And recommendation No. 1 is …
1/22/2010 4:59:55 PM
The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy report on HIV/AIDS is being written in response to two overtures to the 218th General Assembly (2008). With the 219th General Assembly meeting just 163 days away, time is running short to complete their work. As of today, there’s a majority report and a minority report. ACSWP protocols prohibit sharing what’s included in those drafts or what’s different about them.
According to Kesia Ellison, who participated in the meeting via telephone from Harvard University, said that the majority report “focuses on the dynamics of power and how those dynamics influence the HIV/AIDS pandemic and people living with HIV/AIDS.” The minority report, while still addressing those issues, orders the content of the report so as to elevate the concerns of marginalized people.
Ellison reminded the members of ACSWP that “HIV not only infects, it also affects people worldwide.” She continued, “HIV itself is not the problem, it’s a virus. Society’s ills are the problem. There are structural things that need to be comprehensively addressed. Multi-faceted approaches that address power and resource allocation is essential.”
Joy Raatz, HIV initiative facilitator, added some context for the international part of the conversation. “The issue of HIV/AIDS is holistic, particularly in places like Africa,” she said. “They may have ARV’s, but if they don’t have clean water or if they don’t have food, the issue becomes much more complex. Competing resources is a reality. Theology is very important – they see death daily. The theology we use needs to be pastoral, supportive and meet people at their place of need.”
Ann Hayman, another writer on the project and spokesperson for the minority report, is a 28-year veteran of ministry with street prostitutes in Los Angeles. “This is the fifth social witness policy I have worked on,” she said. “This is a critical issue. We want the world to be a better place because Presbyterians are here and because we care.”
Bob Schminkey, co-moderator of the Presbyterian Aids Network, was asked for his comments. He replied, “The PAN leadership team that’s currently meeting consists of local pastors, professionals in the field of HIV/AIDS, former mission workers, health professionals and advocates on the issue.We wonder how this document is going to be used. We wonder if there are better ways that many of these things that could be said. It’s not a resource that’s accessible to the local church. Might there be ways to improve it.”
Schminkey continued, “We don’t believe the recommendations flow out of the body of the report. Recommendation No. 1 raises an issue that need not be raised in the first line. Maybe we could use sexual responsibility language or simply start with something else. Do we want to address issues of universal health care in line 20? We like what it says, but we don’t like what it says to the church.”
Readers may now be wondering what the first recommendation says. That is information protected by the ACSWP protocol. We all will have to wait for the final version of the report.
Schminkey raised other concerns, “What is an ‘AIDS competent church’ and how does a church become that? This report needs to be readable and relevant and helps us build a new community. This report doesn’t help us respond. We’ve been working for years to advance the subject and we’d like to see that happen. We do care what happens with the report and we look forward to building an AIDS competent denomination.”
GA staffer to ACSWP and the person who staffed the HIV/AIDS task force, Belinda Curry, responded that “the first recommendation was an attempt to re-affirm earlier GA actions. We try to build from there into areas that would stretch us further. Making this accessible to the church isn’t really our charge. ACSWP is policy level, then it’s the responsibility of the program level to think through implementation.”
To which Bob Schminkey replied, “a dichotomy seems to be created between policy and programs. Are you doing social policy in a vacuum?”
ACSWP’s defense is that they got money to do a study, not a study guide. They write policy, not programs.
Schminkey was unrelenting, “This report does not affect the local congregation. It doesn’t have a heart. It does not lead us deeper into ministry and relationship. A study guide is a study guide, opportunities and examples of ministry are lacking here.”
ACSWP then acted on a motion to refer the two documents and the substance of the conversation to a working group that will seek to perfect the document for the committee’s action on Sunday morning.
What then will recommendation No. 1 say?