Page | 1   

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 | 2   

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 | 3   

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 | 4   

“[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 | 5   

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.

 

Therefo

about t

for arro

organis

legitima

accoun

prosely

it is ver

other o

the tab

We hav

good th

for goo

practic

Facilita

It seek

theolog

ore, FBOs

the influenc

ogance fro

sations. Th

ate concer

ntability; an

ytising vuln

ry importan

organisatio

ble.

ve heard a

heology. I

od together

al theology

ation to exp

s to bring t

gy. Visit ww

need to b

ce of faith

m FBOs. W

he Harvard

rns such as

n absence

nerable clie

nt for FBO

ns and be

a number o

believe pra

r in a const

y, The Salv

plain our w

together th

ww.salvatio

e clearer a

– there is

We know b

d Study I re

s FBO serv

of sound e

ents and di

s to have g

explicit reg

of times tod

actical theo

tructive an

vation Arm

way of work

he best ins

onarmy.org

about their

no need fo

better than

eferred to e

vice capac

empirical re

iscriminato

greater cer

garding wh

day about

ology is a d

nd creative

my is using

king which

ights of the

g/fbf for mo

methodolo

or apology.

anyone ab

earlier, Ban

city, a lack

esearch; c

ory employ

rtainty whe

hat they ca

the importa

discipline t

manner. U

a methodo

aims at bu

e social sc

ore informa

ogy, more

. Equally, t

bout the we

ne et al, id

of a cultur

concern reg

yment prac

en making

an – and ca

ance of go

that brings

Using the r

ology calle

uilding dee

ciences with

ation

transparen

there is no

eaknesses

dentify sev

re of

garding

ctices. They

partnershi

annot – bri

ood science

these two

resources o

ed Faith-Ba

eper relatio

h the richn

Page | 6  

nt

room

s in our

eral

y argue

ps with

ing to

e and

o forces

of

ased

onships.

ness of

Page | 7   

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. 2 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.