Dance and Worship

If you have travelled to a European country you will notice that worship in any Zambian church is more "active" than in that Church's denominational counterparts in Europe.In thinking about this difference I have been greatly helped by Edmond P. Clowney's book "The Church" from the Contours of Christian Theology Series published by IVP.

I this book professor Clowney discusses spontaneous dance in the context of worship services. In his analysis he uses the concepts of "element" (aspects of worship and church governance that God explicitly commands in his word) and "circumstance" (aspects of worship and church governance should be ordered in the 'light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word').

"May dance also function as a circumstance, rather than an element of worship? We can not fault an individual worshipper who beats on his breast as the publican did in the temple. So long as good order is maintained in Congregational worship, there should be no objection to spontaneous movements of individuals in their natural responses of grief and praise. Like the running and leaping of the lame man in the temple, there may be impulsive piroutettes of joy on the part of worshipers. Again, the customs of a culture help determine the boundaries of good order. There are cultures where joyful singing is normally accompanied by rhythmic or ecstatic body movements." P 128

Now I know that this can be a hot button topic in some circles, if you are tempted to brand either the professor or myself as a heretic remembers the words "spontaneity" and "circumstance".

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.

Polygamy Revival

I am sure you have noticed the recent revival of polygamy in Zambia. For a number of years at the funerals of several prominent Zambian’s we have come to know that the deceased had parallel families that knew nothing of each other. Upon inquiry it is usually found that several “key” members of the man’s extended family knew of this arrangement and facilitated these second, third and even fourth marriages. Recently however, the revival has “come out of the closest”, those who read Zambian newspapers will no doubt remember and article about a member of the Cabinet who has two wives who know of each other and live in harmony. As if that weren’t shocking enough, the article revealed that the man’s first wife served as matron at his marriage to his second wife. Then on the international scene there is of course there is Jacaob Zuma. What more needs to be said?

Recently, the media has joined in the Polygamy advocacy campaign. Bliss magazine for example recently published a pro polygamy article. In article an advocate of polygamy noted that several Biblical figures were polygamists. Though the article did not develop the point exegetically the clear implication is, since polygamy is in the Bible it is legitimate.

What is the Christian response to this? Well our first response is not to keep quite! We must speak up and refute this ungodliness from the Bible.

So where do we start? In the beginning, when in doubt we consult the blue print. In many debates about human sexuality today Christians act as is our sexuality was not designed for a particular purpose. These people then go on to say sexuality can be used for any purpose we imagine. This is however, not the case. The Bible in Genesis 1 and 2 lets us know that God deliberately created man male and female for the purpose of marriage. In addition one can note from Jesus’ elaboration on these passages in Mathew 19 that God specifically intended for marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. The Apostle Paul further develops the theology of marriage in Ephesians Chapter 5 by noting that human marriage is modeled along the lines of the relationship between Christ and his Church. As in Christ and his ONE bride. So this brief survey reveals that the Biblical norm is for a man to have ONE wife.

What about all the prominent polygamists in the Bible? One might note that prominent among them is David, a man after God’s own heart! Well, we must note that in the narratives of these Saints lives nowhere does God affirm polygamy as the norm. In short they were sinning by marring multiple wives. So why weren’t they asked to divorce? As far as I can tell God seems to recognize marriage even wrong marriages and expects the institution of marriage to be honoured even when wrongly entered into. It is for this reason that God introduces regulations to ensure that those who engage in polygamy do not abuse their spouses.

Okay that is the Biblical angle. In brief of course. Each point could be developed in greater complexity but for now that will suffice. Let have a look at the assertions that a man cannot stick to one woman. Well the Bible tells us that all people are sinful and are by nature rebels against God. The Christian must assert that it is sin and not the lack of sufficient sexual partners that causes martial unfaithfulness. I believe that the case of Jacob Zuma proves the case. The man has multiple wives and could easily have added another woman to his “krall” but not his sinful lack of self restraint lead him to cheat on his multiple wives. On this basis I believe that Biblically the Christian should oppose any suggestion that lack of self control is a warrant for polygamy.

Apart from using the Bible to refute the advocates of polygamy I believe that the Christian is to live a counter cultural life that displays God’s standards. When single the Christian is to be Chaste and not engage in sexual immorality. When married the Christian is to stick to their spouse and keep the marriage bed undefiled.

Faith of Many Colours Review

This book has been needed for a long time. The Pentecostal Charismatic circles often shy away from criticizing themselves or others, whether it is because of an unhealthy fear of ‘men of God’ or unconcern with what is happening to others, I will let others decide. Madalitso Banja takes a courageous step – he refuses to “spare the rod” and “spoil the child”. He speaks openly and frankly about strengths and weaknesses in modern, Zambian Charismatic congregations.

His first comments about Pastors are, to me, the most revolutionary. “Calling, Bible college training and ministry” form the backbone of good pastoral work, in his analysis. He points out that greed and “money career” thinking has caused much ministry suffering. His solutions are: a Pastoral code of conduct that should apply in all denominations. The Pastors need to be accountable. The second (and even more revolutionary) is the call to have church authority shared in the church. He quotes A. Chalwe; ‘Zambian churches must abandon the “one man show” or chieftain type of church leadership and pattern themselves after the Antioch church. The Antioch church which had a multiple leadership.’ For Zambia, there are indeed many one man shows. Are they ready to bow down to joint elder rule?

