Taught by Mike Reeves at UCCF South Summer School, June 2009.

What is the fundamental nature of sin?  Unbelief, pride, and incurvature.

1.  Sin = Unbelief

Popularly, the definition for sin touted today is: idolatry.  This was the answer given by Ulrich Zwingly, the Zurich reformer.  He saw his ministry as an anti-idolatry ministry; that was his problem with Roman Catholicism.  So his ministry in Zurich was: get rid of the idols.  Churches were stripped of anything – particularly images – that were considered idolatrous.  Though he played 7 instruments, he stripped organs out of churches for fear of the power of music capturing people’s hearts in an idolatrous fashion.  But the problem was that he didn’t give the gospel instead – he said instead of serving idols, serve God instead.  This doesn’t get us much further – it only leads to works.

Luther was able to go deeper.  Problem of sin for him: not treating the wrong thing as God, but treating the real God the wrong way.  Idolatry is the consequence of the real problem of sin: unbelief.  Yes, unbelief leads to idolatry – by committing unbelief you set yourself up as an idol in your own heart; but doubting God’s word was the heart of the problem.

“Whatever is not of faith is sin”

So sin is at heart unbelief, and thus essentially is a relational problem.

Compare this with the Islamic view of sin: humans are created to be slaves of Allah, not to have relationship.  We are not to know him, but to serve him.  This means there is no relationship to break with Allah; sin is not about relationship damaged but commands broken.

So, the consequences of having an Islamic view of sin is that commands become the focus, not God – which in itself can be idolatrous.  If there is no relationship broken, there is no relationship fixed, so salvation becomes something you provide.

The Christian view: sin is a relational problem.  See Augustine’s ‘Confessions’: he speaks of sin as a loss of love (ie trust and receiving things in faith) for God. So sin is not so much about behaviour, but about adultery of the heart.  My love for the Lord is misdirected, although you cannot love another – only lust after.  I cannot love another woman as my wife, I can only lust after her.  Augustine’s life was all lust; he was “in love with being in love”. He knew he was created to be a lover, but had no idea what he was created to love.  So he tried philosophy, prostitutes, friends – but it was all misfired.

Similarly in the Reformation, sin was being seen as a weakness that’s cured by doing better.  Luther debated Erasmus by saying this is the heart of the Reformation.  Erasmus: try harder.  Luther: try harder and you’ll try harder in your misdirections.  Your will is in bondage to your heart; so you will aim for what you love.  So the answer isn’t to try harder, but to have the direction of your heart changed.  (Affections are deeper than emotions – periferal and fickle surface heart reactions – Jonathan Edwards made this clarification later).

This affects how we consider/analyse/find sin – ask yourself these questions: what do you find comforting or attractive?  What do you love?  Often this will highlight your sin.

There is something else to consider if sin is relational.  The opening words of Calvin’s Institutes speak of two parts of wisdom:

“Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern…
It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.”

Because sin is a rejection of the Lord, you can’t understand you’re a sinner or be convicted of sin until you are confronted with the Lord you’ve rejected.  In other words, to convict someone of sin you need to tell them the gospel.  Preaching morality is not the way – that is Islamic!  Yes the law reveals God’s character, but that is a holistic view of law – some people take the moral part of the law and quote it at people to try and convict them of sin.  Preach Christ instead!

‘Unfaith, the lack of fear, trust, and love of God, shows itself particularly in ingratitude. This is “the most shameful vice and the greatest contempt of God.” Luther learned this from Paul in Romans 1:21. Ingratitude in turn depends on egocentricity, self-­satisfaction, trusting in ourselves and our own righteousness.  Even though men have received the goods of this life from God, they do not treat them as his gift. They are so concerned with the gift that they forget the giver. They take these gifts as though they were something which they obviously deserve or have made for themselves. “We use this gift as though we, not God, had made it.” But possessing God’s gifts without recognizing them and treating them as his, that is, without giving thanks for them, is “the same as [possessing] stolen and plundered goods.” Whoever de­spises God by being ungrateful misuses the gifts both against God and against his neighbor.  We misuse these gifts against God by constantly bragging, as though we had only ourselves to thank for everything; and we trust in such earthly gifts instead of commit­ting ourselves to God. We misuse these gifts against our neighbor whenever we do not receive them from God’s hand as a trust but instead use them for our own purposes and to hurt our neighbor, as “though we ourselves were God and lord here on earth.” Thus contempt of God leads to contempt of the neighbor. Man constantly transgresses the First Commandment by not put­ting all his trust in God. Otherwise we would believe in God, love and praise him even in time of trouble. But we cannot do this. “When temptation comes or when I must die then I think that God is a devil; yes, even that He is a wrathful God who is angry with me.” In good times it is easy for us to imagine that we really love God. We can even produce quite a remarkable appearance of loving God and our neighbor. But we can do this only as long as we are not put to the test of suffering. “God has many lovers”- “in time of peace.”’

