Salt and Light Zambia

Good bye witney

2012-02-12T18:20:00.003+02:00

A tragedy. Maranatha

2012-02-12T18:20:00.001+02:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEs84hzFmM0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

On the topic of modesty II

2011-12-19T07:58:00.001+02:00

[Okay last post I talked about the 'cover it all' approach to modesty, now lets look at the 'lets up it on display apprach'. As I mention last post it is wrong from the standpoint of both the creation and the fall. First creation. Human beings were created sexual beings and were created to respond to each other sexually. Secondly the fall. It seems originally humans were designed only to sexually respond to their spouses hence we were not created with clothes on. However we are fallen and live in a fallen world hence our sexual responses tend to be disordered and we need clothes to manage them. Put these two fact together, going out in a bikini is in appropriate since it will draw in discriminate sexual response from men a woman is not married to.
So how shall we dress then? Read my first post.;

On the topic of modesty

2011-12-19T07:56:00.001+02:00

[Well this blog started with a posts on modesty. I think it is time to revisit the topic. In Zambia there seem to be two main trends with regards to the presentation of the female body. Put as much of it on display as possible or do your best to mute female sexuality. I think the presuppositions, the thinking behind both trends are wrong and ungodly.

Lets start by discussing the approach that wants to cover up the female body. What could possibly be wrong with that one may ask? It we eliminate a source of sexual temption wont the world be a better placed. I don't think so on atleast two counts. Firstly it implicitly denies that God created the human body and declared it God. Women are meant to be physically attractive by design. To treat their physical attractiveness as a source of evil is to take a wrong turn. Sin is in our hearts and our approach to feminine modesty must be consistent with this. Wearing a tent will not dddtygeliminate lust.Male lust does not reside in female attire. It resides in male hearts. If we want deal with lust we preach the Gospel. That is of course not to give licence to nudism, it is just pointing out the need to be clear in our minds what we are and are not accomplishing through female modesty. For a Fuller treatment of the subject please read my very first post.

Col. Ghadaffi’s death and justice

2011-11-19T09:46:00.001+02:00

Was justice served in the defeat and death of Libyan leader Col. Ghadaffi? Two very different reactions have gone out – those who feel his death was no more than a brutal assassination, meant to cover up some conspiracy or other; This group usual protests that a court trial was in order then a formal sentence to be passed in judgment. Whether this would have meant capital punishment or life imprisonment, we do not know, but the emphasis is on respect for law. Otherwise our actions are no better than his were. Then another group who feel he deserved that kind of death, and they did us a favour by that hasty execution. Was justice truly served?

Three principles must remain clear in our minds. The first is the mandate “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. In the Old Testament, this meant, the punishment must fit the crime – not more or less. An eye for a tooth would be unfair. By the time of Jesus, people had come to use this saying for personal revenge, rather than equity in the law courts. (In any cases a lot of the judicial functions were out of the hands of the Jews during the Roman occupation). Jesus prescribed turning the other cheek, allowing insult to go without retribution, though this did not preclude self defence (turn a cheek to a slap not a punch!), nor the equity of the courtroom.

The second principle is that, “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”. Peter drew his sword to prevent Jesus arrest, but he was off mark on the will of God there. ‘Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26: 52). Much like the Proverbs wisdom, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14: 12). There is the inherent danger of the lifestyle of battle and killing. He lived by the sword, he died by it.

The third is the principle of ultimate justice. No one ever truly gets away with injustice. We must all eventually meet our Maker; “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9: 27). Retribution will be fine and adequate. No crimes will go unpunished in God’s world. It is never if, but when, for Ghadaffi, and all people.

So how do these three principles apply? First, we know that the state of war means life is not handled with the same care as times of peace. This isn’t to say that it is no less precious, but the perils of war are very real. Men who perhaps saw their friends die on the field were probably incensed at the one who caused this war to prolong. A sense of retribution filled many minds, I suspect! Beyond that, a court could have delivered a verdict, one which we all know would have been guilty. Would have been a court case for show, since we all know how it was going to turn out? Not necessarily. Due process is about the mandated executors of justice in society. If we all started shooting people who have wronged us, something would break down in society! Even if it was an official military firing squad, it would have come closer to a legitimate act of justice.

The principle of “he who lives by the sword” is not a vindication of a random shot by someone in the crowd. Rather it means, the one who lives by combat is likely to die in it – Fight often enough and you will meet your match one day! His way of life was not wise! It’s like playing with matches and getting burned. In that sense, such an end is not surprising.

Finally, ultimate retribution is not executed on earth. After all, if Gahadaffi allegedly killed hundreds of people over the years, does his one death balance with all those other deaths? Our most severe penalty is capital punishment, whether someone killed one or one thousand people. The scales of justice are still lacking, although it still has value as a deterrent and warning to others. But, ultimate justice is for God to execute, the one who sees all and hates all evil. To God, our thoughts words and actions, day and night, are an open book. What is not punished and pardoned because of the Cross of Christ, will be punished in the individual. God is more offended by evil than we will ever know. Ghadaffi has met his maker. He has answered to the highest court. Our task is equitable justice. But remember, our retribution is a shadow of his, so we must not look for the final answer here, otherwise we will be frustrated by all the things we shall never prove and never know.

How Shall We Then Drink?

2011-11-11T05:58:00.001+02:00

Few weeks ago started a series onChristians and their attitude towards alcohol. Today I would like to talk a bitabout how Christians might exercise their freedom to drink alcohol in theZambian context.

Just before I get to my sevenpoints I feel I need to say a bit more about why I bothered to start the seriesat all. When I started the series I knew there was great potential for misunderstandingand controversy. Despite this I felt compelled to go ahead since I believe that in our country the issues surrounding theChristian attitude towards alcohol relate to the sufficiency of the gospel andthat is serious(read Galatians). I considered ignoring the issue since it isnot the most important issue in the Zambia, that honour goes to missions. But Ithought of the Apostle Paul and how he handled legalism. He saw it as a counterfeitgospel and confronted it. I may not bethe Apostle Paul but I felt all things considered this was an issue that deserveddiscussion amongst evangelical Christians in our country.

Secondly, I was compelled towrite when I saw a group of Christians abuse their freedom to drink. It seemedto me their understanding of the freedom to drink was that they were free todrink in the way that everyone else does and that is wrong. The more I thoughtabout it the more I became persuaded that this group of Christians werebehaving this way due to a lack of counsel. If evangelical Christians in Zambia did nothave an unofficial law against alcohol drinking these Christians could have gotthe guidance and counsel they required.

So how can Christians exercisethis freedom in the Zambian context? Well here are some suggestions:

1. Drinking should be practiced in a counter cultural way. TheZambian drinking culture is sinful. Let be clear about that. In fact let me gofurther to say the evangelical Christians critique of drinking in Zambia is mostly spoton. Zambians celebrate drinking to excess, glorify the drunken state and their exploitswhile in the drunken state and prize social events were beer flows freely andwildness happens (just look at any issue of the Friday Post). If you choose todrink as a Christian in Zambia you must ensure that the way you drink in no wayendorses the SINFUL drinking culture in our country. This will involve doingthings like refraining from engaging inor approving of any talk that approves such drinking, refraining from drinkingat places where the sinful culture is practices. Positively, I believe that itwill involve drinking mainly in family settings or family friendly settings. Byfamily friendly settings I mean the type of places where children can be takenwithout fear of their being damaged by the experience.

2. Drinking should not be practiced with the unwise or worldly. Thescripture is full of advice on how bad company corrupts. In Zambia whereevangelical Christians generally do not drink there is a risk that Christianswho choose to drink will become drinking buddy’s with non Christians. It riskis further extended since in Zambia those who drink usually endorse othersinful behavior such as sexual promiscuity and so on. As such a Christian whodrinks must be aware that unwise decisions on who they will drink with can leadto a slide into sin.

3. The why the freedom to drink alcohol is practiced should clearlydisplay the difference between drinking alcohol and getting drunk. While is acceptable Christians to have their heart “gladden” by alcohol, drunkenness is sin. If aChristian chooses to drink it should be clear to all who know them Christiansand non Christians that they do not get drunk.

4. A Christian who drinks should be sensitive to Christians whocannot drink with a clear conscience or believe that it is wrong to drink. Theyshould not indulge in their freedom with an “in your face attitude” or go oncrusades to recruit “drinkers for Christ”. After all the Apostle Paul in Romans14 instructs that the unity of the Church that God is building is more valuablethan your right to drink. This however, does not mean that the Christian willbe silent on legalistic attitudes towards drinking. When faced with suchattitudes any Christian must gently and clearly point out how this is legalism.

5. If you drink, in light of the fact that most Christians do notexpect you to drink and society does not expect you to drink you should beprepared to clearly explain your position. The non Christian should never get theimpression you are embracing everything that goes along with drinking in theZambian. The Christian should be clear in their mind that you stand apart fromthe world and love the Church.

6. Be well aware of the temptations that go along with your choice(that is if you choose to drink), gossip, slander, verbal abuse, fighting andsexual promiscuity and be sure that you have strategies to fight against these temptations.Further If you find that you are regularly fall into these practices my recommendation is follow the counsel from Jesus’ sermon on themount and pluck out your eye (drinking) and live without an eye rather thanhave your whole body cast into sheol.

7. If you drink, drink wisely. Remember wisdom listens and does nottake advice lightly. If people come to you with valid concerns about yourdrinking listen to them and where appropriate put their advice into practice.

Well more can be said but I thought that I would share thesethings with you grace and peace.

Ni Friday, Tulenwa

2011-10-28T09:33:00.000+02:00

I wonder what your reaction to the last post was. Was it afeeling of elation? “At last, I can not now this guilt fee?”Was itindifference? Or was it concern? You have always known dinking in and of itselfwasn’t sinful and yet feel the matter is sensitive and it is better to err onthe side of caution.

I will share my feelings about the post. Anxiety. I wasconcerned that some people would use the post as a license for abuse. I couldpicture a situation where after reading the post someone might rush tobreakpoint (or wherever “it happens” these days) and with three shouts ofhallelujah order seven tequilas. I have never drunk tequila I hope seventequilas is excessive.

So in light of my anxieties allow me to be explicit aboutwhat the last post does not allow for.

1) The BIBLE (and that meansGod) does not support under any circumstances the “Tulenwa lelo” approach todrinking. Drinking to get drunk is a sin. Why do I say this? Firstly drunkennessis a sin Galatians 5:21. Secondly, the very desire to participate in sinfulbehavior in sin Mathew 5:21-30.

2) Participating in a drinkingculture that promotes wildness or generally unchristian behavior is strictlyforbidden. 1 Peter 4:3, Galatians 5:21. So no will drinking parties, notoriousbars, “happening” joints or even some kitchen parties for you Christian.

3) Routinely “overdoing it” isan indicator that you are not Christian. Don’t take my word for it. Galatians5:21.

4) Harassing Christians whoare against drinking by insisting on the right to drink is strictly forbidden.You may choose an appropriate time to calmly discuss the matter, but the Biblesays the unity is more valuable than your Mosi. Romans 14.

5) If you suspect that yourdrinking would cause a major disturbance in the church or cause the immature tomisunderstand you and indulge in drunkenness, by all means don’t drink. If youdid you might be destroying what God is building and God is against that.Romans 14 (I will have to add a nuance to this in my next post)

6) On drinking buddies. Neverforget bad associations ruin useful habits. Foolishness spreads. Be wise.

7) The Bible lets us know thatto love the world (the rebellious way of life that is against God) is to hateGod. If your drink begins to draw you into thought patterns, speech patterns orbehaviors that are unchristian you need to repent.

Having said that there is still acase for moderate drinking, the only thing is a new Christian culture will needto be built to accommodate it. I hope to discuss this more in my nextpost.

The Teetoler Mandate

2011-10-24T10:17:00.001+02:00

I would like to use this post (my first in too many months) to talk about how the current view that abstinence is the only legitimate position towards the consumption of alcohol for the Zambian evangelical Christian is harmful to the cause of Christ. As you read this I request you not to assume that this or subsequent posts are an endorsement of the current Zambian drinking culture. This post is merely an attempt to look at how something that was started is good faith has developed into something it was never intended to be.

As you may know, in Zambia, evangelical Christians are not supposed to drink. Society in general and evangelical Christians seem agreed on this point. While no evangelical Church I know of calls the consumption of alcohol sin, it is informally known to be strictly “against the rules”.
Sermons, blogs and Christian in casual conversation regularly discourage and stigmatize the consumption of alcohol. According to this viewpoint there is no meaningful distinction between drinking and drunkenness. Therefore, while drinking is technically not sin, taking more than is sip is effectively sinful. Further, this viewpoint, I must confess to having held it, presents the decision to drink alcohol as careless at best and as guaranteed to lead to spiritual, social and sometimes physical destruction. Rhetorically, such Christians ask why on earth anyone in their right mind would want to take the risk of drinking when the stakes are so high. This stance against drinking alcohol can be so serious that a Christian caught drinking will be stigmatized as a backslider and will sometimes be subjected to Church discipline. To Zambian evangelical alcohol is in effect as spiritually unclean as pork was to the Old Testament Jew.

Even in society in general, while the consumption of alcohol is permissible, it is felt that the cleaner and in some ways morally superior option is to abstain from alcohol. The abstainer is looked at as a decent person, particularly if the abstainer is female. According, to society as you grow older, the dignified thing is to cut back on your drinking and if possible by all means put away “childish things”.
I however, have come to the conclusion that to maintain (even at an informal level) that abstinence from alcohol is the ONLY legitimate option for Christian is gravely wrong. Allow me to share my reasons.

1. Insisting on the abstinence ONLY option imposes an extra biblical requirement on Christians. NOWHERE in the Bible is exclusive abstinence required of a believer. To expect Christians to universally abstain is to add to God’s commandments, a practice that the Bible condemns. “You may not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you” Deuteronomy 4:2.

2. The ban of alcohol causes confusion in the minds of believers and non believers about the nature of sin. The current position creates the impression that alcohol is sinful in and of itself sinful. This is contrary to the teaching of Christ that clearly reveals that sin comes from the hearts of people and not from material things. (Mathew 15:11) In the case of substance abuse, whether it is alcohol or another substance, the sin lies in the person’s willful decision to use the substance in abusive patterns and not in the substance itself.

3. In effect the alcohol ban requires or at least creates the impression that in order to be a ‘real’ Christian one must add to repentance and faith in Christ a man made principle: abstinence from alcohol. This is a practice that has been soundly condemned by the Apostle Paul. (Colossians 2:20-23).

4. The ban on alcohol ban suppresses several scriptures that present alcohol consumption in a positive light. Examples of such scripture include; Psalm 104:14-15, Ecclesiastes 10:19, Deuteronomy 14:22-26 and Isaiah 25:6-9. Further, in the New Testament wine was used in the ordinance of the Lords Supper, an act of worship no less. This is to subtract this view point from the Bible is a practice that God does not approve as we have already seen in Deuteronomy 4:2.

