HOW DID THE CHURCH FIND ITSELF AT THE CENTRE OF THIS CONFLICT?
It’s very sad that some religious leaders have found themselves at the centre of the political conflict facing our homeland today. Their crime was to accept to work with the United Nations and the Zambian government in handing over Brian Mundubile and Makebi Zulu to Zambia Police.
I don’t know how the church found itself in this matter. Who invited the church to this issue? Was it the United Nations or the Zambian government?
Under international law, a person who takes refuge in a UN agency office in their own country is not automatically entitled to exit to a third country, but they cannot be forcibly surrendered to their government while inside the premises. Under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, UN premises are inviolable. Local police and government security forces cannot enter UN buildings or seize an individual without the explicit consent of the UN Secretary-General. Can They Be Surrendered? No Direct Handover: the UN will not hand a person over to local authorities if there is a clear risk of torture, execution, or severe human rights abuses. Standoff and Negotiation: Because the host government cannot enter, and the UN cannot legally grant permanent “diplomatic asylum” to a citizen inside their own country, these situations usually result in a prolonged diplomatic standoff. Resolution: The issue is resolved through behind-the-scenes political negotiations rather than a strict rule of international law. Are They Entitled to a Third Country Exit? No Legal Right to Safe Passage: International law does not grant a national inside their own country’s UN office an inherent right to leave for a third country. Border Requirement: Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, a person only qualifies for refugee status and protection from refoulement (forced return) if they have crossed an international border. A national remaining inside their own country is considered an internal matter. Discretionary Travel: Safe passage or exit visas to a third country require the cooperation or acquiescence of the host government or a special diplomatic agreement brokered by the UN.
This is the complexity of this matter. What was the real role of the church in this matter?
But whatever our understanding of what happened, trying to “crucify” the church—meaning to aggressively attack, publicly humiliate, or ruthlessly tear it down when we believe it is wrong—carries severe unintended consequences. While confronting error or hypocrisy is biblical, doing so in a destructive way often backfires deeply.
Harsh, public takedowns wound innocent or vulnerable believers, driving them away from faith entirely.
A culture of constant attack divides the body, paralysing its ability to serve or support its members.
Confrontation quickly devolves into toxic parking-lot chatter, destroying trust and reputations.
Publicly tearing down the church gives non-believers an excuse to reject Christ and mock the gospel.
When correction turns into a “canceling” campaign, it strips the church of its voice and moral weight. It fosters a toxic “us versus them” mentality that mimics the world’s culture rather than reflecting Christ.
Instead of seeking to “crucify” the church, Scripture outlines a framework for handling conflict, heresy, or wrongdoing with grace and absolute authority.
That’s why the instinct is: “If you correct me, I’ll cancel you. If you confront me, I’ll cut you off. And if you keep trying, I’ll call you toxic or unsafe…”
Fred M’membe
