Sex Education in the Church

Earlier this definition was used: Sex Education is “the process of acquiring information and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, relationships and intimacy”.

The church is the place where you expect to form attitudes and beliefs about life. You should be able to find wholesome Biblical counsel there, so that your whole life can be shaped by Scripture. The question at hand is; does the church (as a conveyor of Bible teaching) shape our understanding of sexuality? Do we receive “sex education” in the church? Should we expect to?

First, let us remember the primary goal of the church is to spread the gospel and make disciples of the nations. It is in this context that we find, the gospel demands a change in our attitude to gender, sex and marriage. Every culture has some errors on issues of gender, from discrimination to a breakdown of roles, no culture has it perfect. Part of God transforming our lives is bringing us to relate to each other wisely, as we indeed relate to God in a new light.

Because the realm of sexuality is affected by sin, and we are in need of repentance in many ways, so there must be teaching to point out that need. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”. Even when the path demands choices on how to relate to people male and female, and the expression of our gender roles in society.

But the issue of sexuality must never be separated from the gospel, because the gospel is a story of rescue, God making life abundant and beautiful, full of the righteousness, peace and joy that suits life most. Sex education in church is about just that – peace and joy in the path of righteousness, even in things like romance, fashion, love and marriage.

What should such teaching include? The Bible presents us with a picture of created goodness of sexuality in Adam and Eve; desires restrained and abused in the lives of Joseph, David and Tamar; wise and foolish sexual decisions in Proverbs, the power to say no to ungodliness in Titus, the warning not to defraud (cheat/rob) each other to fulfill our desires in 1 Thessalonians 4, as well as the place of marriage in holiness in 2 Corinthians 7. These are only a few examples!

The next question is, how explicit should the church be in its sex talk? Well, it has a family audience, so it does not have to be crude. But we can hear from the pulpit talk about respect, natural desire, different roles, pregnancy, faithfulness, lust, love, responsibility, deceit, beauty, sweet talk, etc, without being crude or ‘pornographic’. There still remains a role for parents and schools for some finer biological and social details!

A point in case is the book by Richard Dobbins “Teaching your children the truth about sex”, the books by the late Walter Trobisch “I married you” and “I loved a girl”, Joshua Harris “Not even a hint”. Also there is Conrad Mbewe’s book “Maintaining Sexual Purity”. All these talk about sex without being crude or rude!

I know for the Zambian culture it seems strange to go to church and have the whole family learn about Biblical male and female roles, but perhaps the culture shift is long overdue.

Sometimes it seems it is only scandal we are ready to talk about openly!

Booo GBM

Just in case you haven't heard prominent Zambian businessman and member of Parliament Godfrey Bwalya Mwamba, popularly known as GBM, recently caused a stir in the nation when he battered his wife. Soon after the matter was reported in the press, GBM went on several radio stations to explain his side of the story. On these radio shows GBM said that he apologised for his behaviour, told the nation his marriage had a history of violence, told the nation his wife had also beaten him in the past and claimed matter was being blown out of proportion since many people had battered their wives.

I think GBMs behaviour can not go without comment.

Wife battering is wrong by the standards of God and man and GBM should account for his behaviour. In Ephesians chapter five the Apostle Paul tells us that husbands should care for their wives as they care for their own bodies. The Apostle goes further to note that people do not harm their bodies rather they nurture them. GBM is supposed to nurture his wife and not batter her. GBM has broken Gods law and should repent. With regards to man's law to the very least he has assaulted his wife and should face the consequences for his actions.

Another matter that I would like to comment on is GBM's lack of repentance. GBM has said he apologise and then goes no to effectively say what he did is not so wrong. This is not repentance. To repent is to admit you are wrong and deserve to be punished, turn your back on you wrong behaviour and Begin living as you ought (ultimately turning to Christ). In light of GBMs lack of repentance I believe that society should continue to condemn his behaviour until he is brought to repentance and not relent from prosecuting him for breaking the law.

What do you think?

The picture above is a picture of Zambia’s rumba icon Suke Chile mesmerising churchgoers at Jesus Souls Ministries in Lusaka’s Matero.

According to the post newspaper a few weeks ago Suke Chile and Congolese musician Koffi Olomide recently went to make a donation to widows and orphans at Jesus Souls ministries during a church service. According to post during the praise and worship segment of the service Mr. Chile took to the dance floor and sent congregation into a frenzy.

When I read this I was filled with shame. There are several things wrong here.

The first is the showy fashion in which the donation was made. Christ counsels us not to make donations in a way that will draw unnecessary attention to ourselves. This donation was more like a secular public relations event than a Christian donation.

Secondly, the dancing during the praise and worship was incorporate. Now please bear in mind that I am not against physical response during worship but I am against responses that are not Christ centred. Reading the article one gets the impression that the excitement was less about Christ and more about a skillful celebrity wriggling their waist. That's just wrong.

