The contents of this section is drawn from results obtained using question 4 of interview guides formulated in the following two points, a) Does this Church have programmes to address HIV and AIDS? b) If yes, mention these programmes, target groups, frequency and their content.95 Responses to this question contain reference to the Church‘s inaction, some individual initiatives and the existence of unfunded project proposals.
6.3.1 Inaction of the Church
Participants explain that no programme was developed in the Church with the intention to respond to HIV and AIDS. The caregiver CG26:2 was embarrassed to admit to this reality. The excerpt from his interview reads as follows:
95 See appendix 4 and 5.
150
CG26:2: To be honest with you we do not have a formal structure that is set up to cater for these people affected with HIV and AIDS. To my knowledge, we don‟t have formal structure. We do have some people that have got the required training, for doing that.
And maybe in certain circuits or conferences they might be used for this purpose.
And maybe, in fact, that‟s why I am saying that we do not have a formal structure because our conference has not put it in place. But that particular circuit should have the particular person who is trained in that field. Maybe they can use him or her.
Interviewer: Can we turn now and go to the positive things and try to find whatever the Church has done in issues of HIV and AIDS, and identify it just to acknowledge that the Church has done something?
CG26:2: [Silence] Ehhh!! Not really. [Laughter] You know, I am ashamed because I am also a member but I can‟t; you know, I like to say „this is what we have done! This is what we have done!‟ But I can‟t [now].
This caregiver is surprised that he cannot find any single action that his circuit has done on issues relating to HIV and AIDS while he is ordinarily proud to enumerate the Church‘s achievements.
In his narrative, he places responsibility on the Superintendent who is the overseer of the FMSKZN.
Such response denying the Church‘s engagement in addressing HIV and AIDS is found in all the circuits covered by the study, though not necessarily by all the participants. However, the participants‘ views of the reasons for this failure differ. Some of them think that it is because the government is doing everything, including addressing HIV and AIDS and that therefore, the Church does not feel obliged. This view is expressed by the caregiver, CG7:12 as follows:
You see! Now the problem today is that the government is doing so much. And people have that mentality that everything should be done by the government. The government is becoming God likely.
People are all depending on the government, government this and government that, the government this, we need toilet you go to complain to the government, why just can‟t you dig your hole what are you doing?
You know, really! [...]. I think the very same mentality is within the Church. We are so depending on what the government is doing that we do not gona take an initiative to start our own programmes [...].
We are just okay of what the government is doing (CG7:12).
For this caregiver, inactivity exists not only in the Church or in the lack of a response to HIV and AIDS. It is also in the larger community and in all domains because the government is caring for the population thus preventing them from taking their own initiative.
But other participants believe that the church leaders do not make HIV and AIDS a priority because ‗their own‘ people, from their families or circuit are not affected. The excerpt from the interview of the church leader, CL13:7-8, can serve as an example of this statement:
Interviewer: Why are people so silent about this HIV?
151
CL13:7-8: No I don‟t want to address that issue. I don‟t want to address it; because I might lose focus in saying [that at] CLZ3 [circuit] [it] might not be our priority. It‟s not that people are silent about it. [It is] because they see no need to go to programmes like HIV and AIDS. There are quite a lot of other things that we need to achieve as a Church before we go to HIV. We need to get our priority straight. But if we say maybe over a period of three years, we are hurt by more than – maybe four people died of HIV and AIDS, it becomes an issue. Then the Church must say „what do we do?‟ Can you see? That‟s why when you ask these questions, you will find a lot of people being evasive, not giving you direct answers.
This church leader does not see HIV and AIDS as the Church‘s priority because none in their small circle has died of this pandemic. And like him, many other participants claim that the Church is inactive on issues of HIV and AIDS because there are no PLWHA in their midst. This view raises two concerns. Firstly, it is a confirmation that the Church is less concerned about the suffering of people outside the Church, which is sign of selfishness. Secondly, people think that there are no PLWHA in the Church while this inconspicuousness may be due to the non- disclosure of their status or their withdrawal from the Church, since the environment there does not accommodate them.96 Therefore all the suggestions similar to this one become illusionary and deceptive.
However, the central idea contained in the responses of the participants is that the Church has not initiated programmes responding to the challenges raised by HIV and AIDS.