5. The ban on alcohol tends to promote questionable handling of the Bible. Persons promoting the no alcohol policy tend to promote questionable interpretation practice. For example, (to my shame I have done this several times myself) on tactic frequently used is to argue that Biblical wine was non alcoholic grape juice or grape juice with the merest traces of alcohol. This position can be shown to be false by substituting grape juice for wine in several passages. Do any of the sound right? The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘here is a glutton and grape juice drinker!’ everyone brings out the choice grape juice first and the cheaper grape juice after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best to now!’John 2:9-10.’Drink no longer water, but use a little non-alcoholic grape juice for thy stomachs sake and thine often infirmities’. Here’s my favorite. ’Be not drunk with grape juice’ Ephesians 5:18. I think you get my point.

6. Many arguments for abstinence (but not all) are a bad witness to the world as they imply Christians are intellectually dishonest, at worst, or not clear thinkers, at best. Take for example, the argument that the abuse of something is an argument for abstinence. This argument is easily demolished (would anyone honestly argue against eating due to the high prevalence of obesity) and does not leave the non Christian with a high regard for the Christian mind. Another practice in this category is the equating of alcohol consumption to drunkenness. Put another way, the argument that moderate alcohol consumption is a myth. While this argument might work in Christian circles, in non Christian circles their experience alone disproves the argument. Not everyone who consumes alcohol is a hopeless drunk.

7. Lastly, this route avoids the responsibility of showing the world how to handle elements of creation including alcohol in a redemptive fashion. As Christians we are not to despise creation due to the way rebellion against God has twisted it. Take for example, sexuality is widely abused. Think of pornography, homosexuality, polygamy and fornication. All of these are horrible abuses of sexuality and sometimes make sexuality seem kind of dirty since this kind of abuse is the norm in most societies. However, as Christians we are clearly taught not to abstaining from sex rather we are to display to the world the proper use of sexuality in the context of marriage. Similarly, with regards to alcohol, Christians ought not to ban the use of alcohol outright. Rather, an allowance ought to be made for the proper use of alcohol. I hope to start discussing the proper use of alcohol in the next post.

So there we have it, seven reasons why I believe abstinence from alcohol can not be a rule in Christian circles. As I end, I want to say that this is in no way an argument that Christian MUST drink, or an argument in favour of the WAY people in Zambia drink, it is certainly not an argument that Christians should JOIN their non Christian relatives and associate in drinking, rather it is an argument against unchristian tendencies and viewpoints that have emerged in our circles. It is an argument for the Church to reform its general practice towards drinking and better align it with scripture. I hope to begin to discuss how I believe a more Biblically balanced attitude to alcohol can be developed.

The Christian and Art

2011-10-24T10:17:00.000+02:00

When most Zambians think of art, they think of someone by the roadside writing a banner. They associate it with a poor and uncertain income, and are quick to point out to anyone who is artistic that “that is the only future in art”. As such, it has been ranked at the bottom of the ladder in terms of useful activities, skills and vocations. The downgrade on art may be costing us more than we realize.

Firstly, we seem to have a half hearted attitude to art around us. Many homes have a dusty front yard, where they would rather sweep layer by layer of soil away (i.e. erosion), than grow a lawn or a flowerbed. Someone passed a yard with a well kept garden and commented “as if a Muzungu [white guy] lives there!” It seems art is for the eccentric, the foreign or the bored. But there is something wrong with this thinking.

The very first artist is God himself, creating the context of art (time, space, matter) and then art within that context. When man is made in God’s image, He (they) is given dominion over the earth. This includes ‘creating’ order. This why we too can be creative, making roads and houses, advancing in technology and beautifying our surrounding with the raw materials God has provided. Anything that contributes positively to this order, advance and beauty, is part of our human mandate on earth. We must also be able to look at our work, measured by that standard, and say “It is good”.

To me, a rejection of art is partly because of our survival mentality.
“How are you?”
“Surviving!”

That’s how some people greet! And when we are in survival mode, we are operating on bare minimum, looking to eat and sleep and all else is a luxury. But instead of an emergency instinct, this is now a culture, where our highest goal is survival and all else is a distraction. We do not want to look at excellence, at planning ahead and setting a foundation for the next generation, we do not look at presentation of our surroundings or reflecting on our endevours.

We are infact disobeying God when we refuse to make the most of our environment, whether work, home, or recreation. We are to make order and progress, to leave it better than we found it. We are to use technology, organized and planned activity, and art to improve our environment and express our creativity. While God looks at the heart, remember, faith without works is dead! So we know a tree by its fruit.

Do we treat art, skill in visual form, beauty and order, as part of the creation mandate? Order out of “Chaos”. You are called to do that, and so am I.

And so is the artist. It is no less a calling from God. Art has value in God’s eyes – He is the first artist!

Few artists in Zambia are privilidged to make their living from art. There are the few whose paintings can go for K2,000,000.00 each, and are ordered in advance. But does this mean we all rush for the money spinners? Isn’t that why a lot of people are entering accounts and law who do not belong there – but just because they see those as money spinners? Many have not examined what moves their heart, reflects their strengths and is their personal calling.

I am not saying it is easy. But in all careers there are the money spinners and those who hear the same rumours of success we do! You will do best in the thing you enjoy most. Art is also needed for theatre, radio and television, advertising, marketing, landscaping, architecture, design and production of various kinds, etc.

With art, we are reminded that life is more about ‘surviving’, i.e. avoiding disaster. It must be filled with light and love, and savoured and shared. Otherwise, I think we are taking up too much space!

Clarification

2011-01-08T08:08:00.004+02:00

Please note that all thoughts on the second post in last Mondays blog were John Pipers. Sorry for any confusion caused.

putting qoutation marks would have been a good idea.

I however wish to note I share MICHAEL HYATT's approach to blogging. Here is MICHAEL

"When I post to my own blog, for example, I know there are likely errors in what I have written. But no matter how many times I read and re-read my posts, I can’t see them. Instead, I post them as-is, and my brother-in-law, Jack Parsons, proofs them after they go live. He emails me
the errors he finds.

It doesn’t have to be this way. As the CEO of a book publishing company, I have numerous editors available to assist me. I could run my posts by them before putting them up on my blog. I could also submit them to our lawyers for legal review. I could even have our marketing
people have a look.

But if I followed that process, I would never post anything. Instead, I have embraced the
concept of permanent beta. I launch and then tweak. This is the pattern.

As G.K. Chesterton once famously said, “If something is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.” In
other words, the point of absolute perfection never comes. Too often, this is just an excuse for procrastination."

Women and Condoms

2011-01-03T15:14:00.004+02:00

Here are some more thoughts from (John Piper this time) on the use of condoms as a means of preventing the spread of HIV in unmarried persons:

"This morning's paper (12-4-01) carries an unsigned editorial on "Condoms: A Secret Weapon in Short Supply." It addresses the issue of AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. The issue is worthy. The crisis is huge. The pain is unfathomable. And the article is sad. So it must always be when the deepest things in our lives are trivialized by being disconnected from God. Sex is deep. And when it is treated like an unmanageable addiction, rather than a God-honoring gift for marriage, tragedy is added to tragedy.

"Women in Uganda have been hanging their condoms out to dry. They're doing it not because they're ignorant, but because they're desperate. Long acquainted with the lifesaving virtues of latex, many can't imagine taking the risk of unprotected sex. And since condoms are hard to come by in southern Africa, they're forced to experiment with recycling."

This paragraph is full of irony and insult. The insult is that these women are treated like helpless slaves of sexual desire. They are "desperate" without fresh condoms. They "cannot imagine" unprotected sex – or abstinence. They are being "forced" to recycle. And the source of that force? The slave-master sex. This is all incredibly demeaning – as if these women were mere dogs in heat with no higher commitments or self-control."

You can read the rest of this article here

The Church and Condoms

2011-01-03T08:00:00.001+02:00

Happy new year. The last two months were not very good months for this blog. The pressure of my “day job” got to me and left me state where I could not write. For the coming year, however, I have adopted a strategy that I believe will allow me to post at least once a week. So lets see how it goes.

Okay, lets pick up where we left off, talking about whether the church should promote the use of condoms as means of preventing the spread of HIV. The people who ask the Church to adopt this policy are generally well meaning people who believe that the spread of HIV is the cause of so much death and misery in this world. In view of this, they hold that the church and other institutions in society should realize that conservative family values that promote sex within the bounds of marriage are largely unobserved. They go on to argue that if institutions such as the Church want to have a real impact on society, in the area of HIV, they should work within the existing situation and promote solutions that speak to the existing situation. In this regard, they say that advocating abstinence will have little impact because society does not ( some hold can not by nature ) live according to these values. The more realistic position according to this viewpoint is to promote the distribution of condoms, which can be demonstrated to meaningfully reduce pain and suffering in this world.

I, however, am of the opinion that the promotion of condoms as a means of preventing suffering is not realistic or moral from the Christian worldview and cannot be promoted by the church.
What is a worldview? It can crudely be defined as a the collection ideas and concepts that a person or group of people uses to interpret reality. Take for example many who argue for the use of condoms to prevent spread of HIV have a naturalistic worldview. This is worldview that holds what is real can be observed and measured by human beings and is caused exclusively by factor that can be observed and measured by human beings. A persons worldview is also the foundation of a persons ethical values. People with a naturalistic viewpoint frequently evaluate the ethical value of actions on the basis of their observable positive or negative consequences. On this basis many have argued that advocating the use of condoms as means of preventing the spread of HIV is more ethical than advocating practicing of sex exclusively in marriage, since according to them on the basis of observed behavior in society, more suffering will be alleviated through the condom solution.

Now while the promotion of condoms might make sense from the naturalistic view I hope to show that from the Biblical worldview the promotion of condoms is unloving and immoral. However, before I proceed to discuss why the Church ought not endorse the use of condoms in fighting the spread of HIV, I would like to point out that the Church IS involved in the alleviation of suffering in our world. In the case of Zambia it is an established fact that the Church was the first group to bring modern medicine to the territory. From the early days of mission to date, Christians in their individual capacities and as groups have alleviated human suffering in Zambia through the delivery of medical services. It should be noted that these services have frequently delivered on a non cost recovery basis.

In the Church’s quest to alleviate human suffering however, the advocacy of the use of condoms to stop the spread of HIV is not an option because of the implications of the Biblical worldview. The Church believes that reality was created by God. It is not moved by big bang cosmologists because at the root of it the idea that everything came from nothing (or that alternatively everything just is and has always existed in some form) can not be scientifically proven beyond a doubt and is ultimately as much of a leap of faith as belief in God. The Church further believes that God created man. Once again the Church is not ultimately moved by naturalism evolution (this is not the time to discuss theistic evolution) that holds through time and chance we came to be here. I believe when the odds (the mathematical probabilities) of the whole chain of events necessary for the natural evolution of man happening would not be accepted by most people. The Church believe that man was created perfect but fell into sin and this can be seen by the fact that we fall short of even our own moral standards. Once again we do not believe that we can by force of will make our selves perfectly good by any standard because we haven’t seen it anywhere. We believe that God has a plan to redeem this world through his son because a reasonable argument can be made for the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ. On the basis of this we believe that the Christ will return to judge the living and the dead and restore creation. Now I know that each of this points can be debated but in brief that is the Christian worldview and the reasons for holding the worldview.

So why would it be wrong to promote the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV from within this worldview? Returning to creation, we believe that God created us as sexual beings that this sexuality is to exercised within the bounds of matrimony. Further in light of the fall we know that human beings rebel against what is right including proper sexual relations. This is why we have the rampant sex outside marriage. Beyond this be believe that there are eternal penalties for rebellion against what is right. Against this perspective while putting a condom into the hands of a man who will have sex outside marriage may keep him from falling ill but will not prevent him from reaping the eternal consequences of sin. To put it another way (and to paraphrase John Piper) we are against suffering especially eternal suffering and for this reason we cannot in good conscience endorse the use of condoms as a means of preventing the spread of HIV.

Be that as it may the civil society organizations may say that is your worldview but people are really suffering and dying shouldn’t we do something as opposed to nothing? Well I will shortly deal with the issue of partnering with groups with opposing worldviews in a pluralistic society.

Adoption and the African Extended Family

2010-12-09T15:23:00.002+02:00

Here are some thoughts from a Zambian Pastor (Conrad Mbewe) on the current American trend of adpoting Afrcian children and the African social insitution of the extended family.

Cross Cultural Sensitivity

2010-12-09T14:59:00.002+02:00

Perhaps I can best illustrate this principle by showing its importance for anybody engaged in foreign mission work. Here they are, missionaries in an alien culture that is entirely different from anything they have ever known. Thy are preaching the gospel and under their ministrations people are converted and join the Church, the new converts are not immediately free from their cultural background and outlook. Now the danger is that the missionaries, who have probably been Christians for many years, will seek to impose western ideas upon this culture. They may try to press upon people who are just entering the Christian life the customs and habits of people who have been brought up in a country where the gospel has been preached for years, and where there is a general Christian tradition.

Now this is a very great temptation and danger. It is the business of every missionary to learn about the local conditions and the local culture, because - I am speaking in a non Christian manner for a moment - there are many practices that are perfectly harmless and legitimate in this country, and in western nations, that are regarded as simply terrible by people brought up in other traditions and cultures. In the same way, some of the things people in other countries regard as of value, we think of as being almost ridiculous.

D.M. Lloyd Jones, Romans Exposition of Chapter 14: 1 - 17, P 174

The State and sex education – Molding a lifestyle

2010-12-01T20:39:00.000+02:00

There is no such thing as morally neutral education. We learn values in everything we see and hear, from radio adverts to fashion. And what is not of moral significance will show wisdom or lack of wisdom, which will open the door to certain moral options. Schools have a role to play in molding children’s understanding of themselves, their world and their purpose. That’s why sex education is not just science. It examines what it means to be male or female – meaning the children will evaluate themselves by what they learn in sex education. Do you see how dangerous it is to get it wrong here?

When you think about it, you will realize that schools have custody of your children for about 8 hours a day. While most schools are government run, the private schools will still use Curriculum Development Centre approved material and at least aligned with the centrally approved exams. This means, the education system will determine what material is a priority for your children’s time and energy. This means, either the education system will reinforce the principles you want your child to have, or it will compete with your principles, and prove a great challenge to molding a lifestyle you desire to see.

The state will never be a substitute for training in the home or by the church. Each has a unique role that slightly overlaps, and, of course, each is dealing with the same people! But there are at least four roles of the state in training on sexuality:
The state must convey the proper facts through its approved curriculum. The understanding of how the body works, hygiene and health, puberty, etc, it vital. It is the raw material, the ‘elements’ so to speak, that will be given a place of dignity and moral value in the great jigsaw of life. Without the raw elements, the choices will never be informed choices. Accurate science must form part of the curriculum. It is, in effect, God glorifying truth.

