Adoption and the African Extended Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Booo GBM

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

I think GBMs behaviour can not go without comment.

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Church coming to?

The Declaration as an Act of Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christian and Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Declaration as a Moral Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Declaration as a Means of Preventing Social Change

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

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

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

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

Worshiping God With Your Body

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

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

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

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

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

The Declaration as a Sociological Statement Pt 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) The price to pay for teenage pregnancy and forced marriages

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

1. The Unchanging character of God;


2. The hope of the gospel;


3. A call to respond to the gospel;


4. Instruct those present how to grieve;

You can read the whole post here

Zambia the Christian Nation Pt 1

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

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.