The concept of citizenships, in the plural, reflects different research traditions in citizenship theorizing: citizenship as legal status in a sovereign state, as a bearer of rights and obligations; citizenship as participation (civic republicanism); and citizenship as social membership. Each of these enhances capabilities of individuals to become participants in political, economic, and social spheres of life. Citizenships as a concept also embraces practices: how these aspects of citizenship are experienced in everyday encounters and the relationships of power – in families, workplaces, welfare offices, social movements – and their variations in institutional contexts.

In 2004 the BBC carried a page on its website that started with:

Simple facts underline the severity of the problem, for example the lack of a cure for HIV infection or AIDS as a physiological dysfunction and also the significant impact of the many disasters and atrocities that challenge the African continent which complicate the care of those who are HIV positive or have developed AIDS.

As HIV infection cannot currently be treated by the elimination of the virus in the infected human being and even the best antiretroviral drugs only prolong life, HIV positive status brings with it, for the infected human being, a new interrelationship with death and dying. In this situation faith-centred responses from the various sensemaking orientations are considered as part of developing a wholesome response to the new perspective within the life of the infected individual.

The HIV/AIDS problem causes individual human beings, families, communities, the African continent and the world to suffer and experience the consequences. HIV/AIDS is a multifunctional problem and an interdisciplinary approach is essential as it affects the social, physical, spiritual, and economic wellbeing of all. The overlapping elements of the core areas of all religions of bringing their adherents to a meaningful end-state expectation is identified as central drive to strive towards a cooperative and coordinative approach in the alleviation of suffering through HIV/AIDS. The way in which HIV/AIDS effected and affected people's experience the mystery of the connectedness and difference of God, their own humanity and the physical-organic environment surrounding them has an immense impact on the way they deal with their illness, treatment or if the illness has progressed to the last stages, how they approach their oncoming death.

In the pastoral ambience, when dealing with HIV/AIDS, inward focused viewpoints are not reasonable as this disease is a major calamity which affects human beings on the physical, psychological as well as the social level and human beings are aware that no cure for the problem currently exists and death is the only end.

In this book, we discuss views of sin and pain, evil and suffering from various sensemaking God-human-and-world approaches. This discussion includes various Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, New Age, African Religion and Hindu views. These are negotiated with from the Christian sensemaking God-humanworld approach.

Origins of evil and suffering

Pain and suffering caused by sin and evil have been said to be common experiences shared by all humanity. With this assumption as a backdrop, the following questions have not lost their relevancy:

• • From where do all evil-doings, processes and events originate?

• • From where did the HIV virus originate, or out of which set of factors did the virus emerge?

• • Can natural cosmic events and disasters be related to evil in the world?

• • Are the majority of religions demonic delusions, or do they sprout from human beings trying to make sense of their universe, and are they reaching out for God as a ‘big brother’ whose perceived otherness and absoluteness protects them from evil forces?

• • Are human beings inherently prone to sin or to evil?

• • How do human beings with different sensemaking approaches from different cultures, religions and societies make sense of the evil and suffering experienced in the world?

• • If there is a God why did he create evil or if he co-exists with evil why does he allow it?

• • Can God suffer on the cross of Jesus as some of the theological fathers asserted or does the whole of reality have a cruciform nature?

Everything that we say here about God as the one (monotheistic) multidimensional personal God, as good, loving, trusting, compassionate, creative, governing (lord), serving (priest) and speaking (prophet) is said against the background of the mystery of human beings and nature, being interconnected with, but different from God. Thus, according to the monotheistic viewpoint, God is a personal God, good, loving, trusting, compassionate, creative, governing and serving; a God who blesses, has individual personal knowledge and interaction with individual human beings, a God who is father and mother, teacher and healer.

Yet, how could this view of God be reconciled with evil and suffering? To put it pointedly, if there is a god, who is this god and what are the characteristics of this deity?

The extent of suffering due to HIV/AIDS is contrasted with other causes of suffering globally and is not treated in isolation but the responses and focus of suffering in the current global socio-political environment are comprehensively discussed. ‘Abantu Abaafa! – People are dying! People are dying. Children are being orphaned. The elderly are left uncared for. Already disgraceful poverty is made worse.’ Why should we be bothered by this? Is it not the case that the world is overpopulated anyway and maybe this is nature's way of balancing things out as the need has shifted away from manual labour in the technological age? Perhaps, therefore, fewer human beings are deemed necessary to perform work and our planet is becoming overpopulated to the extent that we are damaging the planet? Some might espouse such cold rationalistic thoughts, but from a humanitarian perspective as well as from a Christian perspective such viewpoints are sacrilegious. This is because all human beings are made in God's image irrespective of their degree of suffering or HIV status and their suffering is our suffering, their collective pain is collectively our pain. It is because we are the same human race, and because we live in an interconnectedness with God, other human beings and the created natural world through the work of the Holy Spirit therefore (in the words of Gallagher) ‘It is humanity that has AIDS, and not simply an isolated person.’