Secondly, that curriculum should include the emotional
and perceptional differences of male and female. Without it the ‘scientific’ description of male and female is incomplete. This is a core element in understanding sexuality. The difference is not just the plumbing! It must be demonstrated, as experience has shown, that we are different at more than just muscle and bone level.

Thirdly, those differences should be acknowledged through the text books, story books and readers that are used, promoting behavior that respects men and women as unique, having common and unique duties towards others – hence the concept of gentleman and lady in society!

Fourthly, the types of behaviour that are both rewarded and punished must include behavior that is sensitive to the needs of pupils as male and female, and a model for people who will one day have their own families. The punishments given, and the crimes that earn those punishments in schools, go a long way in teaching boys how to treat girls, and later in life to be considerate and reliable men.

For some, they think the only choices are the traditional model were women are almost treated as children, without property rights and choices, and the egalitarian post-modern view of men and women and having no real differences beyond bearing children. There is a third position, in which the differences and the common dignity of men and women are both recognized – one without diminishing the other.

Schools play a huge rule in formative years of children. We would be grateful if their role complements and strengthens the effort of faithful churches and sincere parenting, and not opposes it.

The Pope and Condoms

2010-11-23T08:48:00.004+02:00

Hi there sorry about the Absence.

If you have read the Post of 23rd November you may have noticed an article on page 2 by Edwin Mbulo titled "Chruch Should Promote Condoms". You can read the story online here.

In the article Treatment Advocay and Literacy Campaign's country representive welcomes the Popes aprent endorement of the use of condoms for prevention of HIV transmission saying that priest and bishops should realistic.

I am not Roman Catholic but in the interests of truth and accuracy I would like to share something from catholicsonline to clarify the Popes position:

"The pope underlines clearly that, at that time, he did not want to express a position on the problem of condoms in general, but he wanted to affirm strongly that the problem of AIDS cannot be resolved solely with the distribution of condoms, because much more must be done: prevention, education, assistance, counsel, being close to people, both so that they do not become sick, and also in cases where they are sick.

"The pope observes that even in non-church circles a comparable awareness has developed, as is seen in the so-called ABC theory (Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are much more decisive and fundamental in the struggle against AIDS, while the condom appears as a last resort when the other two are lacking. It should therefore be clear that the condom is not the solution to the problem.

"The pope then takes a wider view and insists on the fact that concentrating only on the condom signifies the "banalization" of sexuality, which loses its meaning as the expression of love between persons and becomes like a "drug." To fight against the banalization of sexuality is "part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being."

"In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that the church "of course does not regard (condoms) as a real or moral solution" to the problem of AIDS.

"In saying this, the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by putting it in the context of the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.

"At the same time, the pope takes into consideration an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality may represent a real risk to the life of another person. In such a case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but maintains that the use of the condom to diminish the danger of infection may be "a first assumption of responsibility", "a first step in a movement toward a more human sexuality", as opposed to not using the condom and exposing the other person to a fatal risk.

"In this statement, the pope's reasoning certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift.

You can read the release from the Vatican here

I will make my own comments on TALC position soon.

Sex education and the family

2010-10-26T09:04:00.003+02:00

The family is the first place we learn about life and social norms. All our first questions about life are addressed to parent/guardians, as anyone will tell you who has raised children between 3 and 5 years of age, when the endless “why?” questions are predominant! What better place for children to get a clear understanding of the role, dignity and value of sexuality in human life! Before the school or the church or peers step in, the home can be the first and the foundational point to teach children about sexual identity and role-distinct responsibility. But this is easier said then done, as the home is often the last place people have such conversations!

Why is it necessary to teach this in the family? Firstly, because the young children are at a stage of trust, where they have great confidence in their parents, and will give greater attention to “what Daddy told me at home” than what peers will say! Parents can take advantage of the trust the toddlers and pre-teens have, before the more individualistic teen years set in! Secondly, since the home is where a sense of right and wrong is explained and enforced, this should include lessons on sexuality. Thirdly, because children begin exploring sexuality a lot younger than in previous generations, so the information a child needs at 11 years old, was once needed at 14 years! We need to equip them sooner, because children are more daring. Fourthly, because nowadays children get exposed to so much sexual material in the sense of more explicit movies (even those rated as family movies), music (which will make the child ask “what does that word mean?”) and public displays of affection (romantic kisses in public), etc.

How should parents go about this? It is a double difficult task because, in Zambian culture, the task always fell to grand-parents or others outside the nuclear family. As Joe Kapolyo points out in his book, it seems the parent and child generation are supposed to be formal, while, when you skip a generation, the grandparent and grandchildren are allowed to be very free, even play-mates! But the modern urban lifestyle leaves neither the time nor the resources for this model, and the gap has to be filled. Further more, the Bible has placed the task of training the child in the parents hands, with no room for deferring responsibility. The cultural barrier has to be overcome to fulfill the Biblical mandate. So it will take courage and tact!

The first approach is by parents taking advantage of questions that arise. In Richard Dobbins book, ‘Teaching your child the truth about sex’, he tells a story of a mother who took advantage of an incident where one chicken was apparently ‘killing’ the other. The mother explained to the daughter that that’s how chickens make babies! Surely every parent has some situation (when watching television or hearing a song) which will bring up a question, and the parent can give an age appropriate response, which will be truthful even if not detailed! There are also the questions about ‘where do babies come from’ and even question when the mother is expecting another child. This is a lot better than those lies where we tell a child ‘babies come from Shoprite’. In future, they will not come for real answers from the parent but look elsewhere!

The second approach is a planned talk. IF you are from certain Christian backgrounds, then the concept of the father as ‘priest’ in the home, with his little congregation to teach, is nothing new. Voddie Bauchum is a great advocate of this, as his book ‘Family driven faith’ attests. If there are family talks or devotions even once a week, there can be a day when the talk can be on Genesis chapter 2 and 3. The parents can talk about what it means to ‘leave and cleave’ to be married, both the motherly role of Eve as well as the lead and provide role of Adam the gardener and head of humanity! Simple lessons like this can increase in complexity according to the age group as well as the level of understanding and the questions that come out.

This also prepares the child to evaluate the kind of sex and life education they will receive at school, as it often falls short of the wholeness required of sexuality and responsibility training required, or at the least, it is often morally neutral instead of character building.

The Church and Secularization

2010-10-20T14:58:00.002+02:00

While it is common place to hear about how the Church is against secularization, it is interesting to note that the Church has been a force promoting secularisation in the developing world.

Here is a quote from Religion and Education in Zambia

"In spite of frequent off the record comments about the activities of missionaries, anthropologists have done little to document the role of missionaries as agents of culture change. What little they have written focuses on religious aspects of missionary work but rarely on the missionary as agent of westernisation generally. here, i shall attend to the missionary as purveyor of a naturalistic world view as opposed to a supernaturalistic one. By naturalistic, i refer to cause and effect explanations based on natural laws rather than explanation which rely on supernatural powers of intervention in human affairs...

naturalistic beliefs form the organising basis for the missionary's comprehension of the vast majority of day to day events and experiences. Rather than reinforce or expand traditional supernaturalistic beliefs, the missionary, in fact supports the many naturalistic orientations Westerners tend to impose on non western cultures. Socialised in a largely secular society (i.e., one which depends on naturalistic rather than supernaturalistic beliefs and activities for its raison d'etre), missionaries actually assign supernanturalistic beliefs and actions a Minor role in ascribing and explaining the everyday experiences of human existence. For them, the arena of direct supernatural involvement is generally restricted to past events ( such as the "creation" and the Old Testament and New Testament periods of "Revelation") or to individual experiences which they can not readily trace to naturalistic causes. In contrast, traditional supernnaturalistc world views tend to encompass all of life's experiences with no comparable cognitive distinction between natural and supernatural or between temporal epochs of differential supernatural activity."

E. Millar, Religion and Education in Zambia, P55

Christians as members of Political Parties

2010-10-11T08:06:00.006+02:00

The past two presidential elections have been particularly trying for the body of Christ in Zambia. Many Christians have divided over their respective political affiliations. Here are Martyn Lloyd Jones thoughts on the matter.

“The Christian is never to expect too much from the state. This is always a difficulty. People always expect too much from it. Let me emphasize that by saying that Christians should never get excited about the state. They should never get excited about politics. They are to be interested; they are to vote; they must be intelligent and informed; but they are never to get excited about one political party or the other. But Christians often do, and to the extent that they do, they come under the condemnation of scripture...

So often, and to their great shame, Christian people have quarreled over politics. This is quite unforgivable. Ultimately the disagreement is often caused by a view of what the state can achieve; otherwise no one would get so heated. I have known churches to divide on political issues. I have known Christian people who do not even speak to one another because of their political views. It is almost unthinkable, but it has often happened, and it is due to a failure to understand the teaching of this great and important section of Romans 13. It is quite all right to have differences of opinion, as I have already indicated. There are equally good Christians in all the political parties. Bit Christians must never let their political views harm their fellowship with other Christians.”

P58 Martyn Lloyd Jones, Romans: Exposition of Chapter 13 Life in two kingdoms, Banner of Truth

Should we stick to spiritual things?

2010-10-11T07:46:00.004+02:00

Should Christians get involved is a business as nonspiritual as politics?

Here is Martyn Lloyd Jones take on the question

"But that is a very dangerous heresy because Christians still have to function in the flesh, they still have to live in this world. All the orders of nature are still there; they still continue. Moreover, we are told that it is the duty of Christians to recognize and submit to the governing powers and obey them as best they can. There are certain qualifications, which I will deal with later, but as principle, that is what we are told. So we are concerned with things of this life that are not specifically Christian.

Let me go a step further: like everybody else, Christians are involved in matters that are not specifically moral or spiritual, but are neutral. Let me give you an example or two. What is Government concerned about? It is concerned about preventing robbery and theft, keeping order, regulating the traffic, ensuring proper drainage, preserving public health. Now those are not moral or spiritual matters – I would call them neutral. From the standpoint of public health, law and order, driving on the correct side of the road, observing the road signs and the highway code, there is no difference between the Christian and the non Christian. Christians are involved in all of them, and they should therefore be interested in all of them.

Or take economic issues. Speaking generally, I hold the position that questions about the economy are also not spiritual or moral but neutral. Yet they are very important. When they are handled properly, they benefit all of us. If they are handled badly, we all suffer, Christian and non Christians alike. So as Christians, it is our duty to take interest in these things. We should be concerned to ensure that the best minds are applied to them. We do not contract out. We realize that local and national Government are essential to the ordering of life, to making civilized life possible for the community of men and women. And we not only recognize this, we submit ourselves to it."

P40 Martyn Lloyd Jones Romans: Exposition of Chapter 13 Life in Two Kingdoms, Banner of truth

The Declaration as a Covenant With God

2010-10-09T08:08:00.006+02:00

Over the past few months I have been posting brief discussions on various viewpoints Zambians hold on the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation. As I have written these posts I have become aware that once I am done looking at the various viewpoints on the declaration, I will need to discuss the separation of church and Christian influence in a pluralistic society. Prayerfully I will be able to do this by January.

This post will look at the declaration as a covenant with God. According to this view point if Zambia as a nation through a political act identifies itself with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then the nation will receive divine blessings spiritually and materially. In Zambia at least there is no systematic theology supporting this viewpoint, but advocates of this viewpoint typically cite 2 Chronicles 7:14, “if My people who are called by my name will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land”, as the basis of their belief. Now I realize to some the distinction between the declaration as an act of faith and the declaration as a covenant may not be clear so I will try and make a distinction here. The declaration as an act of faith is an action that moves God to act on behalf of Zambia and the declaration as a covenant is an action that creates a unique relationship between God and the nation, in effect God is King over the nation in a way his is not king over secular states.

Before I go into my usual brief evaluation I will talk about how the viewpoint evolved in the Zambian context.

For the first twenty seven years of Zambia’s existence, the nation was ruled by Kenneth David Kaunda. Kenneth Kaunda the son of a missionary ruled in accordance with a political ideology he called humanism. This ideology was a mixture of African social beliefs, socialism, beliefs on the equality of all people and his own belief that purpose of all social institutions is to serve man. President Kaunda was a professing Christian and for many years he interacted with the Church relatively well. During this time the presidents religious beliefs seemed to be ecumenical and centered around the simple belief that “Christ is my savior”. Over the years however, the President began to publically entertain certain eastern religious beliefs. This pattern came to a head in 1990 when the President invited the Maharishi Heaven on Earth group to Zambia to “help” the nation transform. The president gave these people a centre near State House to operate from and expressed his intention to provide state support to help this group propagate their beliefs.

Politically, this could not have been a worse move for the president. The nation was in economic crisis and many were calling for a political change to deal with the crisis. When the President invited the Maharishi group many in the Christian community joined forces with the movement for change to deal with the presidents new spiritual direction. As providence would have it in 1991 there was regime change and Fredrick Titus Chiluba was elected as Zambia’s second republican president.

Frederick Chiluba was a trade unionist and a Charismatic Christian and in no time at all the nation learned that his religious beliefs would have an influence on his presidency. The man opened meetings in prayer, quoted the Bible constantly and seemed to give Christian (as well as secular) justification for his actions. According to some newspapers when the new president moved to statehouse he even arranged for special prayers to deal this the demons that may have taken residence there during the reign of Kenneth Kaunda. This Christianizing process came its climax when the president appeared outside statehouse and performed a covenanting ceremony by one of statehouses pillars and declared Zambia a Christian nation.

So that’s it that is the background to the original declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation. So what do I make of this all? Well theologically I believe that this viewpoint is incorrect. Firstly, when any human party enters into a covenant with God, God is the initiator and not the human party. In the case of Zambia we see Zambia through its president initiating a covenant with God. This is incorrect and is against the Biblical standard.

Secondly, the so called Biblical grounds for the declaration are specific promises to the nation of Israel. I believe that it would be wrong for any nation to lay hold of any of these promises for the following reasons:

“The Difference between Israel and other Kingdoms was that Israel was in covenant with the true God. So it had instructions and civil laws appropriate to its uniqueness. Its temple, priesthood, feasts, and sacrificial system anticipated the coming of Christ to redeem God’s people from sin. But the majority of Israel rejected Jesus. So they lost their special status with God.

But the people of God continued in a new form. The Church, composed of Jews and Gentiles (with, of course, their families) as equal members of one body, was “the Israel of God” (Gal.6.16). The olive tree of Abraham continued, but with some old (Jewish) branches broken off and some new Gentile branches grafted in (Rom. 11:11-24). The Church received the titles of Israel….

No modern nation, or its Government (state), then, will ever play the distinctive role filled by old testament Israel….Modern nations continue to act as God’s servants to maintain justice and order. But believing nations, if such there be, will not play the distinctive role of Israel, and neither will their Governments. These states need not take Israel’s distinctive purposes into account as they rule.”