- ‘The Theology of Martin Luther’ Paul Outhouse

2. Sin = Pride

Instead of love of the Lord is love of self (see above).  The opposite of faith is pride.  Let’s define pride as this, as opposed to what it appears to be.

If this is true, and if humility is the opposite of pride, then humility cannot be self-disgust, for that would be another form of self-obsession.  But if pride is self-obsession, humility must not be self-disgust, but self-forgetfulness through loving the Lord.  How helpful to give definition to pride and humility!

Pride is incredibly ironic – it’s self-deification, but in very ironic ways; trying to make yourself a god outside of God – this is obviously idolatry; but it is also idolatry in another way.  In your proud self-worship you exchange the true self-giving nature of the real God, and propose to yourself and the world a very different nature of god – proud and self serving.  Whereas to be godly is to be humble and self-giving.  In this sense, the religious sins are not the slightly more palatable ones, but the very worst of them – for I am saying I’m the source of eternal life, I don’t receive it from another.

Also, pride is a weak sin.  For all its self-building up, it is very dependent on others.  The proud man is tickled when others like him.  Also, the proud man uses others to fuel his pride.  He seeks to climb up on the failures of others; eg. I’ve been given gifts that others don’t have to serve others, but I use them to batter you down because I pretend they’re inherently mine.

Pride is living a lie, and a lie is a relational thing.  To turn away from Him is to turn into lies.

How does pride relate to anger?  When I get angry I want life to go my way; I have such a high view of myself that I think I have rights.  So I get angry because I am proud.

Righteous anger is the opposite to pride.  When I’m proud, I’m angry when you hurt me.  When I’m humble and concerned about God, I’ll be angry on his behalf.  When I’m wrapped about myself, I’ll defend myself but not Jesus.

What about compliments?  How do I receive compliments and remain humble?  Praise the Lord – it’s his ministry and he’s doing it by  giving gifts to people.  Marcus Honeysett:

Take the compliment but not the credit.

3. Sin = Incurvature

The sinner: man curved in on himself (Luther).  The refusal of relationship with the Lord.  This highlights that sin is solitary.

They hand in hand with wadding steps and slow,

Through Eden took their solitaire way.

– Paradise Lost

Note the curving of the spine in this medieval painting – an atempt to cloak myself.  But theology speaks of our new bodies being transparent – which means there is nothing to hide!

We need to go against this by creating fellowship where there is such a love for each other, than when we see each other’s faults we long for them to be free from that problem – for the sake of the gospel.  Fellowship where we are prepared to confront each other with total love, to help with each other’s sins.

Incurvature fights against this.  I reject your advances, I’m internal and non-relational.  But when we curve in and deny relationship, we lose being, for we are relational.  Two Old Testament Hebrew words help us her:

carvove (glory): used of the true God-weightiness of glory

hebel (lightness, vanity): used for human futility.

We are created for glory but have exchanged it for the very lightness of being.

A critique: Daphne Hampson, a feminist theologian, argues that these are male sins not female sins.  Pride is the winner’s sin – which is not the female experience.  Curvature also is for men – of course men are rubbish at relationships!  It’s cruel to try and impose these definitions on women – to say she is proud, when she struggles with self-hate.

Hampson’s opinion is intriguing – on the surface it makes helpful observations, but it doesn’t dig deep enough to consider definitions of pride etc, as considered above.  3 points to make:

• it’s ironic: all you out there are proud and curved, but we here are different
• self-hatred is inverted pride
• women also struggle with relationships too in different ways!