The HIV/AIDS problem causes individual human beings, families, communities, the African continent and the world, globally, to suffer and experience negative consequences. HIV/AIDS is a multifunctional problem and needs to be handled with an interdisciplinary approach. HIV/AIDS affects the social, physical, spiritual, and economic wellbeing of all; from those infected and their family and, through a ripple effect, on to their community, to their nation, to their continent and globally, the entirety of humanity.

McElrath links the impact of HIV/AIDS with the global economy thus:

Having completed my doctoral thesis on the subject of evil and suffering from a multi-religious viewpoint, and having, in that work, considered associated pastoral aspects, I was encouraged to bring this discussion to a wider readership through publishing this book. The influence of Professor Rassie van Niekerk in encouraging me to undertake this work has been pivotal, as has the diligent assistance of my husband, Ian.

Evil and suffering seem to be inherent aspects of life, not just for human beings, but for the whole system of life on earth. If we then believe in a god, or gods, irrespective of which belief system we adhere to, this ubiquity of evil and suffering brings to us challenges and barriers which deeply influence our view of that god, or the gods, and also deeply influences our culture and worldview.

The understanding of different cultural and religious responses to evil and suffering is a fundamental aspect in seeking the development of collaborative endeavours between various faith systems and cultures to alleviate suffering. It also follows that one cannot fully understand different religious responses to evil and suffering without a knowledge of the belief systems of those religions.

So why worry? In the first decade of this millennium we have seen for example, the atrocity of 9/11 (September 2001) in the USA, the tsunami in Asia (December 2005), atrocities by the Janjaweed in Somalia (2003–2010), violence instigated through authoritarian rule in Zimbabwe (1995–2009) and the indiscriminate murder of civilians in Iraq (2003–current) and in Syria (current) all making headline news. ‘Bird flu’ and ‘swine flu’ appear repeatedly in the headlines, while HIV/AIDS, which is a truly huge cause of suffering and a mass killer of far more victims than these pandemics and disasters, has largely fallen from the media spotlight. What makes matters worse is that HIV/AIDS sufferers are commonly ostracised, victimised and stigmatised, and media attention is often focused on judging the afflicted instead of encouraging help for them. Poor countries, where the disease is more prevalent, are left with a continually growing problem of how to tackle the pandemic amidst their paucity of resources, yet they exist in a world where rich countries turn their back on basic human needs and rich and poor countries alike spend billions of dollars on defence budgets. Keenan is of the opinion that:

The challenge of how texts, theories, natural processes and human activities are used, implemented and applied in the lives of human beings and to the world around them is of critical importance in discussing the notions of evil and suffering in the multidimensional multi-cultural and multi-religious world in which we live. During the modern era trajectories emerged in which two opposing approaches took shape: an approach in which the main aim is to mirror a text, a theory, processes of nature or human activities in the life of human beings, being a literal fundamentalist approach; and an opposing approach in which the main aim is to interpret a text, a theory, processes of nature or human activities for a set purpose in the life of human beings, being an allegorical creative approach. In the twentieth century a third approach emerged, namely that of the negotiation of texts, theories, natural processes and human activities, drawing the valid elements of mirroring and interpretation into a differential and integrative approach in which the most noticeable features of the mirroring and interpretation paradigms are recognised and acknowledged.

Regarding Holy Books the mirroring approach views every paragraph, sentence, word and every letter as a divinely inspired mirror which God mirrored into the biblical texts and which can only be re–mirrored in the lives of human beings.

The three main words of the interpretation approach is understanding of what the inspired author, composer or compiler of the text is actually saying, explanation, and application in someone's life of what is actually being said in the text. Because of this assumption, nearly all approaches in the Christian world operating with the notion of interpretation of the organically inspired Bible are viewed as liberal by the fundamentalist mirroring approaches. In the twentieth century, it became increasingly clear that the interpretation–hermeneutical approach in its threesome phases of ‘understanding explanation and application’ ran into real problems which elicited talk of a crisis in the house of interpretation.

In the third approach of consensible negotiation, the sensemaking view and experience embodied in a text, theory, natural process and human activity is dealt with on a similar level to the sensemaking view and approach of the one doing the negotiation with the text.

Suffering arises not only from worldly issues or natural disasters, but also from and between sensemaking approaches which are termed religions or religious persuasions – even between different groupings within the same religion, being sects or denominations. Even the way that a human being approaches and makes use of the Bible as Holy Scripture demands a comprehensive sensemaking decision from that human being. Within this work an awareness of three basic approaches regarding texts, theories, natural processes and human doings underpins the debate. These approaches are termed mirroring-fundamentalist, interpretational-hermeneutical and consensible-negotiation approaches and a short discussion on these approaches is presented in the Appendix.

God outside (transcendent) and inside (immanent) reality

A favourite question of theologians grappling with the issue of theodicy is how a good omnipotent and all powerful, omniscient God could inject, introduce or allow evil in the world. Surely this question not only suggests a dualistic God, but distances God from the world. The question is not solved by quick and pious answers like ‘it is for our own good’. In many instances the good in ‘for our own good’ is not evident, especially, for example, in the case of a new born baby infected by HIV and ravaged by AIDS.

