CHURCH PEOPLE ARE NO FOOLS, ‘FULBRIGHT SCHOLAR’

Come better than that “Fulbright scholar,” church people are not as stupid as you may think. We won’t buy your precious study and findings. Try marketing your stuff somewhere else... Earlier this week a newspaper feature under the caption “Churches ‘without pity’ for HIV,” carried the findings of a study on Religion, Society and the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Trinidad and Tobago. The study was conducted by a Jillian Genrich (who the paper described as “a Fulbright scholar”) attached to the Family Planning Association of Trinidad and Tobago.

According to the newspaper report, Genrich found that “people with the HIV virus are made to feel disgraced, and are subjected to stereotyping in churches and other religious institutions they turn to for comfort and solace.” Genrich also said that she discovered some church people “believe persons with HIV were being punished by God and should not be part of certain religious ceremonies.” The “Fulbright scholar” further stated, “One person from the Christian community whom I spoke with said other people in the church still felt HIV could be spread from using the same utensils as the person with the disease.”

What was quite noticeable about this brilliant scholar’s report is that, although her topic of research was a neutral one — Religion, Society and the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Trinidad and Tobago — her report points only to negatives (and ridiculous negatives at that) about the churches and other religious institutions. Not a single positive word or phrase could be found about the role or contributions of religion in dealing with the HIV epidemic in this country. I have said it again and again, and I’ll say it once more: It seems that the real culprits in the AIDS/STDS problem are these so-called experts who come decorated with fancy titles, letters-behind-name and all, believing that all this would compel people to automatically swallow that they spit out.

What research did Genrich do? What approach did she adopt in conducting her study? To whom did she speak? Why, of all the other “religious institutions” which the Fulbright scholar claims she studied, she found it most fitting to highlight “a Christian” as the one giving the “silly” response. Whom do people like Genrich think they can fool?
This was obviously no objective study with unblemished motives. From all appearances, it was “a study” with a particular agenda and mission. It was aimed at “finding” negative attitudes of the Church towards HIV/AIDS victims.

It seemed merely bent on making the Church look ignorant, stupid and insensitive to the agony and general plight of HIV/AIDs sufferers. To discredit the Church would redound to the “benefit” of those who perhaps orchestrated the “conspiracy,” because many of us in the Church strongly oppose and condemn their philosophies on sexual behaviour and morality. The value system we advocate is a reproach to their “ideals.”

But we would continue to slam the blatant lie of “safe sex” (condom use) and the promiscuity related to same. Whether it irks the “experts” or not, we’ll continue to trumpet the biblical positions on fornication, adultery, homosexuality and lesbianism. The Church is here to tell the truth — “...the truth shall set you free” (Jn 8:32). The condom has a 14 percent failure rate in pregnancy prevention and a 31 percent failure rate in preventing HIV/AIDS, yet those at the Family Planning Association, CAREC and other similar bodies continue to tell our vulnerable young people that it’s safe. They never say “partly safe sex,” “risky sex” or anything like that. It’s always “safe” (100 percent safe) sex.

It’s nothing but a campaign to sell condoms and make money at the expense of innocent lives. It’s commerce sense, not condom sense! What could be more “without pity” or heartless, than this? This is what people like the Fulbright scholar should be studying and highlighting. What is this nonsense about people being “disgraced and subjected to stereotyping in churches?” If there is a degree of offensive treatment in any church or religious body, this, in most cases, would exist on a small scale. Genrich gives the impression that there is some kind of prevailing policy or doctrine in the churches to subject HIV victims to disgrace, scorn and shame. This is absolute rubbish. It is common knowledge that all major religious bodies in TT, including the third largest body — Pentecostals -— have been hosting, seminars, lectures and other programmes on HIV/AIDS.

These programmes are not limited to the education, per se but they also deal with love, care, stigma, acceptance, rehabilitation and the whole line. Many of the Pentecostal programmes (or parts thereof) have been broadcast on radio and television for many years now. At Miracle Ministries Institute of Ministry, where pastors, other ministers and counsellors are trained, HIV/AIDS has been a part of the curriculum for the past 14 years. We have people with HIV/AIDS who are loved, accepted and actively involved in Pentecostal/Evangelical churches all over this country. I know of many AIDS victims who declare that if it were not for the love, faith and solace they receive from the church, they would be dead a long time ago.

But maybe our Fulbright scholar, not being too familiar with the geography of TT, got lost on her way to finding Pentecostal/Evangelical churches. Or maybe she was just plain allergic to anything positive about the Church! Or perhaps the bright lady just couldn’t contact the right Pentecostal pastors in TT when she dialled her 1-800 code! Let’s hope she doesn’t find my words today “without pity!” Come better than that Genrich, church people are not as stupid as you may think. We won’t buy your precious study and findings. Try marketing your stuff somewhere else — perhaps on the moon!