To conclude: Augustine on sin’s deceitfulness and pointlessness:

‘When, therefore, man lives according to man, not according to God, he is like the devil… Man has undoubtedly the will to be happy, even when he pursues happiness by living in a way which makes it impossible to attain… And hence the falsehood: we commit sin to promote our welfare, and it results instead in our misfortune; or we sin to increase our welfare, and the result is rather to increase our misfortune. What is the reason for this, except that well-being can only come to man from God, not from himself?’

And some wonderful gospel encouragement from Luther:

We teach and comfort an afflicted sinner this way: “Brother, it is impossible for you to become so righteous in this life that your body is as clear and spotless as the sun. You still have spots and wrinkles, and yet you are holy.” But you say: “How can I be holy when I have sin and am aware of it?” “That you feel and acknowledge sin—this is good. Thank God, and do not despair. It is one step toward health when a sick man admits and confesses his disease.” “But how will I be liberated from sin?” “Run to Christ, the Physician, who heals the contrite of heart and saves sinners. Believe in Him. If you believe, you are righteous. And the sin that still remains in you is not imputed but is forgiven for the sake of Christ, in whom you believe and who is perfectly righteous. His righteousness is yours; your sin is His.”

Unbelief, pride and incurvature are all undone by faith in Christ.  Praise Him!

Taught by Susie Leafe at UCCF South West Team Days, May 2009.

A very helpful book on this subject: ‘OT Ethics for the people of God’ by Christopher Wright.

Most of us have a bible that is dirty and well leafed in the New Testament; the Psalms are quite dirty, and maybe the beginning of Genesis.  But not the bits we try to avoid, like Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.  Yet that’s where our mates often go first in grilling a Christian!
How are we meant to understand the Old Testament law?  How does it relate to the New Testament and the overall biblical gospel of grace?
Problems start when we zoom in on the little verses and forgo the bigger picture.  See Leviticus 19:19ff – how do you deal with that?
One approach is to consider the different types of law.  The classic division of the law is between the Ceremonial (relating to sacrifices and the temple), the Civil (relating to the Israelite state), and the Moral (the only bit left).  The problem with this division is that nowhere in the Bible suggests this approach!  Yet when we look at the law, we see there are different types – but we need to let the bible explain what those types are, rather than imposing them on the bible.
Two different ways of looking at the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament:
(1) They are the old and new covenants, and a completely different world.  This is called dispensationalism.  The blank page in the middle of the Bible, separating Old Testament from New, is very important.
(2) Rip the middle page out – the bible is the same all the way.  This is called theonism, when taken to an extreme.  There is no change.  An extreme theonist might say that all the sexually immoral should be killed, because it says so in the Old Testament; it’s all one book and although we’re saved by grace, we should still consider the Old Testament law for our lives.  Some cults would embrace and exemplify a type of this.

The reality may be that we probably have bits of both in our understanding.  Many people are happily both, for example on their stance on the Sabbath.

How should we approach it?  Christopher Wright argues that as Christians, we tend to approach the Law totally differently to the rest of the bible; but we need to remember, it was given to a people, and that Jews in referring to the Law mean the first 5 books – it is not separate to the exodus etc.  So: 1. We need to get our heads into the context of when the Law was given.
When was it given?  The big chunk of it was given at Mount Sinai – after the exodus, and before entering the promised land.
In Deuteronomy 4:1-8, Moses reflecting back on what happened, as they are waiting to go into promised land.  They know about God: he has rescued them from slavery.  The Law wasn’t given in order to be rescued – they already had been.  They received the law as saved people.  So what is the purpose of the law, if not to save us?

• Verses 6-8: to show the righteousness of God to the other nations.  The same reason we’re to live righteously.
• Also v1-2: the Law given so that they may live.  Compare with Jesus’ words: “I come to give you life and life in all its fulness.”  It was given for the goodness of life.