P599 John Frame, “The Doctrine of the Christian Life” P&R Publishing

For these reasons I believe only the church, not any political entity, can lay hold of the promises of God to Israel.

Sex Education in the Church

2010-09-29T17:27:00.002+02:00

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

2010-09-24T08:55:00.009+02:00

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?

2010-09-24T08:27:00.004+02:00

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

2010-09-22T07:19:00.000+02:00

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

2010-09-21T14:48:00.003+02:00

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

2010-09-21T14:42:00.001+02:00

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

2010-09-21T14:09:00.006+02:00

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

2010-09-07T08:37:00.004+02:00

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.

The Declaration as a Sociological Statement Pt 2

2010-08-13T12:02:00.003+02:00

The Declaration as a Sociological Statement Pt 2

The next major objection to the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation is that it is an expression of tyranny. According to this view the Christian segment of society use their influence to oppress those with view contrary to theirs. A prominent example of such a view point is homosexuality.

I do not find this viewpoint persuasive for two reasons. Firstly, democracy presupposes that views of the majority will take precedence over the views of the minority. Democracy is a political tool that creates national consensus on governance issues among groups with differing viewpoints through elections. Secondly, I do not think that majority rule and tyranny of the majority are synonymous. In most democracies the rule of law guards against the violation of fundamental human rights.

So that is the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation as a sociological statement. Next post the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation as a moral statement.

Christians and Politics

2010-08-13T07:49:00.010+02:00

Here is a quote from Edmund Clowney on Christian Participation in politics.

"Since democracy gives its citizens a voice in Government, Christians have the responsibility of their privilege to participate. There is every reason for the general office of the Church ('laity') to consult together on political issues. So, too, the special officers of the church must provide biblical guidance and wisdom to assist in Christian analysis of political questions. The Church has a prophetic role to perceive and expose ethical questions that underlie political issues. Where God has spoken in condemning sin, whether sodomy or financial exploitation, the Church cannot be silent...Yet Christian involvement in political life does not cancel out the spiritual form of Christ's kingdom. Calling the sate righteousness does not mean calling it to promote the gospel with political power or usher in the last judgement with the sword. Christians are not free to form an exclusively Christian political party that seeks to exercise power in the name of Christ. That would identify Christ's cause with one of the kingdoms of the world. Political action on part of Christians must always be undertaken in concert with others who seek the same immediate objectives. Such objectives, promoting life, liberty and restraint of violence, are the proper goals of civil government. They are not the goals of faith and holiness that Christ appointed for his Kingdom" Edmund P. Clowney The Church p.193

The Biblical Worldview and the Purpose of the State

2010-08-11T11:46:00.005+02:00

These are quotes from an online essay by New Testatment Theologian Norman Thomas Wright:

"like everything else in Jewish and Christian theology, all Biblical wisdom about God and Government goes back to Genesis...Genesis declares two things: first, that our world is the good creation of a good God; second, that humans are given a place of special responsibility within that world. The doctrine of human beings being made made 'in God's image' is about the vocation of humans to bring God's wise, fruitful order into the world, and in turn to sum up the praises of creation before the creator....And it isn't only gardens that humans are called to look after. The concept of humans bringing God's order to the world lies at the heart of all ordering of human society, all leadership, all government."

You can read the whole essay here.

Charles Kachikoti on Church and State

2010-08-11T09:05:00.004+02:00

The following are extracts from two articles posted on Kabwata Baptist Church's website. They are by Veteran Zambian Journalist and current Chief Policy Analyst for Press at State House Charles Kachikoti.

The Church plays not only vital but decisive roles in the moral and spiritual
development of the citizens of Zambia, but also provides crucial uplifts in
areas of health, education, agriculture, human rights and governance, and
economic development at large. The list is inexhaustible. It is true that
politicians meet people, but pastors always have ready audiences in the
individual souls they attend to by way of personal or familial ministry, and in
the congregations they address weekly and, in certain circumstances, daily.
Therefore, the Church, speaking on issues that cause communal disquiet and
anxiety, is in a competent and authoritative place to air people’s concerns. And
when it does so, Government must listen.

If it is Christ Jesus that the Church serves, and the people in their diverse fortunes and misfortunes, it can afford in certain circumstances to speak one language. A pro-government church will not help anyone because it will decorate Government mistakes or failures and deceive the rulers of the day; and an anti-government church will harm everyone because it will ridicule every Government success. The three mother Church bodies (The Christian Council of Zambia, The Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia, The Zambia Episcopal Conference) are highly informed in practically all sectors of the economy and have the ability to competently engage Government point for point. This strength alone precludes the use of words of mass destruction by the Church. It also warrants a respectful view of Church by Government. From ancient times the Church has been a resilient, persistent pilgrim for change. Not always have churches been able to engage governments at the very time they wanted to. Previous attempts to iron out the creases may not have worked but the current President of all Zambians is a listening leader, contrary to media portrayals of a leader who is too far to hear anything.
The complete articles can be found here and here

For Laughs

2010-08-11T08:53:00.004+02:00

On the subject of politics:

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies"

Groucho Marx

The State and Morals

2010-08-11T08:37:00.004+02:00

I have quite a backlog of posts for the Zambia as a Christian Nation series, but as you wait, here is a quotation on the relationship between statecraft and morality.

Frank Beckwith writes in his book Politics for Christians: Statecraft and Soulcraft,

“’Statecraft,’ Aristotle instructed his pupils, “is soulcraft.” He meant by this that the state or government, by its policies, procedures and actions, places moral ideas in the social and legal fabric of a political regime, and that these ideas serve to shape the quality of its citizens’ character.”

Ignorance as useful? –The sex education debate continues

2010-08-10T19:11:00.004+02:00

There is a camp of cultural conservatives that believes that keeping children (and teens?) ignorant on matters of sexuality and sex education will somehow preserve their chastity. They believe that if you give young people knowledge of sexuality and sexual practice, they will begin to experiment and live carelessly. Is this true? Does knowledge lead to indulgence? Will the teenagers behave worse if we teach sex and sexuality from grade four?

I believe that as we answer we should bear in mind that as human being mature they develop abilities that exceed their wisdom to handle. For example, children learn to walk before they learn to cross the road carefully; they learn to put things in their mouths before they learn to read the ‘poison’ warning. So it is with our sexuality – we have instincts, desires and affinities before we know how to express or use them. In light of this should we wait for disaster before we give the guidance and instructions every growing child needs? I believe not. I would argue that as children develop their parents and other responsible adults should dispense age appropriate information on matters of sexuality as the young person’s sexuality develops. For example when the toddler asks about their genitals a simple (and age appropriate) explanation of the differences between men and women can be offered. Perhaps a discrete “girls are this way so that they can grow up to be mommies” and “boys are this way so that they can grow up to be daddies” can also be offered. What is not necessary is handing out Playboy magazines and boxes of condoms.

As the Children develop to a point where they can express their sexuality it will be necessary to start including a moral element to the instruction. Provide the young person with the whole Biblical worldview on sexuality and how this impacts on behavior. I would argue that even at this stage the parents of the child should be responsible for this as the Lord has given them the responsibility to raise their children in “fear and admonition of the Lord” and handling our sexuality is part of fear of the Lord.

I conclusion we should teach the children that it is their duty is to guard their own and their friends’ chastity, that sexuality must be expressed within certain moral bounds if it is to be constructive (building families and keeping faithfulness) and not destructive to society. When this is done then the sex education is complete, and young people well be able to handle and express their sexuality in God honoring ways.

Is America a Christian Nation

2010-08-10T15:10:00.005+02:00

I know the blog is called salt and light Zambia, but I think it doesn't hurt to hear what other Christians think about a nation being charterised as "Christian".

Here is are the some thoughts from Albert Mohler on why America can be considered a Christian nations.

America is not a Christian nation by constitution or charter. There has never been a time when all Americans were Christians or that Christian identity could be assumed as evangelical.

But, American citizens are overwhelmingly Christian. This has always been so, and is so now. This is why G. K. Chesterton would refer to America as the “nation with the soul of a church.” The American experiment in religious liberty has produced a nation that, unlike most of Europe, has resisted complete secularization.

The vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. This simple fact points to the “Christian” character of the nation. America is not Christian by constitutional provision or creedal affirmation — but its people are overwhelmingly Christian by self-affirmation. Thoughtful evangelicals will not overestimate the convictional character of this self-identification.

Sex education without Life education

2010-08-10T14:49:00.002+02:00

In the continued debate over sex education in schools, another bone of contention is the morals reflected in these lessons. Because knowledge is power, we are keen to see that this power is not abused. This means it is sad to see the post-modern thinkers trying to be “neutral” in education, and leaving morals to be a private affair. Yours belief system becomes your private business. Is this fair to the next generation?

Is it possible to be morally neutral in anything in life? Perhaps some things are a matter of taste, like the colour of your shirt, how much chili you put in your food or the brand of toothpaste you prefer. But can sex education be morally neutral? Even from the scientific perspective, certain lifestyles can be healthy or dangerous. As the famous line goes, with great power comes great responsibility! How can we teach about the power and potentialities of sex, and not teach the responsibility that comes with it?

Many aspects of sexuality can be taught, including the following:

(a) Male and female roles, such as men being gentlemen and taking initiative to protect, provide and lead

(b) The evil of sexual abuse and how to respond to and report it

(d) The mental and health benefits of avoiding teenage promiscuity (including reputation, avoiding disease, concentrating on education, building character, etc)

(e) Avoiding peer pressure in sexual behavior

(f) Principles of deferred pleasure for greater reward

These are just some examples of important principles that could be incorporated into sex and sexuality education. We must not give a bland moral slate. Train up the child in the way he or she should go. If we do not give moral direction, we shouldn’t be surprised at the path they choose to go.

I Just Don't Know What to Say

2010-08-10T14:43:00.005+02:00

I appologise for the long pause between posts. My working life got a bit hectic. But I am back and will be posting on the Christian nation topic.

The Declaration as a Socialogical Statement P1

2010-07-18T18:13:00.001+02:00

In my first post I categorized the various understandings or viewpoints held by people on the meaning of declaration of Zambia a Christian nation. In this post I will look at the first category, the Declaration as a social fact.

According to this viewpoint, the majority of Zambian’s are Christian, therefore, as Zambia can rightly be described as a Christian nation. Now any honest person will need to admit that this is a demographic fact. The question remains however, whether this demographic fact should influence our constitution making process. There are a number of objections to this view point that we will consider below, as I do this please remember that I am interacting with the arguments and not passing final judgment that will come later.

The first objection is that it is immoral to bind future generations of Zambian, who potentially may not be Christian to the declaration on the basis of the fact that today most Zambian’s are Christian. I would like to point out that this objection could be posed to any clause in the Constitution and that ultimately this type of reasoning undermines the very practice of writing constitutions. A constitution is a document that a particular group of people assent to at a particular point in time, it is possible that in some future point in time the decedents of that group of people (whether physical or civil) may take issue with the constitution and change it. This process is called constitutional amendment and it is widely practiced around the world. In light of this I think that today most Zambian’s are Christian, therefore, it is fair to say that Christianity is a predominant characteristic of the Zambian people. If at a future date most Zambian’s will not be Christian’s it will be their prerogative to amend the Zambian constitution to suit the Characteristics of Zambia at the time. I further believe that it in drafting the constitution our emphasis ought to be on present facts and not hypothetical possibilities.

A Christian in Politics

2010-07-06T10:16:00.004+02:00

In line with one of the theme's of this blog during the month of July In have decided to draw your attention to a professing evangelical Christain who chooses to engage in the "dirty game" of Zambian politics. The person is Mr. Watson K. Lumba MP. He was elected as Solwezi Central Member of Parliament on 19th November 2009.

What makes this kind of person tick? Well here is a part of his maiden speech to Parliament:

Mr. Speaker, allow me to digress and give some aspect of my life story that inspired me to seek to serve the people. I come from a family of 14. My father, who is 79 years old and he has spent the last 40 years as a pastor in the Christian church. Growing up in that family, we were taught, as many in this house I am sure were, values and virtues rooted in scripture that called on us to love God first and then our fellow man. I therefore believe that without a sense of wanting to serve fellow man, man used generically to include woman, politics becomes devoid of its soul. But how can one serve man without love for him/her? And how can one love man without the love of God, the giver of true love? Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that service to our fellow Zambians and our country should be informed by principles of virtue that will once again make our people proud of themselves. It is only when we believe that we can and should take care of our neighbours that we will have a fearless energy to drive this country forward. With this, we must reject an infamous proclamation of one of the leading western leaders of the last two decades when she said that “ there is no such thing as society.

The rest of his maiden speech, which includes reference to his views on free society, Zambian development and economics can be found here.

The Christian and Politics

2010-07-06T09:52:00.005+02:00

I know I have taken my time writing my first post on Zambia the Christian Nation, I have been thinking and re thinking my approach in light of the comments I have received. I have however resolved to write the post as I initially conceived it and you will be able to read that post on Friday. After I finish the series I will take time to interact with your comments.

But before that here is something from C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters. For those unfamiliar with the book, it is a series fictional letter from a senior tempter (demon) to a junior tempter, these letters provide the junior tempter with advice on how best to tempt Christians. The value of the book for the Christian is as a means of reflect on the temptations that Christains face in the various stages of thier lives.

This is a portion of a letter that touches on the subject of the Christian and politics:

About the general connection between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate.
Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster.

On the other hand, we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice.

The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [=God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner.

Sex Education

2010-06-29T11:50:00.005+02:00

As I read the Sunday Times and Sunday Mail of 27th June, I noted with interest that both the Times and the Mail were running stories on sex education. It seems both articles were spurred by the Ministry of Education’s introduction of Reproductive Heath as a new subject in primary and secondary schools.

The Sunday Times ran an article on page 6 titles “Sex Education is it right or wrong”. The Sunday Times reporter (the reporters name was not provided) opted to explore the issue by taking an informal survey of opinions that mainly focused on the social acceptability of the proposals. The Sunday Mail ran an article by Chambo Ng’uni, Chimwemwe Mwale, Monica Mayuni, Christine Chisha and Elizabeth Sakala titled “Should Sex Education be Introduced in Schools?” This article seemed to focus on the validity of the objectives of sex education.

In light of the fact that both public newspapers are running stories on sex education I thought that it would be appropriate for salt and light Zambia to try and look at the subject from a Biblical viewpoint.