In terms of the ideology of theologism, several questions are being asked regarding God's role towards human beings and nature:

• • Why did God instruct the offering of animals as part of the sacrificial system? (Assuming God directly delivered the instruction to people instead of people of the past who somewhere along the line ascribed offering of animals as an instruction from God.)

• • Why does God allow human beings to kill, in His name, those who worship Him such as has happened with many missionaries as well as with the World Trade Centre in the USA on 9/11/2001? This is as if God is the all-initiating agent producing evil things in people's hearts and minds.

• • Why does God allow natural disasters such as the devastation of the tsunami on 26/12/05 in Asia? Again, this is as if God is the all-initiating agent producing evil things in nature through the shifting of the tectonic plates way down below the surface of the ocean.

• • Why did God not in His mercy just forgive his wayward creation? Such a theologistic question smacks of the utmost theological arrogance.

In any sensemaking orientation many theoretical snippets of knowledge from philosophies, the sciences, and technology which have interacted in the past with that group or faith system are in operation. Sensemaking views are also influenced by current scientific and theoretical patterns and theories through scattered insertions and injections from many philosophies, sciences and technologies.

Pools of scientific, technological and philosophical knowledge are accumulated over many centuries from many cultures of the past and the present. These pools of knowledge coming about through a myriad of sensemaking approaches of people, including religions, ideologies and value-systems from global history, result in further pools of accumulative knowledge. On the one hand, these sensemaking orientations of people are embedded in multiple writings and sayings, activities and things that human beings encounter in modern life. On the other hand, the sensemaking orientations expressed in the accumulated pool of global knowledge, filter into philosophies, sciences and technologies which in their applied and embodied forms are embedded in products from electric kettles and microwave ovens and aeroplanes to designer drugs and computers. Sensemaking orientations are also embedded in intangible products and skills from theories and approaches such as hypnosis and therapeutic strategies to meaningful patterns of faith, thinking, loving, socialising and speaking.

The question ‘who (or what) is responsible and accountable for the HIV/AIDS pandemic?’ has to be answered in terms of the mystery of the simultaneity of the close connection and radical otherness of God, human beings and the natural environment. This question is in need of answering so that the HIV/AIDS pandemic can be satisfactorily dealt with in theologies and theories of faith. Many reductionist explanations and solutions to various dilemmas were continuously on offer in the modern era (1600–2000 ce) in which either God or humanity or the physical-natural environment is portrayed as the initiating agent not only solely responsible and accountable for all good events, happenings and processes but also for disasters, catastrophes and pandemics striking the world.

One of the facile solutions offered by traditional as well as black and liberation theologies during the South African struggle against apartheid is the notion of God's solidarity with the poor, marginalised and diseased.

Debates about fathers and fatherhood need to be more explicitly gendered and more explicitly about power. Fathers need to be understood as gendered and as men, and fatherhood needs to be understood as an institution, historically constructed as a form of certain men's power. Fathers and fatherhood are social, rather than “natural” or biological, constructions and institutions (O'Brien 1981; Hearn 1987), intimately connected with the social production and reproduction of men, masculinities and men's practices. In particular, the relationship of fathers, “the family” and the state is a matter of the relationship of men, gendered families and the gendered state.

This chapter addresses this basic problematic, and as such builds on recent work within Critical Studies on Men. This has emphasized the importance of questions of men's societal and structural dominations within patriarchies; the pluralizing of masculinity to masculinities set within relations of power, and the analysis of the interrelations of unities and differences between men; and men's specific practices, identities, sexualities and subjectivities. In particular this analysis of fathers, fatherhood, families and the state follows earlier work on the changing historical relations of men/fathers to the state and the welfare state within public patriarchies; the complexity of men's power and the extent of men's (often fathers') violences to women; and the interrelations of social oppressions and institutions.

These genderings are partly about changing forms of identity, organization, welfare, state, nation and global relations – particularly in the transitions from what might be called modern to late modern social relations.

It is often asserted that for Marx, and for the overwhelming majority of Marxists, economic class is the supreme category, whereas gender has been subject to relative neglect. In most interpretations of Marx's writing, the prime role in analysis, history, and political action is awarded to class, just as within that class analysis, the working class assumes its own prime role and revolutionary potential. These are undoubtedly the dominant themes of Marx's writing.

Marx did not write extensively on gender, and so in the indexes of most of his major works you will find no references to sex, gender, sexuality, women, or men. Marx did, however, make a number of important, though relatively brief, explicit statements about gender, including those in The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (Marx, 1975: 279-400) and Capital, volume 1 (Marx, 1977) and those written with Engels in the Communist Manifesto (Marx, 1974b: 62- 98) and The German Ideology (Marx and Engels, 5/1976). In addition, Engels (1972) wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Drawing particularly on anthropological evidence contained in Lewis Henry Morgan's (1963) Ancient Society, first published in 1876, and Marx's critical notebooks on this and other material, Engels gave a more extended materialist account of these questions, particularly for prehistorical times.