6.3.2 Some Individual Initiatives
Besides the general denial of the Church‘s involvement in addressing HIV and AIDS, the second response asserts the involvement of some individuals based on their own initiatives. Three categories of persons are described here. The first category consists of some nurses who work in clinics or hospitals. In a few isolated cases, they provide general advice to people on issues of health.97 The second category is composed of some church leaders employed as staff in hospitals or clinics (three in the sample) and who, as part of their daily work, deal with HIV and AIDS.98 The last group comprises people (two in the sample) who, through their own initiatives went to hospitals or clinics to assist the sick spiritually but who finally were recognised by these institutions and given authorization to assist in all the wards and were granted a monthly financial incentive.99
96 See Section 5.3.2
97 See CL38:2; FGD17:9.
98 See CL20:1-11; CL21:10; CG27:1-11.
99 See CL21:6-7; CG39:6.
152
Two observations can be made with regard to these groups. Firstly, church leaders in the second and third groups do not organise activities to address HIV and AIDS within the Church as an institution. They prefer to remain in health institutions while church members are reclaiming their service in the Church.100 Secondly, no coordination, monitoring, recording or reporting of all these initiatives within the Church is taking place. This can therefore be interpreted that the Church as an institution does not have a plan or a vision for this missional constraint, which is a sign of its incompetence in matters relating to HIV and AIDS. The paradox is that there are competent professionals within the Church who could provide the necessary resources to respond to the challenge if the Church developed a strategic plan that included HIV and AIDS.
6.3.3 Unfunded Project Proposal
The investigation into the involvement of the Church in addressing HIV and AIDS realised the existence of a project proposal for responding to the pandemic in four district municipalities of the KZN Province. This was established in 2005 for a period of two years. Activities planned include workshops and trips for church leaders; training and conferences for various church groups (men, women and the youth) at different hierarchical levels; income generating activities for PLWHA; support and care for PLWHA and orphans; as well as vocational training for the youth. Its budget was estimated at US$1,290,110 (FMCSA, 2005). According to the overseer of the Church in the Southern Africa, this is the only formal HIV programme ever planned in the FMCSA, yet it is neither funded nor implemented.
The clarification of this proposal raises two questions. Firstly, does this mean that without huge amount of money, the Church is unable to afford or take steps to respond to HIV and AIDS?
Secondly, does this mean that without external funders, the Church cannot take the initiative to address HIV and AIDS? Another observation is that the proposal document does not acknowledge any link between this initiative and the mission of the Church or at least its theological motivation. Without a theological rationale, the church‘s initiative in the community is reduced into mere social actions or good works instead of reflecting true diakonia, as expected in Christian churches.101
The next area of enquiry concerns what selective literature evinces about the meaning of these results.
100 See Section 6.2.1.
101 See Section 5.5.2.1.
153
6.3.4 Reflection on the Absence of Action to Address HIV and AIDS in the FMSKZN 6.3.4.1 Denial of PLWHA in the Church and Lack of Compassion for Others’ Suffering The denial of PLWHA within the Church can be explained through the model of behavioural change developed by the BEAD group (Van Houten, 2006). This model comprises four gradual sequences: invisible epidemic, awareness, acceptance and behaviour change (:167-168).102 Therefore, the FMSKZN‘s behaviour can be classified according to stages two and three characterised by denial because inadequate results prove that it has not yet arrived at stage four of developing strategies to address the pandemic. It therefore has a long way to go in order to be able to achieve this objective.
Connected to this denial is the lack of compassion for ‗others‘ since in some settings the inaction is justified by the absence of PLWHA within the Church. However, some scholars disagree with such behaviour. In chapter 5, it was pointed out that for Richardson (2006) the church, which practices true diakonia in a time of HIV and AIDS, is expected not to be discriminatory. Like him, Parry (2008:79) understands that as a church ―We need to be compassionate in what we do and to accompany, in solidarity, those amongst us who suffer from the effect of HIV.‖ She explains here that compassion reclaimed means to engage in responding to the pandemic and to make sure that the afflicted people are served in the best way. The question posed by Njoroge (2008) also fits into this context. She asks, ―What kind of leadership do we have in the church and in society that rolls merrily along as the children of God perish? Are these not the ‗stiff- necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears‘ that Stephen preached about in Acts 7:51?‖
(:180).