Persons wiser than I have noted that it is good practice to start a discussion by defining terms, and so I will start by stating the definition of Sex Education provided by the Sunday Times. According to the article in the Times (Which itself sites an unnamed website) Sex Education is “the process of acquiring information and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, relationships and intimacy”. This definition is pregnant with meaning and reading through both articles I believe that the full implications of Sex Education are not considered. In both articles the focus seemed to be on Sex Education as a process that talked about the nuts and bolts of having sex. Looking at the definition provided however sex education has a much broader agenda. Sex Education looks at attitudes toward sex, what you think and feel about sex, and seeks to impart a right attitude towards sex. Sex Education looks at sexual identity, it seeks to define what it means to be a man or a woman and be a sexual being. It looks at relationships and sex, in other words how to conduct your relationships as a sexual being. It looks at intimacy, in other words how to conduct a sexual relationship. I think that in many ways sex education is a Trojan horse. It uses the words “sex” and “education” to create the impression that it is educating people on the science of sex, when its real agenda is to shape the sexual behavior of a generation.

As you know the discussion of Sex Education could fill many libraries and an extended discussion of Sex Education is simply not possible in a blog post. What I do hope to do however is to discuss Sex Education in relation to the themes that emerged in the two articles over the course of a few weeks.

The following are themes that I picked up:

The social appropriateness of Sex Education;

The usefulness of Sex Education in Prevention of Child Abuse, Sexually Transmitted Infections, unsafe abortions and Pregnancy;

Sex Education as a response to sex saturated media;

Sex Education as a tool for the promotion of family planning;Sex Education as an answer to children’s questions on their sexuality;

The Appropriate age for the commencement of Sex Education;

Sex Education in the Church;

Sex Education as a promoter of healthy male/female relationships;

Sex Education and Zambian taboos;

Sex Education as a promoter of premature sexual behavior;

HIV and Sex Education; and

Parents and Sex Education.

Whew, hope I'll get through it!

Funeral Essentials

2010-06-28T08:03:00.005+02:00

As I was surfing the Internet I came across a blog post on the essentials for a Christian funeral service. The writer listed the following:

The Unchanging character of God;

The hope of the gospel;

A call to respond to the gospel;

Instruct those present how to grieve;

You can read the whole post here

Zambia the Christian Nation Pt 1

2010-06-25T10:06:00.007+02:00

Few things have stirred the emotions of Zambian Christians to the extent that the Declaration of Zambia as a Christian Nation has. Many Christian's are enthusiastically in support of the declaration and have passionately campaigned for its inclusion in the draft Constitution. A few have been more reserved in their support of the declaration and have queried it from theological and civil perspectives.

During the debates over the declaration it has emerged that the understanding of what the declaration means and what its implications are vary from person to person and from group to group. In today's post I will briefly outline five understandings of the declaration and discuss each understanding in greater detail in future posts.

The Declaration as a Sociological Statement

This understanding of the declaration holds that a majority of Zambians are Christians and the nations Constitution should therefore identify Zambia as a country that is predominately Christian.

The Declaration as a Policy Direction Statement

This understanding builds on the previous understanding and goes further to argue that because the majority of Zambians are Christians Zambia's public policies should be based upon and compatible with Christian values.

The Declaration as a Moral Statement

This understanding also builds on the first and goes on to argue that the morals of the people of Zambia should be in line with the Bible.

The Declaration as a Covenant With God

This understanding looks at the declaration as a covenant or contract with God. According to this understanding, the Zambian people have pledged allegiance to Yahweh and he will bless our nation because of our pledge of allegiance.

The Declaration as an Act of Faith

In understanding is a variation on the last. According to this understanding our faith creates reality and if we declare Zambia to be a Christian nation then by faith it will be a Christian nation. According to this understanding the reverse is also true, if we say that Zambia is not a Christian nation then because of our belief Zambia will not be a Christian nation.

The Declaration as a Tool to Prevent Social Change

The last understanding of the declaration (at least as far as I can tell) is that the declaration is a tool to maintain the current social status quo. Those who hold this understanding believe that the foreign elements in our society who are actively trying to introduce anti Christan cultural elements to our society such as homosexuality. Adherents of this position believe that if the Constitution declares Zambia a Christian nation, the declaration can be used as a basis for criminalising or at least discouraging the activities of these elements.

Okay, those are the understandings that I have picked upon on. Over the next few weeks I intend to examine each of these from a Biblical and civil view point to see if the understandings hold water. I would appreciate your input on this at any stage.

Social Justice

2010-06-24T08:19:00.011+02:00

After the Bob Marley post I felt that it might be helpful to have a few more posts that examine the relationship between the Biblical worldview and social justice. This is an extract from a blog post by Al Mohler.

Faithful Christians can debate the proper and most effective means of organizing the political structure and the economic markets. Bringing all these things into submission to Christ is no easy task, and Gospel must not be tied to any political system, regime, or platform. Justice is our concern because it is God's concern, but it is no easy task to know how best to seek justice in this fallen world.

And that brings us to the fact that the Bible is absolutely clear that injustice will not exist forever. There is a perfect social order coming, but it is not of this world. The coming of the Kingdom of Christ in its fullness spells the end of injustice and every cause and consequence of human sin. We have much work to do in this world, but true justice will be achieved only by the consummation of God's purposes and the perfection of God's own judgment.

Until then, the church must preach the Gospel, and Christians must live out its implications. We must resist and reject every false gospel and tell sinners of salvation in Christ. And, knowing that God's judgment is coming, we must strive to be on the right side of justice.

The rest of Dr. Mohlers article can be read here.

Truth Magazine

2010-06-22T08:21:00.004+02:00

Next time you are shopping I would encourage you to pass by the Magazine rack and buy a copy of the latest (?) magazine on the market “Truth”. Truth is a Christian magazine edited by Mundia Lubinda and published by the Doxa Music and Lighthouse Media Group. From its tone and content I would say that the magazine is aimed at the young, urban and middle class Christian. Whatever, your demographic (group of people) you belong to I would encourage you buy and read at least one issue of the magazine.

So what is it like you ask? I will try and describe it. Truth is a lifestyle magazine. It is a collection of reflections on Zambian Christian life, interviews with prominent Christians and discussions on topics of spiritual interest to the magazines target audience. The fourth issue of the Magazine includes interviews with Chilu Lemba, Ephraim and articles in defense of the single woman, on abortion and Easter.

What did I think of it? Starting on a positive note, it has great packaging. This magazine’s packaging is of international standard. The magazine has an attractive layout, great photographs and graphics. The magazine is a feast for the eyes. Secondly, the magazine is a welcome addition to the Christian publication market. Currently the Zambian market offers little in the way of light reading on issues that affect the everyday life of the ordinary Christian. Some would say the light reading element is a drawback. I would beg to differ if I wanted heavier theological discussion I would read a systematic theology and not a magazine!

On the negative side I think some of the articles lacked a distinctive Christian flavor. Christians are citizens of heaven and this fact should reflect itself even in our discussion of everyday issues. In New Testament times even ladies fashion was discussed from an eternal perspective (1 Timothy 3:1). I felt that certain articles lacked this perspective. For example, the article “in defense of the single woman”, the topic of the aging spinster is tackled primarily from a social perspective. One wonders whether Bible offers no counsel on women “losing their chance”, advancing their career, dealing with insecure man and pushy relatives. Another, negative is the advertising and promotion. The Magazine is published by the Doxa group and there is considerable promotion of Doxa artists. What problem do I have with this? Well this presents the reader with a partial picture of what is happening on the Zambian Christian music scene. I know that there are many Zambian Christians that are putting their heart and soul into recording music of fair quality. I think that a magazine like Truth should support these Christians even if they are not on the Doxa label.

Overall, despite the areas in which the magazine can grow it is a welcome addition to the Zambian Christian market and should be supported.

Get Up Stand Up!

2010-06-18T08:27:00.000+02:00

By way of introduction I would like to state that I grew up listening to Bob Marley. During my childhood I heard Dad play a lot of Marley on the family record player as he relaxed after hours or over the weekend. Over the years I developed a liking for the man's music. I liked a lot of things about the music; the rhythm of the music, I liked the pulsating bass lines, I liked Bob's evocative vocal delivery, I liked the celebration of life captured in the lyrics and I liked the poignant cries for justice in the music. Simply put I believed that Bob was one of the greatest artists of all time.

These days I do not listen to a lot of Marley. The primary reason being after I trusted in Christ, I wanted everything in my life to be primarily about Jesus. This involved modifying the kind and amount of entertainment that I consumed. Pretty early on in my process of developing a "Christian Entertainment Policy", a number of Marley's songs began to strike me as disturbing and in some cases anti-Christian. One song that fell into the disturbing and anti – Christian category was the classic "Get up Stand Up!"

‘Get Up Stand Up!’, was originally released on the Wailers album ‘Burning’ and has subsequently been released in a number of compilations. Most music critics agree that this song is one of Marley's strongest songs lyrically and musically. The song was and has been loved by the record buying public for over three decades and remains one of the artist’s signature tunes. On a personal level the song was one of my favorites, I was particularly moved by Peter Tosh's verse. Listening to his delivery just made me tingle. So with credentials like that what's my beef? Basically, the message in the music is not just non Christian, it is anti Christian. Let’s walk through the song verse by verse and see what I am talking about.

Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!

Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!

The song starts with its famous infectious chorus. As a point of interest most people I know that are familiar with the song can only remember these four lines! The Chorus contains a mere nine words and takes twenty three seconds to deliver, but to Marley fans, they are pregnant with meaning. Since the early seventies, fans have identified with these lyrics as an anthem of resistance against injustice. As a Christian I do not have beef with the Chorus per se since if the Apostle Paul is to be taken as an example there are times that Christians can 'stand up for their rights' Acts 25:11.

Preacher man, don't tell me, Heaven is under the earth.

I know you don't know What life is really worth.

It's not all that glitters is gold;

Alf the story has never been told:

So now you see the light, eh!

Stand up for your rights. come on!

After reading the lyrics it is clear that Marley has beef with Christianity. In his view Christianity values life in heaven over and against life on earth. Marley implies that these beliefs keep Christians from acting against injustice in this world. Okay, that’s Marley’s position. The question is, whether his position is fair or true? I believe it would be true to say that as Christians our ethics are shaped by the Bibles teaching on creation, fall, redemption, judgment and the “final state”. When making decisions about life the Christian will bear in mind that this life is passing away and the eternal state is yet to come. I believe that Marley is however wrong to believe that Christianity does not value life on earth or is not concerned with justice in this life. The Bible has much to say on the topic of justice on sthis side of Judgment day. Just read through Amos Chapter 5 to get a flavour of God's concern for justice in this life. It follows that if God is concerned with injustice in this life so should the Christian, however, they are to bear in mind that ultimately the second coming of Christ will right every wrong and wipe the tear out of every believer’s eye. So in conclusion, Marley is right that the Christian belief in the coming kingdom influences their decisions, but he is wrong to believe that this leads to indifference about Justice in this life.

Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!

Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!

Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!

Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!

Most people think, Great god will come from the skies,

Take away everything And make everybody feel high.

But if you know what life is worth, You will look for yours on earth:

And now you see the light,

You stand up for your rights. jah!

In this verse Marley steps up the anti – Christian rhetoric. Marley tells the believer that they are not to place their hope in Christ’s kingdom but rather seek justice in this life. Well, there is a lot that can be said about this but I will say these three things. Firstly, on a purely human level Marley is naïve! Human action has never resulted in justice and peace. History proves this. Secondly, Marley sidesteps Christian arguments for the second coming. In order for Marley’s position to be taken seriously, it ought to wrestle with the claims of Christianity and not simply dismiss them. While there is not enough space in this blog to give an adequate response to Marley taunts but, there are several excellent arguments for God’s existence and the fact that he will return to judge the world. Among these are; Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, The God Who is There by Francis Shaffer, The Reason for God by Tim Keller and Simply Christian by N.T. Wright. Thirdly, this verse makes Bob Marley a denier of God's word and this makes the song unsuitable for Christian listening.

Get up, stand up! (jah, jah! )

Stand up for your rights! (oh-hoo! )

Get up, stand up! (get up, stand up! )

Don't give up the fight! (life is your right! )

Get up, stand up! (so we can't give up the fight! )

Stand up for your rights! (lord, lord! )

Get up, stand up! (keep on struggling on! )

Don't give up the fight! (yeah! )

We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game -

Dyin' 'n' goin' to heaven in-a Jesus' name, lord.

We know when we understand:

Almighty god is a living man.

You can fool some people sometimes,

But you can't fool all the people all the time.

So now we see the light (what you gonna do?),

We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah! )

In this verse Peter Tosh questions the Christian belief in the afterlife and the Christian concept of God. Let’s deal with Tosh’s position on the afterlife. I believe that as the person denying the proposition that there is an after life; Tosh must prove that there is not afterlife. While skeptics may say that there is no empirical (sense based) evidence of life after death, skeptics cannot prove that life does not continue after death in a way that cannot be established by our senses. Put another way. Tosh does not and I would argue cannot prove his point and therefore should not be taken seriously. Moving on to Tosh’s assertion that humans are God (or gods?). It is true that the Bible speaks of humanity as being in the image of God and the man Jesus Christ as being God, however, the idea in the song is that God is part of creation which is just not true. The concept of God, holds that an eternal, all powerful and eternal being created and is in control of the universe. Humans like you and me just do not qualify as God. Me are limited beings who can not determine whether we will wake up tomorrow. This is however, not to say that humans have no worth. On the contrary, the Christian believes, on the basis of the Bible, that all people are created in the image of God and as a result must be treated with a certain dignity. This verse is anti – Christian in the extreme and should not be listened to by Christians as entertainment.

So that’s it, Bob Marley’s classic, musically entertaining but anti – Christian in its message. It is more than an anthem against the injustices men commit against each other it is an anthem of mans rebellion against God.

Subduing the earth by advancing technology

2010-06-17T08:47:00.006+02:00

God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28

We are supposed to subdue the earth, to ‘tame’ it and harness it. This means we are mandated to be both hard working and creative in our environment. One way we do this is through advancement in technology and new ways of relating to our environment. This means filling the earth and subduing are two different things. To subdue the earth, we do not only fill space, but we conquer, we harness, we manage and use wisely. This is a gradual process where each generation uses their skills and handed down knowledge to harness the environment. This also means each generation also hands down the resources and skills so that the next generation can (better) subdue the earth. After all, “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children” (Prov. 13:22). Even if it is the skills to build upon and take it ever forward.

In this sense, God has sanctioned the scientific and developmental use of the earth and its resources. To properly subdue the earth we cannot ignore schooling, technology and environmentally considerate lifestyles. We must aim to leave our children better off than we are, and research and technology is one way.

One advance in Zambia is the use of conservation farming which involves varied techniques for minimum tillage and water use for maximum output and reduced erosion. When we knew no better we could not be accountable for the bad farming practices, but with such knowledge available, how can we be innocent of practices that yield meager harvests and finally render the land unfertile? We cannot be held accountable on the same level as past generations, when we have access to so much knowledge?