What is the Church coming to?

The Declaration as an Act of Faith

During the recent National Constitutional Conference it was evident that a lot of Christians felt vey strongly about the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation. You might recall that as the conference considered whether Zambia ought to be declared a Christian nation several Christians groups staged several public demonstrations in support of declaration of Zambia as a Christian. The emotional fervour that Characterised these events made it clear that to these people the declaration was more than a matter of political prudence to them, it was an action with deep theological meaning.

During this time I had a number of conversations with various Christians on the matter and became aware that many people believed that the act of declaring the nation a Christian nation would make the nation a Christian nation. In other words the political act of declaring Zambia a Christian nation would have spiritual results; making Jesus the Lord of the Hearts of the people of Zambia.

Why do these people believe this? On the basis of passages like Mark 11:22-23 (‘And Jesus answering them saith unto them, have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, that whsoever saith unto this mountain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith’) and Numbers 14:28(‘...saith the Lord, as you have spoken in my ears, so will I do’) they believe that if their faith, symbolised by the declaration, will make Zambia a Christian nation.

It goes without saying that non Christians will hate this and say that it is essentially a group of people using both political and spiritual power to make them what they are not. The question still remains, is there a Christian objection to this? I believe there is.

I believe that the Bible has outlined how we are to make people Christian:
‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen’ Mathew 28:19,20.

On this basis I believe that while my fellow Christians are well intentioned they have not chosen a Biblical means of perusing their goal. Instead of making political statements we ought to participate in and support intensified evangelistic effort. It is only when we do this that Zambia w

The Christian and Culture

Here are some interesting comments by D. A. Carson on the gospel and culture in ‘A model of Christian maturity-An exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13’ on pages 50 and 51. While no one is with out a culture, any one who claims Jesus is their Lord will find that their faith must have a decisive say in what cultural practices and norms they will encourage or avoid, promote or challenge:

“Paul recognized that the gospel itself is non-negotiable…The gospel will purify and transform any culture; or, more accurately, the gospel will purify and transform the people from any cultural heritage who bow unreservedly to Jesus Christ. By this means it will modify or eliminate many of the culturally transmitted values of those new Christians; and they in turn may in some measure influence their culture and society as salt exerts its influence on food (cf. Matt 5:13). But there will always be some who are controlled by a lightly “Christianized” version of their own culture: i.e., their controlling values spring from the inherited culture, even when such values are deeply pagan and not Christian. Christian language may be there; yet the control lies, not with the gospel, but with the pervasive values of the surrounding society and heritage. At that point Paul is inflexible.”

When we look at Zambian society, we see a lot of this. People use Christianity for a good public name but have no problem with using witchcraft, recommending abortion, or divorce for any reason. Christianity to them is just a “spice” in their life, that they can take in the areas of life where there is no clash, no conflict of public opinion or personal taste. It is religion in the back pocket, but definitely not one where there is a servant-master relationship with the King of kings.

Carson goes on to say, “As far as Christians are concerned, wherever there is a clash between a cherished inherited culture and the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is the former that must give way and accept modification and transformation. Failure at this point calls in question one’s allegiance to the gospel.”

He adds even stronger terms by saying “unreserved commitment to the priorities of the inherited culture, with select elements of Christianity being merely tacked on brings with it Paul’s inevitable conclusion that the Jesus being preached is “another Jesus”, the gospel being proclaimed is a “different gospel,” and those who proclaim such an Evangel are “deceitful workmen masquerading as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:4, 13). Moreover, those Corinthians who show themselves to be sympathetic to this non-Christian orientation of values must at very least examine themselves again to see if they really are in the faith (13:5).”

This also has value for the debate on Zambia as a Christian nation. Is Christianity a controlling influence in society or is it being used as a status label? Is Christianity affecting our culture, or is have we given the social norms and taboos a diplomatic status where the demands of the Bible are concerned? The gospel must mould culture. Where gospel does not challenge and improve practice, perhaps the gospel influence is not as pervasive as many claim. The whole lump of dough must be leavened!

The Declaration as a Moral Statement

A very long time ago now, I started a series of articles to examine various aspects of the declaration of Zambia a Christian nation. As you may have noticed, things have not gone as planned but, I can at least say that the next two posts are ready. So I am pretty sure that by the end of September I will finally be done and ready to finish the other series on sex education. Then prayerfully I will look at some issues in economics and finance. God willing that is.

So what is the declaration as a moral statement about? Two things, the first an announcement that in Zambia people are to adhere to the moral standards of the Bible and that the state will back the enforcement of these moral standards.

So what are the objections to this? In this case I use an objectors own words to express the negatives, when Christians use political power to legislate thier values they are acting as tyrants.

