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.