tempered your hopes on seeing international trade as the cure all of all HIV/AIDS related problems. In light of the vastness of the effects of HIV/AIDS, the "cure" if there is one, no doubt, will have to be a concerted effort involving a great many organizations looking at the problem from a number of different angles. Economics and trade is one of those angles, but, it cannot be the sole one.

Regardless, I wonder, are there ways in which the church can steer economics and trade in such a way that developing countries would have greater access to goods, services, and information especially those that may alleviate people from the oppresion of this disease?

We mention microfinance as one way to do this very thing. Perhaps on our wiki, we could organize the ways in which Jesus-followers could get involved by category or approach. Categories could include: Economics, direct financial aid, prevention, education, public perception, etc.. Just an idea.

Response to Hideyo's Week 7 Analysis

I am admittedly a capitalist. I am not, however, a strictly laissez-faire capitalist by any means. I appreciated this week's chapters in how they discussed how more open trade has led to some great benefits, but as your analysis has pointed out, new levels of stratification have emerged. It reminded me of Ronald J. Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, which criticized current stratification where developing countries are forced to produce and export raw commodities to developed nations at the expense of their own nation's stability. For example, nations will produce coffee for exportation rather than foodstuffs to feed their own citizens.

Even though there does seem to be an overall helpful development with more open trade, the stratification between developed and developing still exists. There are disparities of technologies and as you have pointed out, we have seen this specifically in ARTs. Developed nations' citizens have access to ARTs and their citizens are able to manage HIV, whereas in developing nations, HIV is virtually guaranteed to develop into AIDS, which is a death sentence.

Are there ways in which we can redeem trade? I was actually a lot more hopeful about the positive aspects of trade and finance after reading the chapters. Granted, there still is a lot that needs to be done in terms of interest and debt created from developing nations' borrowing, but the recent forgiveness of 28 nations' debts via the World Bank's Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative seems to be a step in the right direction. How can we get churches involved in initiatives like this one. I'd love to see more statistics on how debt relief helps fight AIDS.

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.

Response to Tyler's Week 5 Analysis

Your questions regarding how churches can partner with organizations not necessarily faith based is an intriguing one. It is true that much of our research thus far has concentrated on what faith based organizations have done either by themselves or in collaboration with other faith based organizations. What can we do indeed!

Perhaps a good starting point is to work with widely accepted philanthropic organizations that may not necessarily be faith based. Habitat for Humanity does have faith based roots, but it is so widely recognized now especially with its push during the Hurricane Katrina incident that most outside the church do not know or care that its Christian roots run deep.

I am afraid that there are no equivalents to Habitat for Humanity for the HIV/AIDS issue. Perhaps World Vision is the closest, but the local church can and does make a significant presence when it moves outside of its walls to help organizations even that are not faith based. The reason why I'm going in this direction is that many non-church going people are suspicious of giving money or donating their time to "overtly" Christian organizations. Perhaps working with a more "undercover" or more "secular" organization would provide a safe neutral ground for collaborative works as you seem to be pushing in your last analysis.

How do you suppose we should propose taking on these collaborative efforts on our wiki?

The microfinancing articles are incredibly intriguing. To put in a pedestrian way, it sounds like AIDS insurance at least in the way that the UNAIDS page presents it. But this is definitely a concrete way that people can become involved in the fight. This stuff would be great for the wiki as a semi-indirect strategy that may have longer lasting and more widespread effects.