He takes a chapter to look at dressing, and points out three wrong motives in dressing to kill, dressing to show off and dressing to ‘define’ ones figure. On this chapter I am left unsure that his handling of the proof texts is in context, though I perceive his good intentions.

Elsewhere he points out the confusion over praise and entertainment, and that much to day passing fro worship music is no more than entertainment.

The Youth, Social responsibility and church splits are also areas he focuses on. He advocates the end of the “spiritual island” Christianity, and that churches hold people accountable, disciple them and work towards building them up. In this day and age of individualism, where “my beliefs are my personal business”, he calls people back to the church model of discipleship for spiritual growth.

I have two reservations about the book. Firstly, he claims Pentecostals and Charismatic believe in both ‘the immaculate conception’. I was honestly shocked when I read this. Either he does not know what Immaculate Conception means or this is bad news! Immaculate conception is a Roman Catholic teaching that says Mary was born without sin and never sinned; (This despite the fact that she calls God her “Saviour” in Luke 1:46,47). How has this uniquely Roman doctrine been included as one of the core Pentecostal beliefs? The virgin birth of Jesus is a different doctrine, but the Immaculate conception is ancient dogma that was first optional (take it or leave it) in the Roman Catholic Church, then made official dogma in 1854! I hope he can re-examine this and remove it from future publications.

Secondly, he has said nothing about how Pentecostal and charismatic churches should relate to non-Charismatic churches, and how to relate to interdenominational events and groups like Scripture Union and ZAFES. A word of wisdom and encouragement on handling differences would have been good.

All in all, this is a good start, as it shifts away from the ‘money and tithe’ over-emphasis to a balanced view of the landscape of challenges facing the churches, and the many ways God wants his people to glorify his name on earth. Hopefully this is the first in a chain of honest, perceptive and influential books. There is a greater need for wisdom in social life and careers, as well as accountability in brotherly love. After all, when one section of Christendom is strengthened and purified, even aside from the other doctrine and practice differences, all their neighbours will benefit as well, from a society of more principled and caring members of society! We are called to be a “light to the world” and not only to our own little corners of friends!

Availiable at major book outlets buy a copy.

Keeping Fit

The Zambian attitude to keeping fit is almost non-existent. Is it because we are too poor for our dream health diets, or because the vast majority do so much walking and public transport commuting? Or is it because some sections of society have glorified the “pot-belly” as a status symbol, and so aim for obesity and a “beer-gut”? Do we feel it is the realm of the athlete and soldier? Or maybe, with the daily struggles of life it just falls off our list of immediate priorities?
Physical fitness is a biological factor in prolonging life. It reduces the risk of developing high blood pressure, diabetes, helps build and maintain healthy bones, joints and muscles, and is even said to reduce the chance of getting certain types of cancer. We are “stewards” of our health, and as much as depends on us (i.e. responsibility) we should maintain it. But do we?

Life is a precious gift, and we are responsible to take care of the good gifts given us. When you buy a car, you make effort to maintain it, even when we take it for granted that “it will probably be ‘on stones’ in ten years time”. When someone drives carelessly, adding dents and damage in a carefree manner, you would say they are wasting the car! We have something more precious – our health. One dying queen is quoted as saying “A world of wealth for an inch of time”, that’s what she would give!

This is not to deny the “days ordained for us” (Psalm 139), that our lives are in God’s hands. The Bible also shows we are responsible beings, and the flipside to “do not murder” is “do everything possible to preserve life, your own and others” According to Question 68 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. (A catechism is just a set of questions and answers about what the bible teaches. The quoted catechism was written by a group that met in Westminster London hence the name.)

The common saying goes, ‘healthy body, healthy mind’. Your body affects your mind and your mind affects your body – We know how fatigue can make someone “touchy” (short-tempered/irritable), and we know how hunger can induce sleep! The interplay of mind and body should not surprise us when we reflect on how the first man was made “a living soul”, a singular being. It is in fact our fallen state that is susceptible to death, separation of body and soul on one level. But make no mistake; we were made to be body and soul, as the redemption promise of resurrection shows. The body is not a transient vessel but rather we will be embodies forever, after we are raised and death is thrown into the lake of fire (revelation 20). We are made for bodies, and we should not treat them as a burden (in a Hindu/New Age way), but instead sin is the burden. When God promises to give rest to his people, it will include their glorified bodies. Let us not resent this existence, even if it is entangled with sin and pain. Let us not resent the body, but except the created goodness, even as we long for the final redemption, body and soul.
I must confess much guilt as I first started thinking of this article. Guilt, because a key factor in exercise is self discipline. I have to make it a priority –no one will make it a priority for me. Here is an example of a skipping rope medium-fitness program that requires discipline. A friend gave this to me, who wishes to remain unknown (but get proper personalized advice on where you can begin to exercise):
This is to be done daily or at least five days a week

WEEKS ONE & TWO
100 skips
100 marches
50 skips
50 marches
150 skips
150 marches
50 skips
50 marches

If I have the motive, the means and the chance, what should hold me back? “Bodily exercise is of some value”. Let us treat it that way!