We can apply this in all areas of human endeavor. Are we as efficient in running our businesses, using electricity, managing the savannah eco-system, etc? DO we subdue the earth, or do we say “there is a lion in the street”? And sit back, waiting for someone else to do it?More than that; we need to stop frowning on research. So whether it is market and product research, or medical and mechanical, we need to do our part as a nation. We need to value the investments that will not see returns for years to come. We must be able to give the next generation something new, and not hand them the talent we buried, in fear of a perceived harsh task master.

The Zambian Christian and the Challenge of Funerals

2010-06-16T07:37:00.003+02:00

If you are a Zambian Christian I am sure that every time you attend a funeral there are certain practices that you take exception to or that leave you with at least the suspicion that Jesus would not approve of them.

The following is taken from an article by Zambian theologian Joe Simfukwe on Funeral and Burial Rites:

“Sometimes misinformed Christians try to forbid other Christians from crying, forgetting that the Bible does not deny the emotions of grief. Jospeh a man of faith, ‘threw himself upon his father and wept over him and kissed him’ when he died (Gen 50:1). People are often presented weeping or even wailing aloud (see mark 5:38; Luke 8:52; Acts 9:39). Nowhere is such wailing condemned. Excesses are certainly frowned upon but sorrow is expected”. P 1462 Africa Bible Commentary Word Alive Publishers.

“Some of the rituals associated with burial reflect a fear of the deceased. Thus in Zambia the body must be buried in the right direction to prevent the deceased from returning to haunt the living. The burial may be followed by other rituals designed to protect the living, such as passing through the funeral house and washing in medicated water before dispersing. Many tribes have an inheritance ceremony where the name and status of the deceased are passed on to some chosen relative. Ritual protection of the widow or widower is common, with the widow sometimes being inherited by a relative of the dead husband. The ritual cleansing may even require the surviving spouse to have intercourse with a relative of the deceased in order to protect himself or herself from the spirit of the deceased coming to seek sexual union, which is believed to be both possible and dangerous. The cleansing ritual is also a way of releasing the surviving partner so that he or she may safely enter new sexual relations with the blessing of the dead relative. Because of the spiritual and physiological power of such rituals, Christians should not simply ban them, but should thoughtfully and sensitively replace them with alternative rituals that will meet the spiritual and psychological needs of the fearful widow or widower” P 1462 Africa Bible Commentary Word Alive Publishers.

Sweeping to the Glory of God

2010-06-14T14:39:00.011+02:00

This is quotation is from Zambian theologian Joe Kapolyo, the quotation is a part of a larger discussion on the implications of the fact that human beings are stewards of creation on aspects of Zambian culture (Genesis 1:28-31):

"stewardship affects our relationship to nature as well as our relationship to human beings. It seems to me that in regard to nature we are to be good stewards, and in relation to each other we are to love each other to avoid mindless exploitation of others. In both spheres our record is not something we can be proud of. Growing up in Zambia I have observed many a diligent house wife wake up early in the morning and Begin the day by sweeping around the house. Traditionally the implement used is called in bemba umukusao or iceswa. This is a small bundle of twigs about a metre long held in one hand and used to sweep dirt. This implement is very effective - perhaps too effective. It sweeps all before it, including the layer of top soil so necessary for sustaining growth of any kind. Every year tons of good top soil are swept away by hundreds of thousands of overzealous housewives; other sweepers and the rain come and take it all away and dump it into rivers, which take it down to the sea. As sweeping normally starts at the point of contact between the house and the surrounding area, in time the foundations of the house get exposed and some of the cracks that appear in many houses in the townships are a result of this form depletion of soil."P 62 the Human Condition Inter varsity Press

God and Women

2010-06-10T07:45:00.010+02:00

It seems that there is a consensus building that conservative Christianity is against the woman. Critics of conservative Christianity say the faith is basedon a holy book that speaks from a patriarchal culture that that is out of touch with the current understanding of masculinity and femininity. A lot can be said about this view point ,but I think that something that is not said enough is contemporary critics of conservative Chrisianity frequently appear to be out of touch with what the Bible actually says about masculinity and femininity. When we allow the Bible to speak for itself we will find it has a suprisingly positive view of women.

Joe M. Kaployo a Zambian theologian discusses this in his book “The Human Condition: Christian Perspectives Through African Eyes” published by IVP. He starts by discussing women and the fact that they are created in the image of God. “…the scriptures unequivocally give men and women dignity and an exalted but equal status. Men and women bear the image of God in equal proportions (Genesis 1:26 -28). Since the image is described as ‘male and female’ it must mean at least that femininity is represented in the creator..” P 72

He then goes on to discuss the implications of the Bibles use of feminine descriptions of God. “Alongside the Lord’s dominant male imagery are a number of female ones (Stott 1984:238). For instance he described by Moses as ‘the God who gave you birth’ (Deuteronomy 32:18). In the first part of verse Moses had stated God was ‘the Rock that fathered you’. He uses male imagery there. In typical Hebraic fashion he repeats the same statement but this time he chooses to use female imagery. Moses knew God in ways most of us can only guess at. Yet he was not embarrassed, ashamed or did not consider it ‘hearsay’ to call God the mother of Israel. Isaiah the prophet also speaks of God as a ‘woman in childbirth’ (42:14), a suckling mother (49:15), a nursing mother (66:13). David the great king in describing his sense of security chooses mother/child imagery where God is mother and David the child (Psalm 131:2, see also 57:1, 61:4).” P 74

Thank God for the Christian faith.

Dance and Worship

2010-06-08T16:38:00.010+02:00

If you have travelled to a European country you will notice that worship in any Zambian church is more "active" than in that Church's denominational counterparts in Europe.In thinking about this difference I have been greatly helped by Edmond P. Clowney's book "The Church" from the Contours of Christian Theology Series published by IVP.

I this book professor Clowney discusses spontaneous dance in the context of worship services. In his analysis he uses the concepts of "element" (aspects of worship and church governance that God explicitly commands in his word) and "circumstance" (aspects of worship and church governance should be ordered in the 'light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word').

"May dance also function as a circumstance, rather than an element of worship? We can not fault an individual worshipper who beats on his breast as the publican did in the temple. So long as good order is maintained in Congregational worship, there should be no objection to spontaneous movements of individuals in their natural responses of grief and praise. Like the running and leaping of the lame man in the temple, there may be impulsive piroutettes of joy on the part of worshipers. Again, the customs of a culture help determine the boundaries of good order. There are cultures where joyful singing is normally accompanied by rhythmic or ecstatic body movements." P 128

Now I know that this can be a hot button topic in some circles, if you are tempted to brand either the professor or myself as a heretic remembers the words "spontaneity" and "circumstance".

Sex Behind Bars

2010-03-18T08:52:00.004+02:00

If you read the Sunday Times of 14th March 2010 you might have read an article by Enock Ngoma on homosexuality in prisons. The article basically asked Zambian’s to get their heads out of the sand and face the issue. In Enock’s opinion facing the issue and providing the prisoners with means of protecting themselves from the spread of HIV is the realistic and humane thing to do,Enoch’s article deserves an in depth response which I am not in a position to give at this time but I would like to share a few brief thoughts on Enoch’s article.

Before, I get into the thick of things I would like to agree with Enock that the abusive comments by Christian’s against homosexuals are unacceptable. Homosexuals are still in the image of God and on this basis we ought to be mindful how we address them. (James 3:9) Further, homosexuals are sinners just like everyone else and we should graciously seek to engage them and call them to the savior. They are no more lost or reprehensible that other sinners. Our speech and actions should reflect this fact. Now moving on to my points of contention.

Firstly, Enock seems to presuppose that if someone is inclined a given behavior pattern, then that behavior pattern is “natural” and is therefore a legitimate activity to engage in. In the case in point, Enock presupposes that certain people are inclined to have homosexual sex, therefore homosexual sex is natural for them, therefore they can legitimately engage in homosexual sex. I think this reasoning is wrong for several reasons. This line of reasoning presupposes that human sexuality has no purpose and can therefore be put to whatever use a person is inclined to. I would argue that this is wrong. Firstly, as a Bible believer I note that scripture informs us that sexuality is a gift from God to celebrate the union between a man and his spouse and for the propagation of the human race. (Genesis 2:18-25) Biology also lets us know that sexuality is designed for reproduction. At this point one may argue that while it may be true that a thing is designed for a specific purpose it might be legitimately used for a secondary purpose without violating the original purpose for the thing. Take for example an umbrella is designed to shield a person from the rain it can also be used to shield someone from the sun. I would argue that this kind of reasoning cannot be applied to sex because sex is not a morally neutral act. Once again starting with the Bible. The Bible places several prohibitions on engaging in extramarital sex, incestuous sex and homosexual sex. Sociology also shows us that across space and time human beings have set up strict norms about sex. (Leviticus 18, Romans 1: 26,27) Thus the Bible and sociology reveal that God and Man agree that sex is not morally neutral and only morally legitimate forms of sex can be engaged in. Enock seems to argue that personal inclination is a legitimate means of determining what kind of sex is moral sex. I think that this is not true let us consider the case of the pedophile to see why. A pedophile is a person who is inclined to have sex with children. This behavior is culturally and legally unacceptable. However, using Enoch’s presuppositions this is a legitimate form of sexual expression. On the basis of this I believe that we need another standard to determine if what Enoch is suggesting is legitimate. I propose the Bible and refer you to the top of this rather paragraph to see what I believe the Bibles position on the matter is.

Now let’s consider whether persons in jail should be equipped with the tools to prevent the spread of HIV in prison. The first thing I would like to point out is that the persons we are discussing are incarcerated for crime. The purposes behind their incarceration include the deprivation of certain liberties and comforts in order punish them and hopefully induce behavioral change. In Zambia one of the things prisoner are deprived of is sex of any kind. I believe that on this basis it would be in appropriate to legitimize prison indirectly by providing the prisoners with tools such as condoms. Secondly, as Enock admits some prison sex is rape. Rape should not be legitimized in the name of preventing the spread of HIV. Instead prison authorities ought to take measures to protect the persons who are being raped.

I could go on but I think that for the purposes of this post I am done. God bless you.

PS. I have corrected the spelling of the authors name which earlier appeared as Enoch and have inserted the name of the newspaper in which the article was published and the date of publication.

Co-habiting and the Breakdown and Society

2010-03-16T09:33:00.005+02:00

Modern male-female relationships have developed a new trend that was once a taboo – cohabiting. Some people treat it as preparation for marriage when in fact, it is preparation for divorce! I will explain this shortly!

Once upon a time, a young lady knew, if she spent a night outside her parents home there would be consequences; that she would be expected to return to the man that she has, by default bound herself to, to get him to present himself to her family and take responsibility for their actions. The man would then have to either marry her or pay a penalty for offending the family honor. But times have changed.

Some men and women would live together even for several years, without prospect or promise of marriage on the horizon, even with several children. Never mind that legally their parting could be treated as a divorce in the courts of law.

Why do people want the privileges without the responsibility? Why do they feel they can pick and choose the elements of marriage they want, and get rid of all the rest? The excuses are many. Some think they can “test run” a potential marriage partner. Others feel that as long as they “get away with it” then it’s alright. Others even feel it is nobody’s business how they run
their life. Others feel God will “understand” their weakness. All these excuses fall apart because, first of all, there is no such thing as a “test run” for a marriage. The conditions can never be exactly the same, as those where solemn vows have been made and lifelong commitments exist. It remains a foreign experience to the two until they actually enter it. As for getting away with it, God will be the judge of that – literally. But there are some dangerous present day consequences as well.

When people get accustomed to meeting a stranger and giving them “everything” body and soul, then walking away, they are practicing how to be intimate without meaning or purpose. They see no reason to learn self-control or patience. Is it surprising when, those who never learnt it before marriage, are unable to have it when they marry? The constraints of a sick spouse or a distant education tour or even an argument, send them back to their self- training, the path of least resistance, easy and cheap pleasure? Cohabiting does that – a path of least resistance. There is no thinking twice before choosing to share ones bed, and no responsibility for choosing to kick someone out. Love has become cheap, and promises have become meaningless. It becomes a habit, then a lifestyle and thus a part of character, not so easy to turn around.

This is not to say that avoiding this lifestyle when single guarantees a heavenly marriage. There are many people who have “kept” themselves, are become bitter when they find themselves not even matched in lifestyle. The point is, when need to remember we do not belong to ourselves. We have a society, a community, a nation and above all, a Creator. The same way, I cannot say “it is my business which side of the road I drive on”, you have to move in co-ordination with society to be a force for good and not destruction. If someone is only thinking about their own pleasure, perhaps they have not begun to understand the word they fraudulently claim gives them license for this marriage treason – the word love. For, love is nothing if it is not considerate.

But then, each of us has gone astray, each has turned to his own way. We think we can make our own rules for life without consequences. I am not saying that there are not people who are enjoying this lifestyle. If that weren’t the case, I would not be writing this article right now! The question is not, do they enjoy themselves. The question is; what have they lost, what have they unwittingly sacrificed for this pleasure? What price will they and their children have to pay for this way of life? Perhaps a future where marriage is unknown and kids will only dream of seeing two parents under one roof. But worst of all a world where we become so self-righteous that nobody will even care about this issue anymore, because can neither make nor believe promises anymore. And I assert before you today, the price is too high. That is not a world you want to live in.

Development and Sacrifice

2010-03-10T08:25:00.007+02:00

Every now and again, during our national dialogue on the lack of public services in rural areas we hear statements on the hardships of serving in rural areas. Typically, the person or organisation making the statement will say something along the lines of "You can't expect someone raised in town to work in a place where there is no electricity or running water." The impression created by these people is that rural areas will not receive the public services necessary for development until they are developed. There is something wrong with this picture.

I have been reflecting on this for the past two weeks and it occurs to me that the testimony of the Church in the history of Zambia has something to personal sacrifice for the sake of the well being of others.

The record of Zambia's history tells of how many missionaries left their more advanced countries of origin to serve the Northern Rhodesian people. I think few of us can imagine what it was like to leave Europe for the literal bush of Africa. Many gave up lucrative careers. Many died of horrible tropical illnesses. What drove them? Something bigger that their desire for a comfortable life, as a matter of fact something bigger than their desire for life. What was this thing. It was the Gospel! These people really believed that the treasurers of God's kingdom were greater than the treasurers of 19th and Early 20th century Europe. These people really lives according to this rule: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul mind and strength and love your neighbour as your self". They did not just talk about, they put their lives where their mouths were. God bless them!The humble efforts of these Christian's have had an immeasurable effect on the development of Zambia.

As we applaud them however, lets consider this, they did not do it for primarily personal gain. If they were motivated solely or primarily for personal gain I do not think that much of the early gains in health and education would have been made. I believe that their example, should be considered in Zambia's current dialogue on development. If rural area's are to develop, there will need to be personal sacrifice. Without this we will remain in the illogical loop that insists: "developmental services can not be delivered to rural area's until they are developed". This is not all that has to be realised. The nation will need to realise that it will take more than rural hardship allowance to get people to work in the bush. I contend it will take the love of God in the hearts of Zambian who could have it better but choose to help their kin.