These three authors advocate not only for church members but for all those who suffer in the community. Materu (2010) also suggests that ―each Christian [...] is admonished to play his/her role to ensure that the afflicted are getting the required care as long as they live. To fail to provide care to the needy is to fail Christ because he identifies himself with individuals in difficult situations‖ (:51-52). For Materu, a Christian who does not engage to assist those in need does not qualify to be called Christian. It is perceptible that not one of these scholars supports the Church‘s silence about HIV and AIDS under any pretext.
102 See Section 2.3.3..
154
6.3.4.2 Isolation and Suffocation of Internal Potential Initiatives
Not engaging in addressing HIV and AIDS because the government is involved clashes with the views of some scholars and South African‘s current perspective on healthcare. Here, Parry (2008:76) observes that faith communities are not islands which stand alone. They need to collaborate with other key role players for a better service delivery and the use of maximum efforts and resources. Furthermore, the South African Government has sought partnership with churches in taking care of the sick, especially those admitted to the hospitals (Mkhize, 2011). It is therefore evident that the FMSKZN is not responding to these calls, thus isolating itself.
The lack of the Church‘s coordination, monitoring, and reporting of internal initiatives for addressing HIV and AIDS also challenges the response of the FMSKZN as an institution, to the pandemic. This distancing of the church‘s senior leadership can have a negative effect on the motivation and involvement of church members, especially when HIV and AIDS is linked to the notion of sin as it is currently the case in the FMSKZN.103 According to Moore (2007:85), when HIV and AIDS is associated with sinning, even those church leaders and members who are willing to become involved are unable to do so because of the fear of being accused of condoning that sin. It therefore appears that people in the FMSKZN may refrain from engaging in addressing HIV and AIDS because the Church‘s overseers do not show much interest in this action. Another consequence is that efforts of the few who try to respond are not recorded in the missional response of the Church as institution to the pandemic. Therefore, the notion held by Njoroge (2008) who understands that the church has ―to nurture and empower its lay and ordained leadership to guide its members towards actively participating in the eradication of HIV/AIDS and all other pressing social injustice‖ (:193) is supported.
6.3.4.3 Dependency on External Donors and Neglect of Local Resources
Literature also contributes to the realisation that the FMCSA‘s expensive unfunded project proposal is a sign of dependency on missionaries and a hindrance to the Church‘s engagement in addressing the pandemic. To explain this, Le Roux (2011:80) uses the comment from Roland Allen in which he argues that indigenous leaders were developed in such a way that they depend on missionaries and cannot take any initiative without the missionary‘s guidance, and this resulted in them being unable to design and implement their own plan. Chitando (2007:34-35) maintains that, unlike African Initiated Churches and African Pentecostal Churches, mainline
103 See Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2.1.
155
churches generally depend on resources from the western countries for their projects. He warns that depending on external countries prevents them from maximising local resources in responding to HIV and AIDS. He also observes that HIV and AIDS successful projects are not necessarily those using ‗big money‘ but that a modest sum of money can help achieving important objectives.
This latter idea of Chitando also resonates with the development strategy ‘Asset-Based Community Development‘ (ABCD) proposed by Kretzmann and McNight (1993). This strategy is an alternative to the Needs-Based Development Approach (NBDA) which communities use to define their project proposals on the basis of what is lacking. In order to attract substantial amounts of money from donors, they try their best to define the community in a negative way.
Kretzmann and McNight (1993) therefore argue that one cannot build a community on what people do not have. They further demonstrate that communities have all the required assets for their own development. These may include human resources, infrastructures; land, water and climate (see also de Gruchy, 2003:21; Kajumulo, 2003:2; Mathie and Cunningham, 200:1-2). The results of this study confirm that the FMCSA (thus the FMSKZN) was not wise to evaluate its existing assets in order to respond to HIV and AIDS but relied on external donors who are not even responding.
In concluding this section, it is noteworthy that the FMSKZN has not initiated programmes that support the prevention of HIV infection or the care for people infected or affected of HIV. The justifications offered by participants that there are no PLWHA in the Church and that the government is already involved in this action do not find support in the literature and South African perspectives of health. Likewise, the lack of monitoring of potential initiatives in the Church marks its incompetence in responding to the challenge of HIV and AIDS. Furthermore, it was found that this Church has fallen into the trap of depending on external donors and therefore undermining the harnessing of local resources. Since the initiation of the study was motivated by the context of gender-based violence and its link with the spread of HIV and AIDS, the question to explore is, how has the FMSKZN responded to the gendered nature of this pandemic? The next section responds to this question.