What about the pros? I believe that every society is free to organize itself according to the principles that it chooses. Because of the fact that one hundred percent consensus is not possible the will of the majority is used as a substitute. If the majority of a society decides to make Christian standards law, I believe that they are within their rights.

I however, have a difficulty with branding such civil action as Christian, such action is not mandated by the Bible and calling such action Christian gives the impression that the action is mandated by the Christian religion which it is not. I think this is a problem with regards to personal witness as those we are witnessing to may get the mistaken impression that Christian religion believes in advancing its interests by coercion.

Brief I know but it is a single blog post perhaps through the comments we can advance the discussion.

The Declaration as a Means of Preventing Social Change

As I have been writing these posts I have tried to deal with each of these issues briefly. Being a social scientist there was a temptation to look at this academically and in depth. Being a Christian with some interest in theology I was also tempted to do a full theological discussion of the issue. I did not take either route because the preparation of those papers would take way too long. I instead opted for my current approach, of briefly introducing each dimension, briefly looking at the main pros and cons and advancing the discussion through the comments. I hope you have found the series helpful so far.

The perspective on the declaration of Zambia as tool in a Zambia’s current cultural battle. Just in case you do not live in Zambia let me tell about these battles briefly. In Zambia, cultural conservatives, mostly older Zambian’s oppose the cultural changes being seen in urban Zambia. These changes include the priority of the nuclear family over the extended family, sexually suggestive dressing, perceived increase in sexual promiscuity and the disuse of local languages. The cultural conservatives argue that younger urban Zambian’s should have pride in their culture and oppose the westernization of Zambia. So how does this become a Christian issue? A lot of the cultural conservatives are professing Christians (sorry Chola) and see an overlap between Christian interests and the interests of the cultural conservative. They believe that the declaration can be a means of opposing western ideas that undermine Christian and conservative cultural values. An example of such an idea is the tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality.

So is there anything negative about this strategy? Well once again I would argue that using this strategy would give the impression that the Christian faith advances its agenda through political means. However, we know that Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world and its interests are not advanced by political means. Rather Christ advances his holy nation through the proclamation of the word of God. In light of this the Church’s legitimate response to anti Christian is to preach the gospel.

This is however, not to say that Christians in their individual capacity can not use political means to oppose anti Christian developments in Zambia.

Worshiping God With Your Body

I know I have been away. I have been given extra responsibilities at work which have taken a toll on me.

Here is something from Jonathan Edwards on worshiping God with your body

I don't suppose that any understanding men, of whatsoever sect or opinion, will say that God is really pleased with bodily worship as such, that is, that merely such and such gestures and motions of body are what delights him as a part of virtue; but only as they are helps to the exercise of real virtue and the worship of the mind. Now there is an indissoluble, unavoidable association, in the minds of the most rational and spiritual, between things spiritual and things bodily. Thus when we are joyful and express our joy, 'tis natural to do it with a lively voice; and when we express sorrow, to do it with what we call a mournful voice. This is natural to us, and the association becomes much stronger by use in other matters.

Therefore if, when we come to praise God or confess our sins, we resolved not in any measure to alter our manner of expression for sorrow or joy, we must restrain that which is strongly associated with the joy and sorrow; and thereby shall unavoidably, in some measure, forever restrain the spiritual affections themselves, till we quite dissolve the association: which cannot be, in the most rational, while in the body. So we are necessitated to join some gestures to some habitudes of mind in common affairs, as uncovering the head, and some other gestures besides fitting with reverence. Thereby there grows a strong association, so that if one be restrained the other will unavoidably be restrained too. So that some bodily worship is necessary to give liberty to our own devotion; yea though in secret, so more when with others. For we having associated the idea of reverence and other habitudes of mind to such and such gestures of body, it would restrain our notion or apprehension of another's reverence, etc., if we should see those gestures which we have associated to contrary dispositions; so that our own devotion would not be so much assisted by theirs but restrained, and the communion in the duty in some measure destroyed, and so the end of social devotion. 'Tis necessary that there should be something bodily and visible in the worship of a congregation; otherwise, there can be no communion at all.

I acknowledge, that the more rational a person, the less doth his disposition of mind depend on anything in his body; and that if he practises gestures of body in worship, where there is no necessary and unavoidable association, it tends to make him, or to keep him less rational and spiritual. But yet there are some associations of this nature that [are] equally unavoidable, and coeval with the association of soul and body. So many as are thus necessary, we are allowed in gospel worship, and more [than that] are contrary to its nature; for the gospel supposes the church to be no longer an infant, but as come to the stature of a man. Wherefore the weak and beggarly elements are rejected, and the childish bodily ceremonies cashiered, as being fit only for children, and unworthy of those who are come to riper years; and the worship that is now required of [us] is only that which is manly, rational and spiritual.