Lets think about these things.

Polygamy Revival

2010-02-28T14:31:00.003+02:00

I am sure you have noticed the recent revival of polygamy in Zambia. For a number of years at the funerals of several prominent Zambian’s we have come to know that the deceased had parallel families that knew nothing of each other. Upon inquiry it is usually found that several “key” members of the man’s extended family knew of this arrangement and facilitated these second, third and even fourth marriages. Recently however, the revival has “come out of the closest”, those who read Zambian newspapers will no doubt remember and article about a member of the Cabinet who has two wives who know of each other and live in harmony. As if that weren’t shocking enough, the article revealed that the man’s first wife served as matron at his marriage to his second wife. Then on the international scene there is of course there is Jacaob Zuma. What more needs to be said?

Recently, the media has joined in the Polygamy advocacy campaign. Bliss magazine for example recently published a pro polygamy article. In article an advocate of polygamy noted that several Biblical figures were polygamists. Though the article did not develop the point exegetically the clear implication is, since polygamy is in the Bible it is legitimate.

What is the Christian response to this? Well our first response is not to keep quite! We must speak up and refute this ungodliness from the Bible.

So where do we start? In the beginning, when in doubt we consult the blue print. In many debates about human sexuality today Christians act as is our sexuality was not designed for a particular purpose. These people then go on to say sexuality can be used for any purpose we imagine. This is however, not the case. The Bible in Genesis 1 and 2 lets us know that God deliberately created man male and female for the purpose of marriage. In addition one can note from Jesus’ elaboration on these passages in Mathew 19 that God specifically intended for marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. The Apostle Paul further develops the theology of marriage in Ephesians Chapter 5 by noting that human marriage is modeled along the lines of the relationship between Christ and his Church. As in Christ and his ONE bride. So this brief survey reveals that the Biblical norm is for a man to have ONE wife.

What about all the prominent polygamists in the Bible? One might note that prominent among them is David, a man after God’s own heart! Well, we must note that in the narratives of these Saints lives nowhere does God affirm polygamy as the norm. In short they were sinning by marring multiple wives. So why weren’t they asked to divorce? As far as I can tell God seems to recognize marriage even wrong marriages and expects the institution of marriage to be honoured even when wrongly entered into. It is for this reason that God introduces regulations to ensure that those who engage in polygamy do not abuse their spouses.

Okay that is the Biblical angle. In brief of course. Each point could be developed in greater complexity but for now that will suffice. Let have a look at the assertions that a man cannot stick to one woman. Well the Bible tells us that all people are sinful and are by nature rebels against God. The Christian must assert that it is sin and not the lack of sufficient sexual partners that causes martial unfaithfulness. I believe that the case of Jacob Zuma proves the case. The man has multiple wives and could easily have added another woman to his “krall” but not his sinful lack of self restraint lead him to cheat on his multiple wives. On this basis I believe that Biblically the Christian should oppose any suggestion that lack of self control is a warrant for polygamy.

Apart from using the Bible to refute the advocates of polygamy I believe that the Christian is to live a counter cultural life that displays God’s standards. When single the Christian is to be Chaste and not engage in sexual immorality. When married the Christian is to stick to their spouse and keep the marriage bed undefiled.

Faith of Many Colours Review

2010-02-23T09:20:00.005+02:00

This book has been needed for a long time. The Pentecostal Charismatic circles often shy away from criticizing themselves or others, whether it is because of an unhealthy fear of ‘men of God’ or unconcern with what is happening to others, I will let others decide. Madalitso Banja takes a courageous step – he refuses to “spare the rod” and “spoil the child”. He speaks openly and frankly about strengths and weaknesses in modern, Zambian Charismatic congregations.

His first comments about Pastors are, to me, the most revolutionary. “Calling, Bible college training and ministry” form the backbone of good pastoral work, in his analysis. He points out that greed and “money career” thinking has caused much ministry suffering. His solutions are: a Pastoral code of conduct that should apply in all denominations. The Pastors need to be accountable. The second (and even more revolutionary) is the call to have church authority shared in the church. He quotes A. Chalwe; ‘Zambian churches must abandon the “one man show” or chieftain type of church leadership and pattern themselves after the Antioch church. The Antioch church which had a multiple leadership.’ For Zambia, there are indeed many one man shows. Are they ready to bow down to joint elder rule?

He takes a chapter to look at dressing, and points out three wrong motives in dressing to kill, dressing to show off and dressing to ‘define’ ones figure. On this chapter I am left unsure that his handling of the proof texts is in context, though I perceive his good intentions.

Elsewhere he points out the confusion over praise and entertainment, and that much to day passing fro worship music is no more than entertainment.

The Youth, Social responsibility and church splits are also areas he focuses on. He advocates the end of the “spiritual island” Christianity, and that churches hold people accountable, disciple them and work towards building them up. In this day and age of individualism, where “my beliefs are my personal business”, he calls people back to the church model of discipleship for spiritual growth.

I have two reservations about the book. Firstly, he claims Pentecostals and Charismatic believe in both ‘the immaculate conception’. I was honestly shocked when I read this. Either he does not know what Immaculate Conception means or this is bad news! Immaculate conception is a Roman Catholic teaching that says Mary was born without sin and never sinned; (This despite the fact that she calls God her “Saviour” in Luke 1:46,47). How has this uniquely Roman doctrine been included as one of the core Pentecostal beliefs? The virgin birth of Jesus is a different doctrine, but the Immaculate conception is ancient dogma that was first optional (take it or leave it) in the Roman Catholic Church, then made official dogma in 1854! I hope he can re-examine this and remove it from future publications.

Secondly, he has said nothing about how Pentecostal and charismatic churches should relate to non-Charismatic churches, and how to relate to interdenominational events and groups like Scripture Union and ZAFES. A word of wisdom and encouragement on handling differences would have been good.

All in all, this is a good start, as it shifts away from the ‘money and tithe’ over-emphasis to a balanced view of the landscape of challenges facing the churches, and the many ways God wants his people to glorify his name on earth. Hopefully this is the first in a chain of honest, perceptive and influential books. There is a greater need for wisdom in social life and careers, as well as accountability in brotherly love. After all, when one section of Christendom is strengthened and purified, even aside from the other doctrine and practice differences, all their neighbours will benefit as well, from a society of more principled and caring members of society! We are called to be a “light to the world” and not only to our own little corners of friends!

Availiable at major book outlets buy a copy.

Keeping Fit

2010-02-04T11:05:00.007+02:00

The Zambian attitude to keeping fit is almost non-existent. Is it because we are too poor for our dream health diets, or because the vast majority do so much walking and public transport commuting? Or is it because some sections of society have glorified the “pot-belly” as a status symbol, and so aim for obesity and a “beer-gut”? Do we feel it is the realm of the athlete and soldier? Or maybe, with the daily struggles of life it just falls off our list of immediate priorities?
Physical fitness is a biological factor in prolonging life. It reduces the risk of developing high blood pressure, diabetes, helps build and maintain healthy bones, joints and muscles, and is even said to reduce the chance of getting certain types of cancer. We are “stewards” of our health, and as much as depends on us (i.e. responsibility) we should maintain it. But do we?

Life is a precious gift, and we are responsible to take care of the good gifts given us. When you buy a car, you make effort to maintain it, even when we take it for granted that “it will probably be ‘on stones’ in ten years time”. When someone drives carelessly, adding dents and damage in a carefree manner, you would say they are wasting the car! We have something more precious – our health. One dying queen is quoted as saying “A world of wealth for an inch of time”, that’s what she would give!

This is not to deny the “days ordained for us” (Psalm 139), that our lives are in God’s hands. The Bible also shows we are responsible beings, and the flipside to “do not murder” is “do everything possible to preserve life, your own and others” According to Question 68 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. (A catechism is just a set of questions and answers about what the bible teaches. The quoted catechism was written by a group that met in Westminster London hence the name.)

The common saying goes, ‘healthy body, healthy mind’. Your body affects your mind and your mind affects your body – We know how fatigue can make someone “touchy” (short-tempered/irritable), and we know how hunger can induce sleep! The interplay of mind and body should not surprise us when we reflect on how the first man was made “a living soul”, a singular being. It is in fact our fallen state that is susceptible to death, separation of body and soul on one level. But make no mistake; we were made to be body and soul, as the redemption promise of resurrection shows. The body is not a transient vessel but rather we will be embodies forever, after we are raised and death is thrown into the lake of fire (revelation 20). We are made for bodies, and we should not treat them as a burden (in a Hindu/New Age way), but instead sin is the burden. When God promises to give rest to his people, it will include their glorified bodies. Let us not resent this existence, even if it is entangled with sin and pain. Let us not resent the body, but except the created goodness, even as we long for the final redemption, body and soul.
I must confess much guilt as I first started thinking of this article. Guilt, because a key factor in exercise is self discipline. I have to make it a priority –no one will make it a priority for me. Here is an example of a skipping rope medium-fitness program that requires discipline. A friend gave this to me, who wishes to remain unknown (but get proper personalized advice on where you can begin to exercise):
This is to be done daily or at least five days a week

WEEKS ONE & TWO
100 skips
100 marches
50 skips
50 marches
150 skips
150 marches
50 skips
50 marches

If I have the motive, the means and the chance, what should hold me back? “Bodily exercise is of some value”. Let us treat it that way!

Your Wife is Not Your Realtive?

2010-01-18T07:58:00.009+02:00

Your wife is not your relative! Have you ever heard that? It is usually a piece of advice passed from an older more experienced married man to the naïve less experienced younger man. It is a short phrase packed with meaning. Lets take some time to look at it.

Let’s start with what the Zambian means by relative. Why a relative is a member of ones family, which is ones family of origin. When a Zambian speaks of their family, they are referring their extended family. You see there is no distinction between the family they were born into and their extended family the more traditional Zambian’s mind. The Zambian feels the strongest ties of attachment and loyalty to their family because their family gives them a sense of identity, it is within the family that a person experiences the deepest longest lasting friendships; in short the Zambian can say they are one with their family.

In the traditional Zambian mind the same can not be said for ones spouse. The relationship between spouses is seen as a temporary thing that may end at any time, unlike the permanent bond between a man and his family. During marital discord a man’s relatives may be heard saying things along the lines of “you found us here and you will leave us here!” The lasting and meaningful relationships are between a person and “their family”. Notice how in the Zambian usage of the word the wife does not qualify as a family member she is just a wife. Further, the wife is seen as replaceable unlike the members of one’s family. A few years back an e-mail posing the question “if you could only save either your mother or your wife from drowning who would you save?” was circulated around Zambian. Many a Zambian man proudly said without hesitation “My Mother! I can always get another wife” The wife is reduced to a commodity, replaceable whenever she expires (or goes out of style?).

At this point the foreign reader might be bewildered and ask; what is the Zambian wife there fore you ask? Why she’s there to manage the household, entertain her man in bed and have children and not to be a relative! This belief translates itself into several traditional practices that turn a wife into a “second class citizen” in her own home. Take for example when a man’s family visits (please remember ones wife is not really a member of your family), the “good” Zambian wife is expected to act as a servant to them. Indeed, why shouldn’t she it is “their home”. While we could multiply the horror stories of wife abuse by a husband’s relative, I will move on to contrast this traditional view with the Biblical view on the matter.

The Biblical view point on the relationship between a man and his wife verses the relationship between the man and his family of origin stand in stark contrast. Consider the foundational text on marriage:

Genesis 2:21-24

“21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

New International Version

According to the text the man is to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. While this does not imply the forsaking of ones parents it does mean that the primary loyalty of the man will switch from ones family to ones wife. More than this they will become one flesh. In Ephesians we learn that this involves the husband caring for his wife as if she were a part of him. So it can be said that a Husband enjoys a unity with his wife that he does not share with anyone else.

The contrast does not end there, lets go back to Genesis Chapter one:

Genesis 1:28

“28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."”

New International Version

In the traditional Zambian mind, the extend family is the foundation of the society. According to the Bible a man and wife are the foundation of society. They existed before there was any extended family. Therefore, the marriage is not subordinate to the extended family.

So, how should we then live? Firstly, as Zambian men we must TELL our families of origin of the BIBLES view of marriage and inform them of what this means for the way you will be interact with them during your marriage and how you expect them to interact with her. Make it clear that this is not a clash between western and tradition values, it is a clash between them and GOD. Secondly, we must live out the one flesh principle in our marriages and repent of all cultural practices that deny this one flesh principle. For example, when both a parent and ones spouse make equally important request, the spouses request should take precedence. As the man’s “relatives” we should not expect our grandson, son, brother (the only African categories) to have a greater loyalty to us than to his wife. We are to affirm Biblical standards and oppose those who oppose God’s standards. As always as we do all these things we should keep this motto in mind “to God alone be the glory”.

The African and Subduing the Earth

2010-01-15T12:16:00.004+02:00

Have you ever stopped to wonder what the Bible says about underdevelopment in Africa? During the 20th Reformed Family Conference held in August 2009, Ronald Kalifungwa reflected on this during a seminar titled "Christian Worldview".

Gossip

2010-01-12T08:00:00.010+02:00

Few things are so widely condemned and as widely practiced as gossip! People seated in a corner or under a tree discussing the latest on someone’s friend/cousin/teacher/ neighbor or whoever. A group of self appointed experts dissect someone’s life and put their wrongs and misfortunes under a magnifying glass. Have you ever walked in on a group of people and they suddenly become quite and uncomfortable? You know the feeling, where they quickly fish for some new topic to pretend they have been discussing all along.

Why is gossip such a problem? Firstly, gossip is one of those things we can usually get away with – I mean there will be no obvious consequences such as a court case or a fight. The concerned people are never there to give their side of the story as the facts are offloaded as juicy morsels to be devoured by the listeners! It is because they can “get away with it” that it is so rampant. Secondly, we all love attention, and some are captivated by the undivided attention they get when two or three people come round, all ears for the latest news from their favorite source! Gossip can be a way of releasing frustration about people we feel we cannot confront. Also gossip is an “easier” way to find out what is happening to people, usually concerning things that are none of our business! We want to avoid the effort of getting to know people and earn their trust, as well as opening ourselves up to them. The easier route is to go for constant updates from the local grapevine, never mind verifying the stories! It seems gossip is a permanent part of life, like day and night, it is set to be there for a long time to come.

What are the effects? The most obvious is a lack of trust. They say “once bitten twice shy”, so once you have experienced your darkest secret entrusted to a friend circulating round town, we won’t blame you for keeping a safe distance from the same friend. Friendships become artificial where you keep your deepest thoughts to yourself and have a separate public ace. Friendships become general acquaintances who know nothing about you beyond the general “hi” every other day. This leads to a lot of lonely people who do not trust and perhaps are not trusted in turn. A “cold war” is declared, and people who smile at each other when together have nothing good to say about each other when they are apart. Is it truly worth the cost of assassinated friendships and being labeled a loud mouth?