So then, why does it say not to get any tattoos?  Can you see any link or answer yet?  I can’t see one!  So we need to do more work.
God never expected his people to earn their way.  When God gives them the law, they say ‘we’ll keep this’, and straight away God says, ‘sprinkle them with blood.  If they’re going to try and keep it, they need a sacrifice.’ (See Exodus 20 ish)
Also consider the tabernacle: the law was kept in a safe place beyond the place of sacrifice.  There is always a sacrifice between the people and the law.  They were never meant ever to try and earn their way to God.  It’s given in a place of grace, to live life to its fulness, to show people what god is like.
2. Israel was to set up a new community.  Within this context, it is worth considering the different types of laws included:
(i) Some laws are state laws, ie criminal laws.  Criminal laws are there because we say it is bad to do X so we will punish those who do so.  Homosexuality used to be criminal, ie considered bad for the country – so people were punished for it.  Within the last 60 years people say it is not harmful in any way – so it’s been decriminalised.  For us as evangelicals: we think extra-marital sexual activity may be harmful, but neither do we want to say it should be criminalised.  We are caught between two extremes.  But in the Old Testament, Israel are the church community and the state community.  There is a big question over how much church and state should be connected etc, but we shouldn’t necessarily expect our government to go for Old Testament laws.
(ii) There are some health and safety laws – compassionate laws.  It’s not criminal to work your donkey on the Sabbath, but it is compassionate.
(iii) There is plenty ceremonial law – sacrificial stuff, regulations for celebrations and festivals (sabbath, passover etc) and the clean/unclean laws on physical cleanliness, food cleanliness, and temple cleanliness. Why was important for people to be clean?  So that the rest of the world says, we want to be like that, can we join you.  The priestly group were the holiest, who had to be the cleanest.  Then the community people had to be quite clean; and then there were people outside.  Different boundaries.  Note in this context the parable of the Good Samaritan: it’s not just that the Levite and the priest were being snobs, but there was a theological battle going on; if they touched the man, they would make themselves unclean and unfit for serving their people.  The question of the parable is not a morality issue but a cleanliness issue – what does it mean to be unclean?  Jesus is continuing those issues of clean/unclean, but he starts to make the point about the spiritual cleanliness.  It has been seen physically, now spiritually.  Barriers are no longer needed – no high priest needed, no sacrifice.  But reading about them helps us understand how clean we should be compared to the world out there.  Our lives make a difference to the way people see us.
(iv) There are also various random laws: eg tattoos.  Why are tattoos bad?  Don’t do the things the people around you do in their worship.  A wisdom issue.  What does a tattoo say about you?  Does it say anything?  Not really.  Previously in our culture, it said, “I’m hard, rebellious and want to be different.”  At that point, you’re more clearly aligning yourself.  What about bindies for Christians?  On the one hand, Christians shouldn’t have them because we’re identifying ourselves with Hindus.  Yet depends on the culture you’re in – what if you live in a Hindu culture and want to reach across cultural barriers?  Not so black and white…
This is the way we approach the law.  What was its purpose initially?  Its purpose is the thing we should consider.  These laws make us think about every area of our lives from God’s perspective – great!
(v) There are also family laws.  These are difficult – the context of Israel was of 12 tribes with family heads, who had huge control over their families, with several generations living together.  Chris Wright – maybe we should be thinking how we relate as church and biological families in taking responsibility for each other.

So, a helpful approach to consider the Old Testament law is (1) consider the wider context; (2) consider what type of law it is; (3) consider what the purpose of the law was then and how that relates to today.

Taught by Philip de Grey Warter at UCCF South West Team Days, May 2009

Life can at times seem like a series of inescapable disasters.
Up to this point, it’s been preparation, and now we get to the action.  “Let my people go!”, says Moses.  Pharaoh’s response: “who is the Lord?”  Fair enough – if I walk up to you and say, ‘You must give Kenny ten quid’ – who’s Kenny that you should give him ten quid?!
This question of Pharaoh is a question that continues over the next ten chapters, in a tussle between the Lord and Pharaoh – “Let my people go”/”No I won’t”.   But it starts off badly for the people.  They are told to forget about it and get back to work, so that they’ll have no time to listen to Moses (5v9).  So, v10, the new orders are given, and much pressure (v13-14).  So in this chapter the slavery intensifies – it gets even worse.  They’re beaten for not meeting their impossible quotas, and are accused of being lazy.  Verse 19 is an understatement – they were in trouble.  At the end of chapter 4 the people were delighted to see Aaron & Moses but now they call on God to judge them.  So Aaron & Moses go back to God in v22; “Thanks a lot God – all we’ve got is more trouble and no sign of rescue.”
What are we to make of this chapter?  Why does God do things in this way?  3 things to learn here:

