{"id":410,"date":"2026-10-03T20:32:09","date_gmt":"2026-10-03T20:32:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mzeenjugunamwangi.com\/?p=410"},"modified":"2026-10-03T20:40:50","modified_gmt":"2026-10-03T20:40:50","slug":"when-did-honouring-your-in-laws-become-idolatry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mzeenjugunamwangi.com\/index.php\/2026\/10\/03\/when-did-honouring-your-in-laws-become-idolatry\/","title":{"rendered":"When Did Honouring Your In-Laws Become Idolatry?"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

A Biblical Question Every African Christian Should Ask<\/strong><\/p>

In July 2026, I listened to a sermon that left me with one simple question. A pastor declared that slaughtering a sheep or goat during Ag\u0129k\u0169y\u0169 marriage ceremonies amounted to idol worship. In this case, he referred to Ng\u0169rario <\/strong>(a traditional Kikuyu marriage ceremony that takes place after the completion of bride wealth payment), but the same accusation is often extended to other R\u0169racio<\/strong> (commonly translated into English as bride wealth<\/strong>, is not a single ceremony but a marriage process made up of a number of sittings. At each sitting, the two families fulfil specific requirements agreed upon for that particular stage. Each sitting is traditionally marked by the drinking of njohi<\/strong> (ceremonial beer). The njohi is brewed and given a specific name that reflects the purpose or significance of that sitting. For example, Njohi ya Giikaro kia Njurio<\/strong> marks the first official step in the marriage process<\/strong>. In this way, the njohi is not simply a drink. Its name identifies the purpose of the sitting and signifies the stage the two families have reached in the marriage process). My response was not outrage, it was a request for evidence.<\/p>

The Pastor should show us where in the Bible does feeding your in-laws become idol worship, s<\/strong>how us the passage, explain its context, and identify the actual act of worship being condemned. A statement delivered from a pulpit does not become evidence simply because it is preached with conviction.<\/p>

In my previous article, Who Says You Need a European Name to Be a Follower of Christ?<\/strong>, I questioned the belief that Christian faith requires a foreign name. This article asks a related question: Must an African family abandon its way of honouring one another before its faith can be considered genuine?<\/strong><\/p>

Who taught Africans to distrust their own culture?<\/strong><\/p>

That question takes me back to the late Ng\u0169g\u0129 wa Thiong\u2019o<\/strong>. In Decolonising the Mind<\/em>, he challenged the forces that teach people to doubt their own languages, cultures, and worth.[1]<\/a> His argument was never simply about vocabulary; it was about recovering the confidence to think for ourselves.<\/p>

That is why this conversation matters. An African pastor can sincerely preach in Kikuyu or Kiswahili while unknowingly repeating ideas inherited from colonial missionary thinking. The face has changed, but sometimes the judgement has remained the same. The preacher\u2019s skin changed, but the judgement did not. <\/em>If we cannot question inherited assumptions, then decolonisation remains incomplete.<\/p>

What Exactly Are We Calling Idolatry?<\/strong><\/p>

Before condemning a practice, we should first understand it. R\u0169racio<\/strong> refers to the customary marriage process commonly described in English as bride wealth. Ng\u0169rario<\/strong> is a specific marriage ceremony marked by the slaughter of a ram. These are related, but they are not identical. Not every animal slaughtered during marriage proceedings serves the same purpose or carries the same meaning.<\/p>

A valuable account appears in the 2024 Court of Appeal judgement in Thiga & Others v Thiga<\/em><\/strong>. It describes a sequence involving marriage payments, the Ng\u0169rario ram, the bride\u2019s eating of the kidneys as a sign of consent, and a ceremonial feast attended by both families.[2]<\/a><\/p>

The judgement also records the expression \u201cblood of unity.\u201d<\/strong> That phrase deserves careful examination\u2014not concealment. Symbolism connecting two families does not automatically become worship of another god. The court was recording customary practice, not delivering Christian theology. It reminds us that marriage, consent, kinship, and hospitality must be understood before anyone pronounces a religious verdict.<\/p>

So the real question is simple:\u00a0 What is the family actually doing? <\/strong>Listen to the words spoken and observe the actions performed. If a ceremony contains worship that contradicts Christianity, identify that element. But if relatives are sharing food while acknowledging a marriage, explain how that becomes idolatry. Honouring an in-law does not make the in-law a god. The African name of a ceremony cannot carry the entire prosecution\u2019s case.<\/p>

Does the Bible Say Slaughtering an Animal Is Idol Worship?<\/strong><\/p>

The Bible itself clearly distinguishes hospitality from idolatry. In Genesis 18:6\u20138<\/strong>, Abraham prepares bread and a calf for his visitors. The meal is an act of generous hospitality. In Luke 15:22\u201324<\/strong>, the father of the prodigal son orders the fattened calf to be killed so that the household can celebrate together. Neither passage proves that every African custom is biblical. But both demolish the claim that slaughtering an animal for an important family occasion is, by itself, idol worship. If the objection is not the slaughter itself, then what exactly is it?<\/p>

Some people respond to the Ag\u0129k\u0169y\u0169 expression \u201cblood of unity\u201d<\/strong> by saying, \u201cThe Lamb of God has already shed His blood.\u201d That answer confuses two completely different purposes. John 1:29<\/strong> presents Jesus as the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. Hebrews 10:10\u201314<\/strong> declares His sacrifice sufficient and once for all. Those passages speak about the forgiveness of sin\u2014not about whether families may slaughter an animal for food.<\/p>

Paul makes the distinction even clearer in 1 Corinthians 10:14\u201329<\/strong>. Christians may eat meat and even accept a meal from an unbelieving host, while avoiding participation in actual idolatrous sacrifice. Context matters. The question, therefore, is not whether blood was shed. The question is what the slaughter means<\/strong>. If a sheep is killed to feed guests and honour in-laws, it serves hospitality. Christ\u2019s sacrifice needs no supplement, and a family meal does not compete with the redemption of humanity. The burden of proof still rests with the accusation.<\/p>

What Did the Jerusalem Council Actually Decide?<\/strong><\/p>

Many people immediately quote Acts 15<\/strong>, so let us read it carefully. The dispute before the Jerusalem Council was whether Gentile (all humanity not brought up\u00a0in the Jewish culture that is the first Covenant of Jews observing 613 Gods Commandments\/Mosaic Laws\/ Mitzvah\/Mitzvoth)\u00a0 converts had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses\u2014including circumcision, one of the Mosaic commandments traditionally numbered in later Jewish legal tradition. Peter rejected that requirement and declared that salvation comes through the grace of Jesus Christ.<\/p>

The council\u2019s letter instructed believers to abstain from four things:<\/p>