Now I am not saying you cannot talk about people problems. But I think there are two ways to talk about problems: You could be someone looking for a solution to a problem, trying to help someone who is seeking advice, or you could be trying to correct someone whose lifestyle is leading them down a dangerous path, and you want to use a real person as an example and say “Don’t end up like that one”. In those two cases, you are allowed to talk about someone’s life to the right people. This means, it is usually a parent, friend, teacher or boss who may talk this way. But it is very different from turning your friends life in television soap for entertainment.

How can we change this? We need to start by understanding how unfair gossip is. After all, we do not enjoy others gossiping about us, so why should we subject other to this scrutiny? Unless someone wants to help me, pray for me or use me as an example ( to follow or avoid), I don’t see why I should discover anyone in a corner referring to me in hushed tones. Let us also learn the value of a good reputation. The moment of laughter is long gone, but the reputation you make will be with you for a longtime. Trust is hard to earn and must not be easily betrayed. It is better to have a few good friends than to be known as a crowd entertainer and be lonely inside. Count the cost. You can have private conversations, but never have guilty conversations that leave you feeling like a traitor.

It is up to us to create friendships that will last, built on trust and make a society where each person hides behind emotional walls to keep their heart safe.

No Choice But to Have Faith

2010-01-07T08:01:00.002+02:00

To what extent we choose to have faith? Read more here

On Providence

2010-01-07T07:57:00.002+02:00

Here is John Piper talking bitter sweet Providence in connection with his new book.

Watch Your Mouth

2010-01-06T11:18:00.002+02:00

As we start the new year I believe that it would be of benefit to meditate on this passage.

Where are the evangelicals

2010-01-02T08:43:00.003+02:00

Kabwata Baptist Church recently held a day of studies with the theme "Christian Volunteerism: the Vanguard of Civilization. Pastor Conrad Mbewe explored how the Christian can be salt and light in our world be volunteering. This clip is from the first session of the workshop. You can hear more here

Tribalism

2009-12-26T09:39:00.008+02:00

Over the past few months tribalism has been headline news, with public figures claiming their tribal group has been wronged or marginalized. In response their political opponents respond by saying that pursuing tribal interests through politics is tribalism. What is tribalism and how should the Christian think about it?

What is a tribe? A tribe is a grouping of people usually linked by common descent, culture, language and land. The Bemba people for example are a group of people who are descendants of a group of migrants from the Luba-Lunda Kingdom and who share a common culture that includes the Bemba language. What is tribalism? Tribalism is exercising some form of social discrimination against members of other tribes. The root of tribalism is based on the beliefs that ones tribal affiliation is their primary identity and that a person’s tribe is culturally and morally superior. Tribalism can be expressed in several ways. Take for example if a member of the Tonga tribe socialized exclusively (or preferentially) with members of their own tribe. Tribalism can also occur in the workplace if a person in a position of influence uses tribe as a basis for making recruitment and promotional decisions. Tribalism can also be expressed in more negative ways such as genocide.

When we think of tribe Biblically we should realize that though we may be part of a group with a common decent that goes back a few hundred years, it is a fact that “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts17:26) This means that any persons primary identity is that they are a human being created in the image of God just like any other person. Therefore, while my fellow Bemba is my brother by tribal decent, ultimately all mankind are my brothers by virtue of common decent in Adam.

The Christian is also to bear in mind that in the Church despite a diversity of tribal and racial origins there is unity in Christ (Galatians 3:28). It follows from this that there is no place for tribal discrimination in the Church. Indeed for a Christian their main identity ought to be the fact that they are Christians as opposed to their being a member of a particular tribe. In my opinion, if this truth were embraced by all professing Christians we would not have denominations that are primarily associated with particular tribes. Further, I believe it would eliminate the practice of such Churches using the language of their preference as opposed to the language commonly used in an area. (It must be noted however, that these facts do not mean that tribe is non existent nor has no value. Indeed, in the Bible part of the glory of the Kingdom of God is that people from all nations, tribes and languages will be saved from the judgment of God. - Revelation 14:6)

I believe that there are other aspects of tribalism that the Zambian Christian ought to consider. For example some people practice tribalism because they feel that their tribe is culturally or ethically superior to other tribes. As we assess this we must bear certain Biblical facts in mind. First, we should remember that Adam’s sin has extended to all men and there is no person or group of people that are less affected by Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12, 18). Therefore in an absolute sense no group of people is morally superior to another. It is however true that; a particular group of people may be guiltier of a particular sin or set of sins than other groups. One of the most famous examples of this is the case of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 & 19. This group of people was so sinful that God decided to exercise judgment on them in particular. Secondly, all men by virtue of being created in the image of God have some innate sense of right and wrong (Romans 2:14 &15). It is this sense of right and wrong that allows people to behave in an ethical manner. The Bible and personal experience tell us that not all people or groups of people are equally virtuous. Certain people on a purely human level are regarded as being unusually virtuous. This fact can also be true of groups of people. It follows that a tribe’s culture may incorporate and stress particular moral virtues to a greater extent than the culture of other tribes.

So how is the Christian to respond to mankind’s common grace and common falleness? Firstly, we ought to respond with a sense of cultural humility. Whatever the moral virtues of ones tribe, it must be realized that our tribe comprises sinful descendants of Adam just like any other tribe. We therefore, ought not to feel or act morally superior to any other group of people. Secondly, in light of the fact that our tribe has its own cultural sins we ought to repent of the sins of our culture and show others how certain cultural practices are sinful. In the New Testament we see Paul urge Titus to warn Cretan Christians to repent of the sins of their culture. (Titus 1:12, 13). The Christian will therefore not hold on to sinful cultural practices such as polygamy by virtue of the practice being a part of their culture.

A further factor that should shape Christian thought about tribe is that tribes are temporary facts of life. Acts 17 reveals God has limited the time that every nation and group of people will flourish and prosper. In the case of Zambia, this is seen in the fact that Zambia’s current tribes have existed for a few hundred years. Before this our ancestors were members of other tribal groupings. As such our cultures are time bound and dynamic. This gives the Christian freedom to discard non productive cultural practices in favour of new practices that have been developed locally or adopted from other tribes and nations.

Finally, the Christian’s primary pride should be in the fact that they a part of a group of people described as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a Holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who has called you out of darkness into the His marvelous light”. (1 Peter 2:3) In relating to non Christians the Christian will display humility since they are a member of this “chosen people” by the grace of God and before they were a member of God’s people they were rebels against God just like everyone else. Lastly, as a member of God’s people the Christian will be obedient to their King’s commission to tell the world the good news that people from every tribe and tongue can escape the coming judgment by trusting in Christ.

Initiation- 21st century style – The measure of a man

2009-12-18T09:16:00.018+02:00

He felt like this was the proudest day of his life – he had become a man. Long ago, this would have been marked by when had ploughed a field, killed his first antelope and brought meat home or undergone a circumcision ritual. But instead, the 21st century youth stared at the bottle in-front of him, the mixture of orange juice and ‘tujili-jili’ that his friends had mixed at the back of the hall, during the ‘teen bash’ at school. He had taken the ‘hard stuff’, and two of his friends had blacked out before him. They were going to be the talk of the school the following Monday.

This is the new rite of passage, combined with the number of ‘sexual exploits’ to his name. In the eyes of so many in society, these are the marks of a modern man. These are what the modern youth takes to be the mark of a man, and sadly, many elderly people as well.

This is compounded by the fact that many women have picked up on this, and the men they look for are those who fit the modern ‘champion’ mentality. (I once heard a woman say she will only accept a man who drinks and has a hairy chest… if that is what women are looking for nowadays, rather than virtue and reliability, where are we headed?) This in turn leads other men to try and fit the image that is on demand. And so; “Due to the increase of wickedness, the love of many grows cold” (Matthew 24:12).

A few weeks back on Independence Day, I went to one of the popular Lusaka recreation centres, and was saddened to see the number of youth, (on average 14 years old, I would estimate), drunk. One girl could hardly walk and two of her friends had to support her. One boy had to be carried (literally) by his friend to the bathroom. A girl was pouring some spirits over the chicken she was roasting. If you don’t see something wrong with that picture, I am even more worried. Has this become so normal? The “stuff that teenagers do”?

How did our values shift from productivity (an ability to ‘protect, provide and lead’), to consumption and loose living? Some would link this to a colonial hangover, after restrictions on freedom and almost forced labor, the liberated people go to an opposite extreme; hating and avoiding work as much as possible rather than just hating cruel labor. They life of the former master looks good, but not the work that maintains that life. But this is only a guess.

The book of Proverbs describes the wise man as fearing God, having an honest vocation (not lying in wait to rob others or too lazy to lift his hand from the plate to his mouth), sticking to ‘the wife of his youth’ (not the adulterous woman), upholding justice and compassion. Is this how we view ‘a real man’?

Every child aspires to adulthood, and their ‘aspiration’ is molded by observing and imitating the adults. Long ago, there was a system of apprenticeship, where the family works together much of the time, and the sons learn the trade of the fathers. The family pride in the children’s maturity centered on how they work as opposed to how they play. The child’s expectations of adult life were centered on real responsibilities on not just liberty and leisure.

What is the measure of a man? What is the Bible’s measure of a man? Our Biblical mandate of dominion involves initiative, hard work, planning and endurance. It also demands sacrificial leadership like that of Jesus, the ability to live for others and give everything we have to protect, provide and lead. Somehow, I am not sure that’s what comes to mind when we ask ’What are the marks of a man’. And our society is poorer because of it. Where does the turn-around begin?

Fashion Trends

2009-12-09T16:11:00.007+02:00

If you have lived in urban Zambia during the past five years, you have witnessed the arrival of a fashion trend where buttocks, breasts and other body parts are routinely exposed for all to see. This development has produced a disapproving but not necessarily outraged reaction from the more conservative urban Zambian. This conservative urban Zambian sometimes says that the current trend is western and un-Zambian. At other times the conservative notes that things were not like this in the past. The more “progressive” group responds things have been this way before, in the sixties urban Zambia experienced the mini (many in their thirties have pictures of their mothers in minis), later in the late eighties and nineties there was the era of the cycling short and the return of the mini. If this is true what’s the fuss? Isn’t this just a recurring fashion cycle? The “progressives” go further and note in African culture there times women go bare-chested in skirts as short as a micro mini? I believe if we are going to make progress in this discussion we will need to appeal to a standard that can judge both the conservative and “progressive” positions. I propose that we use the Bible the word of God.

I think the first point to make is that God created our bodies, that are inherently sexual by virtue of being either a male or female body, and declared them to be good. (Genesis 1: 26 – 31) Therefore in and of themselves our bodies are not sinful. As a matter of fact by virtue of God declaring his creation good the nude human body is God glorifying. Moving further from the testimony of scripture man was apparently created to live in the nude. (Genesis 2:25) On this basis I would say in any discussion of the appropriateness of dressing we ought not to slip into the error of treating the human body or part of the human body as sinful. This error can sometimes be communicated through the taboos on discussion of topics related to sexuality. These taboos frequently communicate an unspoken message that sexuality (not sexual sin) is a dirty topic. I am aware that when topics related to sexuality are discussed some age and gender based considerations may come into play however the universal taboo on discussions related to sexuality tend to communicate a wrong set of values. A comparison of the taboos on discussion of sexuality with the Bible’s matter of fact discussion of circumcision reveals the difference between the two positions.

Now lest anyone be tempted to become a nudist “because of scripture” let us consider the origin of clothes. The need for clothing is linked to Adam’s rebellion and falling of into a state of sin. (For those unfamiliar with this please read Genesis 3) When Adam and Eve, the whole of humanity at the time, fell into a state of sin their sin caused them to be conscious of their nudity and prevented them from interacting among themselves or with God in their nude state. It should be noted that this guilt extended beyond their physical nudity; however, their guilt included their physical nudity. (For a fuller discussion of the other implications of Adam and Eve’s guilt resources from John Macarthur can be consulted here, here and here)

The Bible reveals to us that because of Adam’s rebellion all people have inherited a sinful nature opposed to God and his holy law and standards. One of the results is that we share our first parent’s inability to interact in the nude without sin. Before we move on two things should be noted about the last point. Firstly, “interact in the nude without sin” does not necessarily mean that nudity leads to fornication or adultery. Since Adam and Eve were married they were clearly incapable of either sin. But it does mean that in thought, word, deed or inaction we fall short of God’s righteous standards in our interactions. Secondly, not all nude interaction is “out of bound”. Medical procedures are an example of an instance where nudity may be required. However, these interactions tend to be exceptional and are usually driven by some form of necessity.

On basis of what we have seen above I believe we can say from a biblical perspective we can say that we wear clothes to limit the effect of sin as we interact with others. Now I am aware that we also wear clothes to protect us from the weather, according to scripture the primary reason we wear clothes is sin. As one reads the Bible it becomes evident that the Bible considers clothing to be a form of language. For example clothes are shown to communicate grief (Genesis 37:34), joy (Genesis 38:14, 19), sexual availability (Proverbs 7: 10), pride (Isaiah 3:16) and formality (Mathew 22:11-12). Therefore, when we wear clothes we are making a statement to the world about who we are and how we want the world to respond to us.

Having considered all this I think we can begin to directly address the issue at hand. Firstly, the trend is wrong because it attempts to go around the main reason for wearing clothes: to compensate for sin. In our sinful state to be without clothes is sexually arousing to others and prevents sinless interaction. Nudity or partially nudity tends to promote various forms of sinful interaction such as “dirty talk”, sexual fantasies, voyeurism, masturbation, fornication/adultery, rape and other forms of sin Any form of dressing exposes the parts of the body associated with sexual intimacy therefore potentially promotes these sins. By promoting these sins persons who wear such clothing will be subject to judgment from God. If you are such a person I urge you to repent of this sin and dress in a more God honouring fashion.

Now as I type this I am aware that there are persons who participate in this fashion trend and have no intention to promote any such sins. Such people may even ask why they must be held accountable for the reactions of other to what they do. To these people I wish to say clothes are a language and a unique kind of language. Unlike words that can be directed to a particular person clothes speak to everybody. A low cut pair of jeans screams to everybody “hey take a look at this what do you think?” Secondly, the people these clothes are communicating with are sinful. There is something in their nature that causes them to rebel against even their own consciences. Therefore, it is asking a bit much of a sinful person not to be sinful so that you can were your fashionable clothing without consequences. So whether you intended to or not you have participated in this serious offense and also need to repent.

If we are to dress appropriately, I believe we must bear in mind the Biblically revealed facts about sexuality, fall and clothing. I believe that bearing these things in mind will keep us from blindly following the crowd and from falling for the lie that dressing is ALL about self expression. While dressing is about self expression it is also about sinners interacting under the eye of a God who will judge all.