1. There is no such thing as spiritual Switzerland.
There is no neutral zone when it comes to God – you’re either for, or against.  This is hinted at; there’s a similarity between words of Moses & Aaron in v1 and the taskmasters v10 – they are they mouthpieces of God and Pharaoh respectively.  The narrator lines up God and Pharaoh to answer this question: who is the Lord?  Maybe it’s the God of Israel, but he doesn’t seem like much – his people are slaves and his spokespersons are in their 80s.  Maybe it’s Pharaoh – representing all the might of Egypt (each plague tackles a particular god of Egypt).  Neither side pulls its punches.
Absolute power always by definition sets itself up against God, and that’s why Christians always end up being persecuted.
But fighting God leads to disaster.

2. Don’t play fast and loose with God’s word.
Moses and Aaron should have expected it not to be easy – they were warned in chapter 4.  The root of failure in the Christian life is the failure to hear all of God’s word and act accordingly.  Moses is told what to do in chapter 3 but gets it wrong:
- he brings the wrong delegation: 3:18 they were meant to bring the elders but didn’t.
- he was told to explain that he had met with God, but he goes straight in with the direct challenge.
- he goes on to threaten plagues and slaughter – adding to what God had told him to say.
These points put Pharaoh’s back up.  When we subtract from God’s word or add to it, we are dooming ourselves to reap failure and disappointment.

3. Realise that we are utterly helpless.
This chapter sets up 6:1.  Now the Israelites are going to see how great God is.  They need to see how helpless they are before they can be rescued, so that they know it is only by God and by his grace that they can get out.
We are lost, dead, blind, enslaved.  Ephesians 2: we are dead, disobedient, doomed.  There is no way out.  Dead people can’t do anything to help themselves.  Our slavemaster was sin, and he wasn’t letting us go anywhere, and we were only released by God’s mighty hand being stronger.
It is only the Lord who saves us from slavery; not us and him – just him.
Sometimes in life we recognise that we can do nothing and we are utterly dependant on the help of another.  That’s partly why we are so grateful to medics.  It should also be the same with our eternal salvation and the God who gave it to us.
If this is true, there are two attitudes that will show if we’ve really grasped this:
(i) Thankfulness.
Scottish minister Alex White always found something in his prayers to be grateful for.  One day the weather was so gloomy that his congregation thought this would surely be the one time he wouldn’t be; but he stood up and prayed,

“Thank you Lord that it’s not always like this!”

Gratitude is the distinctive quality of Christians.  But gratitude to whom?  The non-Christian can’t be truly thankful because they haven’t got anyone to be thankful to.  But we know that what we enjoy is totally a result of God’s grace.  And thankfulness is immensely attractive.  If we’re thankful, then we can’t be backbiters or gossips, or stingy or complaining or perpetually bitter.  It’s very compelling and attractive.  It can be learned – we are told to be thankful and rejoice – we can do it, and as we do a habit will form.  This is the difference between a ‘rights’ mentality and understanding we are not owed anything.
(ii) Humility.

When we are utterly helpless there is no room for pride or posturing.  The lifeboatmen in Fowey say that being rescued is humbling for people.  To say “I can’t do anything, I need your help” is humbling – even excellent sailors, if they need to call, will do it, and it is humbling to ask for help.  Humble people are far more attractive than the proud.

“God created the world out of nothing, and as long as we’re nothing, he can make something out of us.”

- Martin Luther

What is biblical humility?

“Don’t think less of yourself, think of yourself less.”

“When you walk in the room, is it me in the room, or other people in the room?”

