Sex Behind Bars

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

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

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.