In an interview with Christianity Today , Wheaton College professor Christine Gardner explains the differences in rhetorical approaches between evangelical abstinence organizations in America and abstinence campaigns in sub-Saharan Africa:
You looked at how Africans view abstinence, saying they “saw their bodies as temples of the Lord and themselves as caretakers . . . a more deeply theological response.”I assumed that HIV/AIDS would be the big motivator for [African] young people to commit to abstinence. It is big, but I found this other undercurrent that was deeply theological. A leader of one of the programs told me that yes, they do talk about AIDS as a motivator for young people to commit to abstinence, but they noted that “you can get malaria and die, too.” AIDS is not as much of a motivator as a Western researcher coming in would have assumed.
How do the American and African messages compare?
Americans have turned a prohibition into a more positive admonition. In this case, pleasing God is an end in itself. Pleasing God will have tangible benefits. In Kenya and Rwanda, it was more of a combination: “Avoid death. Avoid HIV/AIDS, and do it out of fear of God, because he wants you to do this.”
‘I’m concerned that we may be raising a generation of abstinent teens but setting them up for divorce.’—Christine Gardner
Also, in the places I visited in Africa, the condom is viewed as a medical device, a tool for saving lives. It is not viewed as a tool for promiscuity, as evangelicals in this country largely view it. The same little piece of latex is described so radically differently by evangelicals in two different cultural contexts.