We are utterly helpless, and we are utterly reliant on God.
In the first 8 verses of chapter 6, the most common word is “I”.  It’s all focused on God – the only thing the Israelites do is to know!
One problem with this passage: in v3 it says he didn’t make himself known – but it seems that he did (see previously, referring to Genesis 4:26).  Maybe Moses wrote it back in; or more likely, he appeared as himself but didn’t reveal himself as ‘who he is by what he does’, as he does here.
The rest of chapter 6 is about showing how Moses & Aaron are ordinary blokes.  One of the purposes of this chapter is to show the power of Pharaoh contrasted with the weakness of the means of God’s deliverance – Moses & Aaron.  Pharaoh is massively powerful; but Moses & Aaron are not.  The conflict is brought up again, yet Moses & Aaron are utterly brought low through rejection by the people – so that the hero will be neither Moses nor Aaron but God himself.

Taught by Philip de Grey Warter at UCCF South West Team Days, May 2009

The film ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ asks the question: what might happen if global warming continues?  It pictures worldwide catastrophe, flooding and the beginning of the next ice age.  The human relationship in the story is a father-son one, with the (not so) immortal line:

“Whatever happens stay put, because your father is coming to rescue you.”

Same here.  Yet Moses, known throughout his Scripture for his faith, is anything but a man of faith here.  At a recent conference, Mark Ashton looking back on his ministry felt he had been “inadequate in his task” – remarkable considering his ability!  Yet in a sense, that is the normal Christian life.

Picture a graph – with time along the bottom axis, and along the side, some measure of godliness or the Christian life.  On the graph are two lines.  One is your head knowledge of the Christian life, what you know it ought to be like.  This one is a steady trajectory.
The other = living it out.  It ought to have an upward trajectory, though a bit wobbly!
But there’s a gap. The gap between your knowledge line and your living line, and it grows as they go up.  The gap is an increasing sense of guilt, and inadequacy – what the Accuser uses to sling at us.  That feeling of inadequacy is the normal Christian life.  It is expressed in Romans 7:

“For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.  For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do – this I keep on doing.”

If this is the normal Christian life, Exodus 4 is a great encouragement – God is using a tentative, uncertain man with flaws, doubts and weakness – an ordinary guy used to do extraordinary things.  The chapter is a picture of Moses’ faithlessness: his reluctance, then his disobedience.

1. His faithless reluctance
He is reluctant – willing to use any excuse to get out of going to Egypt.  Moses is the kid at school who you go to, to think up an excuse when you haven’t done your homework.  He is the master of excuses.  But here he has met his match.  God bats away every excuse Moses throws at him and gets a six every time.
First excuse: Inadequacy.  3v11 who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?
Second: Inability.  What shall I say to him? God reveals what he’s like.
Third: Ineffectiveness.  4v1: they won’t believe me.  God equips him with three signs.  Each is a glimpse of God’s awesome power over the kings of Egypt.  Pharaohs wore a crown with a snake’s head up, but the Lord rules it over them.  Leprosy was prevalent in Egypt; but was also subject to the Lord.  The Nile was the source of Egypt’s famed fertility, and therefore power and wealth; to destroy the Nile is to destroy Egypt, and even that God can do.  Yet you can imagine Moses still trying to work out the next excuse.
Fourth: I’m not good up front or at public speaking.  But who made his mouth?!  You can imagine even Moses realising that’s a weak one.
Fifth: he admits his reluctance.

We’d be astonished at Moses, if only we weren’t tempted to make up the same excuses for ourselves.  He had a unique role which we don’t have, but together as a church we’ve been given the corporate responsibility of telling people God’s rescue plan from sin for all people over all time.  They need to hear about it, but if I’m honest I’m reluctant to tell people about it.  That’s terrible, but it’s the reality, and like Moses I’ve made up excuses and even used some of his.  They’re not going to listen.  I don’t know what to say.  Let someone else do it.

Why are we reluctant to tell people?  Often because we’re faithless.  We don’t really believe God’s in control.  We don’t really believe he knows us better than we know ourselves – he’s in a better decision to judge how we should use our gifts.  And that he knows our weaknesses and makes provision for them.
There is some real help here in the signs God gave to Moses – they speak to Egypt, but also to Moses.

