In the recently concluded Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Nagaland Legislators’ Forum on AIDS (LFA), the Chief Minister has proposed campaign funding for churches in Nagaland to fight against HIV/AIDS in order to achieve zero target by 2020 (Nagaland Post and The Morung Express, Feb 9). The spirit of partnership is well and good and I wish for it to continue. Here’s why. Beknowest to all, HIV/AIDS is a community pandemic. According to statistics, 9% of those infected are not only innocent patients but members of the community. And so also are the rest of the patients and their families. This reality beckons the community, including the Government and Church, to ensure that all measures are in place in order to treat and prevent the occurrence of the disease. Hence, all organs of the community need to participate in giving the patients and potential patients every help required to deal with the issue.
Having said that, the task of the church and the government are stupendously distinct and a careful attention is required to uphold the integrity of both, particularly of the church, even while working together for a common mission. That is why direct funding by the Government towards the Church’s ministry against HIV/AIDS is inappropriate. The underlined theological reasons will highlight the conflicting dimensions between the Church and State in relation to dealing with HIV/AIDS. 1) Clash of Authorities: Being a body founded by God, redeemed by Jesus and sustained by the Holy Spirit, the Church rightly belongs to the Triune God. It exists in obedience to the command of God, duly exemplified in the life and message of Christ. It is right and fitting for the churches in Nagaland to respond to the issue of HIV/AIDS. Jesus would’ve no qualms in attending to such patients, had it been prevalent during his time. But his message is clear. He willed to heal and continues to say, “Be healed!” (cf.,Matthew 8:3) The church must continue the emotional-socio-cultural healing ministry of Jesus through active involvement in the life of the patients. But is it right for the church to receive direct funding for such a ministry? No. In the early church, the first Christians did many “social services” but they did so with the generous offerings of the believers (cf., Acts 2: 43ff). This was not only a symbol of their unity but a clear manifestation of their joyous service to God and people and a testimony of their corporate love for God and each other. Likewise, any program of the church, aimed at catering to the needs of its members or otherwise, must be done out of believers’ cheerful giving towards the project. To simply engage in a social program funded by the state not only leads to a hypocritical ministry of the church but also defames the name of God, in whose name and to whose glory the church ought to do all things (Cf., Colossians 3: 17). Would the church not end up giving glory to the State if her program is funded by it? Would the church not end up bowing to the authority of that hand that directly feeds her?
2) Clash of Messages: I make this statement as a member of a church that adheres to evangelical traditions. The potential clash-factor between the state and the church would be the content and message of the campaign. When the church’s campaign is funded by the State, the church would be obligated to carry the secularized message in relation to HIV/AIDS. The government responds to the statistical evidence of contracting the disease primarily through the sexual route (89%) and also through intravenous drug use (2%) by captions that read: “Use condoms,” “Avoid multiple sex partners,” “Do not share needles”. These slogans conflict with the evangelical teachings that would read: “Abstain from pre-marital sex,” “Do not commit adultery,” “Avoid fornication,” “Your body is a temple of God – Don’t abuse drugs”. The obvious conflict in the campaign messages of the two community organs should discourage the Church from accepting funding from the State. The church needs to proclaim medically accurate information in order to rehabilitate the patients into the life of the church and society but must not conform to any slogans that comprise her task to proclaim God’s forgiveness and sustaining power to a life of holiness (“…Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” John 8:11). The Church has the prerogative to uphold her moral teaching, drawn for Christ himself, so that all her members maybe kept holy and blameless (Ephesians 1:4). 3) Clash of Objectives: The interest of the state is to prevent the spread of the disease and to see a virtual end to it within a specific time span. The church’s mission moves beyond prevention to spiritual nourishment for responsible citizenship now and onto eternity. The success of the State’s target of reaching zero in the next few years is not predictable. And even if it were successful, the State will continue to face the challenge of being able to provide holistic care to the patients and their families. But long after the state has washed its hands off the concern, the church will have to continue its mission towards the patients and its family as part of her calling. Although some NGOs surpass the church in this aspect, contrary to the State the Church engages with the task not merely to achieve a humanistic goal or to exhibit the excellence in the art of governance. The spiritual perspective in catering to the diverse needs of the people living with HIV/AIDS allows the church to answer the age old question, “What is the end purpose of my life?” The spiritual values of the church could positively affect patients’ spirituality and their ability to cope with the challenges posed by disease with hopeful expectations. Since spirituality is at the centre of Christian existence, the Church’s intervention is essential to inculcating hope not just for the moment and not just for the physical wellbeing but for the overall health and one that carries eternal implications. Accepting the one-time grant proposed by the state has the potential to diminish the Church’s essence of being reliant on God’s providence for its continual ministries. Most of all, to start, continue and end Church’s ministry depending on State’s funding will limit the scope of the Church’s mission in the world to the whims of the State politics. The mission of the Church towards the diseased, the poor, the downtrodden and the spiritually weak is from the beginning of time and will have to continue in faith and love till the end of time (Cf., Matthew25: 31ff;Ephesians 1: 10), without the monetary support of the State.
The bottom-line argument is that churches should not accept direct government fund for addressing the issue at hand (unless the State is willing to slip in an anonymous amount into the offering bag without the need to demand receipt!). The government has its own machineries to deal with HIV/AIDS. The State has Nagaland State AIDS Control Society (NSACS) to most effectively carry out its mission of fighting the disease. The concerned office, and other non-church organizations, should be facilitated in every way and with all required means to do Government’s bidding. The church and the state can surely work together in many ways, one of them being providing professional support, but the limits that are set by biblical and theological boundaries need to be guarded by the church lest she loses sight of her identity and purpose of existence for a sum (the amount is irrelevant) of Government money. The church ought to carry on her mission towards HIV/AIDS patients built on her own spiritual foundations and on the monetary strength generated by the believers out of love for God and fellow human beings. That will have meaning and purpose for the Church and for those whom she renders service in the name of God.
Dr Eyingbeni Humtsoe-Nienu Faculty at Clark Theological College
