On the topic of modesty II

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

On the topic of modesty

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

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

Col. Ghadaffi’s death and justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Shall We Then Drink?

Few weeks ago started a series on Christians and their attitude towards alcohol. Today I would like to talk a bit about how Christians might exercise their freedom to drink alcohol in the Zambian context.  

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

Secondly, I was compelled to write when I saw a group of Christians abuse their freedom to drink. It seemed to me their understanding of the freedom to drink was that they were free to drink in the way that everyone else does and that is wrong. The more I thought about it the more I became persuaded that this group of Christians were behaving this way due to a lack of counsel.  If evangelical Christians in Zambia did not have an unofficial law against alcohol drinking these Christians could have got the guidance and counsel they required.

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

1.       Drinking should be practiced in a counter cultural way. The Zambian drinking culture is sinful. Let be clear about that. In fact let me go further to say the evangelical Christians  critique of drinking in Zambia is mostly spot on. Zambians celebrate drinking to excess, glorify the drunken state and their exploits while in the drunken state and prize social events were beer flows freely and wildness happens (just look at any issue of the Friday Post). If you choose to drink as a Christian in Zambia you must ensure that the way you drink in no way endorses the SINFUL drinking culture in our country. This will involve doing things like refraining from  engaging in or approving of any talk that approves such drinking, refraining from drinking at places where the sinful culture is practices. Positively, I believe that it will involve drinking mainly in family settings or family friendly settings. By family friendly settings I mean the type of places where children can be taken without fear of their being damaged by the experience.

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

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

4.       A Christian who drinks should be sensitive to Christians who cannot drink with a clear conscience or believe that it is wrong to drink. They should not indulge in their freedom with an “in your face attitude” or go on crusades to recruit “drinkers for Christ”. After all the Apostle Paul in Romans 14 instructs that the unity of the Church that God is building is more valuable than your right to drink. This however, does not mean that the Christian will be silent on legalistic attitudes towards drinking. When faced with such attitudes any Christian must gently and clearly point out how this is legalism.

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

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

7.       If you drink, drink wisely. Remember wisdom listens and does not take advice lightly. If people come to you with valid concerns about your drinking listen to them and where appropriate put their advice into practice. 

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

Ni Friday, Tulenwa

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

I will share my feelings about the post. Anxiety. I was concerned that some people would use the post as a license for abuse. I could picture a situation where after reading the post someone might rush to breakpoint (or wherever “it happens” these days) and with three shouts of hallelujah order seven tequilas. I have never drunk tequila I hope seven tequilas is excessive.

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

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

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

3)      Routinely “overdoing it” is an indicator that you are not Christian. Don’t take my word for it. Galatians 5:21.

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

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

6)      On drinking buddies. Never forget bad associations ruin useful habits. Foolishness spreads. Be wise.

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

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

The Teetoler Mandate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christian and Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification

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

putting qoutation marks would have been a good idea.

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

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

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

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

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

Women and Condoms

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

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

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

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

You can read the rest of this article here

The Church and Condoms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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