• The snake: here is a man who has previously fled from difficulty.  He’s told to take the serpent by the tail: the wrong end.  Possibly the bravest thing he’s ever done.  He’s got to forgo his fear and take a risk, but discovers that obedience is the path of victory.  God can take the deadly and make it obedient to trust in deliverance.
• The hand: Moses has to deal with things in himself – it’s his hand that becomes leprous.  Leprosy sums up Moses’ opinion of himself.  He has a low opinion of himself, and God makes him go lower. As he does he discovers great uncleanness within himself; but God can restore it.
• The water: Moses here is being told he can overmaster Egypt his enemy, by obedience.

It works – in the end he goes obediently.

2. His faithless disobedience.
There is a bizarre section in this chapter about God meeting Moses on his way and about to kill him… In one sense it reminds us that God could use anyone, and if Moses is disobedient God could quite easily find someone else to do it.  But it’s about keeping the deal; God has kept his part of the deal, and Moses hasn’t circumcised his firstborn son.  Why might that be?  It could be because Moses is in Midian; maybe he wants to blend in so doesn’t want to stand up and be counted as God’s man still.  Zipporah does the job and touches his feet etc: almost as if she’s saying I was about to lose you but this blood makes us married all over again (?).  But it does seem to be an issue of obedience.
It’s easy for us to want to blend in and not to live as we ought.  Not to be the city on the hill, the salt and light.

Taught by Philip de Grey Warter at UCCF South West Team Days, May 2009

Joanna Lumley grew up near the equator so had never seen the Northern Lights, but saw it in a picture book as a child.  A TV programme followed her through Norway to Svalbard to try and see the Northern Lights.  One of the true natural wonders of the world , when solar wind hits the magnetic field – it’s something of that awe we need to imagine when we consider the burning bush.  It caught Moses’ eye – intriguing and captivating.
Some intriguing puzzles in 3v12.  “This” may be referring to burning bush rather than the worship – if so, God’s telling Moses not to worry, but rather, this bush is a sign of God’s great power, a guarantee therefore that what he says will happen will happen.  But it’s not the spectacle that’s the captivating point – not the attention grabbing spectacle, but the attention grabbing words.  See v6, v15, 16.  God introduces himself as a God of his people.  Here is a God who has made and who keeps promises.  It’s because of that promise that God is now acting to rescue his people.  So where politicians make promises and break them, God makes promises and keeps them.

1. A God who is with his people.
v8, v9, v16.  I know their sufferings = doesn’t just mean he knows about their sufferings; he somehow enters into the suffering of his people.  He empathises.  He doesn’t just look from the outside but steps in.
There was a faithful and long-serving gardener at Balmoral who, in his late years of service, caught pneumonia and died.  Queen Victoria grieved her loss and arranged for his pension.  Then a terrible winter came; and the family of the man were in great suffering; but then came a knock at the door of the widow.  Outside was a fine carriage, and a messenger on the doorstep carried a hamper, with enough food for weeks;  and the queen sat smiling in the carriage.  The messenger passed on some words of sympathy, and the carriage moved on to the next house.  “She came herself,” muttered the widow.  v8 “I have come down”.
To know, to remember = covenant.  See John’s prologue in the New Testament: “The true light was coming into the world.”  God has come down in the person of Jesus Christ, to rescue as he did in the Exodus.

2. The God with a name.
What do you call a man with a spade on his head?  Doug.
What do you call a Frenchman wearing sandals?  Philippe Philoppe!
Names have meanings!  Names in the bible are always more than just names.  They describe someone’s character – what they’re like, or what they do (their job).  Used to be the case here in the UK: someone who made bread = Baker.  Same with God – in the bible his name describes who he is and what he does. Eg The Almighty; the Shepherd of Israel.  Here v13-14: “I am who I am”.  One of the most enigmatic verses in the Old Testament, with much debate about its meaning.  Convention in English translations: when LORD is in small capitals, the Hebrew is YHWH (Hebrew has no vowels).
The verses imply that he wasn’t known as YHWH before these events, though there are references to it (eg Genesis 4:26).  So here in Exodus God maybe not giving it for the first time, but it’s here it’s given real meaning and significance.
But what does it mean?  God is saying that his nature is going to be shown by how he acts.  Who he is will be made clear by what he does.  I will be what I will be.  Not a new thing here – he has acted already.  This becomes clearer from the context:
(i) Throughout, Moses is very reluctant to be God’s agent.
First objection: “who am I that I should do this?”
Answer: “I will be with you.”  Same word:  “I will be.  With you.”  God is promising to be present.
So the meaning of his name, YHWH: not just that he is, but that he is the  one that is present, and shows himself to be present.  So when you’re having a tough time, what’s going to make the difference?  That God is (somewhere, in heaven), or that God is with you (on earth)?
(ii) There is also a future sense: “I will be whatever its necessary for me to be.”  They’ll need a guide, they’ll need a God who can perform miracles, they’ll need a God who can provide laws to govern them.  We know this; not only do we know that God came down, but we’re also given the Spirit.  Matthew 28: “I am with you always.”

