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.
I am very much looking forward to reading your thoughts on this. I like the multi-persepectival approach!
ReplyDeleteI have always approached this issue at three levels.
1. Whether such declarations infringe basic rights?
2. Whether the declaration is consistent with secular notions of development?
3. Whether it has biblical support?
The third strand of course governs the first, if we accept as now all leading philosophers have done that only under a Judeo-Christian theistic framework are rights properly grounded - I write about this briefly when I deal with the vexing question of Mandatory HIV Tests
But I have also separately concluded that our very notion of development also supports the idea that people should be free to declare Zambia as a Christian nation because religious identity and culture are embodied in development - see State and Religion
It seems to me that there's nothing in scripture that prevents a ground of people to come together and pledge their faith and trust in Christ - but such allegiances become profanities if they are not genuine. In short, I would probably struggle with the idea of the declaration as "aspirational" without tangible changes.
But I am getting ahead of myself and I wanna read more from you!
Thanks for the blog by the way, I enjoy reading it!
On the 'introduction' of homosexuality. I think it is estimated that at any time and in any population 2% to 10% of the population is gay. Therefore, what we are talking about is the relative openness of the lifestyle of those who are gay, not homosexuality itself.
ReplyDeleteRachel Maddow who is an out lesbian herself, on MSNBC has done several exposes of the rightwing Christians and their efforts in Africa to further criminalize homosexuality. (See here.)
The unique characteristic about former British colonies in Africa is that they have the same anti-gay British laws in the penal code, while their post-independence constitutions go very far in prohibiting discrimination. (Article 21 of the Ugandan constitution, Article 20 of the Malawian constitution, Article 23 of the Zimbabwean Constitution, although the Zimabwean constitution has added clauses to exempt homosexuality from the protection against discrimination, section 5 - amended in 2005, after Peter Tatchell's 'citizen's arrest' of President Mugabe in London in 1999. Peter Thatchell also seems to have been behind the 'gay marriage' in Malawi.)
Personally I think Tatchell is pretty clueless when it comes to the African political and cultural scene, and he seems to be doing more damage than good. But that's just my opinion.
On Zambia as a Christian Nation. I have to wonder - which particular version of Christianity are they talking about? Zambia as a Catholic nation? Zambia as a Episcopalian nation? Zambia as a Eastern Orthodox nation? How about Liberation Theology?
And how does the notion of Zambia as a Christian Nation mesh with the denial of food and shelter as basic human rights? Or the support for the death penalty in this draft constitution? It seems to me that their notion of Christianity is limited to moralism (denying gay marriage and contraception for women), not actually the teachings of Jesus.
Years ago the late comedian Bill Hicks joked that perhaps Jesus hadn't come back because of all the Christians walking around with crucifixes. He thought it was a little like going up to Jacqueline Kennedy with a rifle broche on - 'Just thinking of Jack' (click-click).
But seriously, there is a difference between professing moralism and following the teachings of Jesus. Jesus would not turn away the poor, but the drafters of the NCC Draft Constitution mocked the very notion of food and shelter as a human right, and invoked the notion of 'moral hazard'.
Like the article lining out what it means to be a good citizen, I just don't think they have a place in the constitution.