Taught by Philip de Grey Warter at UCCF South West Team Days, May 2009

The Italian Job conundrum has been solved!  It ends with a cliffhanger.  The Royal Society of Chemistry ran a competition – what’s the most plausible idea to the cliffhanger ending? – and somebody came up with an answer.  But arguably the cliffhanger ending was better – not just for the theatre but for its reality – the big plan was left hanging in the balance.  All human ideas inevitably do.
The only perfect plan in history was given in Genesis.  In Genesis 12 we read of God’s enormous promises to Abraham that drive the rest of Scripture: promises of people, place, and blessing.  Yet when we begin Exodus, it’s a bit like the end of The Italian Job.  The plan has worked so far, but then we drive round the corner and Pharaoh is standing in middle of road; the plan swerves and is left hanging in balance – or is it?
In these opening two chapters of Exodus we learn something about God’s fulfillment of his promises through this period in Israel’s history.

1. Partial fulfillment 1v1-7
The plan is way short of completion, but there has been a great deal of fulfillment already.  See v1 the names of the sons of Israel listed.  It wouldn’t have existed as a family if it wasn’t for God’s plan – Sarah was barren, her and Abraham were both past childbearing age; also Jacob’s family shouldn’t have survived the great famine.  Hebrew version starts Exodus with “and” – ie following straight on from Genesis.
It’s great to see God’s plan at work!  Both in Scripture, and in experience.  Like seeing someone come to faith after praying for them and speaking to them about Jesus.

“It’s good to know that God is gracious, but it’s especially good when you can see it.”

Partial fulfillment has great encouragement, but yet it has its pitfalls – it can leave us putting faith in the wrong place.  What happens when it gets tough?  Our confidence must rest not in how obviously to me God is keeping his promises, but on the faithfulness of the promiser.  Not the fact that he is, but that he says he will.  Here in Exodus 1, we’ve not yet arrived – we’re only in Egypt.  Christian fellowship is a foretaste of heaven, but we’re not there yet.

2. Painful fulfillment 1v8-22
Verse 8 is an ominous turning point, when we meet Pharaoh.  There is very real and very painful opposition: general hardship in v11 (‘afflict’ = bring low, beat down); specific persecution in v13 – lives made bitter with hard service.  Scripture sometimes skates over the bits we’d like to be interested in.  Take the crucifixion -  Mel Gibson makes a lot of the blood and guts of crucifixion but the gospel writers skate over it, simply stating, “There they crucified him.”  Here we can imagine the many private griefs, but we’re not told about them.  And there’s more: v16 attempted genocide, then ordered genocide; v22 the whole nation is involved.
Pharaoh here isn’t just a rival to God, but seems to have the upper hand.  But has God been thwarted?  To answer this, there are surprising clues in the passage: v10 the fear, v12 the blessing continues (note repetition of word);  v17 God has his people placed – and named to be remembered for their heroic faith. Carefully and thoughtfully the narrator traces a hand behind the action.

“God’s hand is at work from beginning to end; he works out his own plan by his own schemes in his own way by his own timeplan – and though the days are dark, it will work out and all will be well.”

- Alex Motyer, BST Commentary

We also get warnings that this was going to happen, earlier in the story. Jacob was told about this (Gen 46: 1ff) – Egypt was not a mistake, but God had led them there, he’d be with them there, and he’d lead them out of there.  That doesn’t make it easy when they’re there, but it does make it right.  When things get tough it’s easy to ask, ‘is this really where God wants me to be?  Maybe this is plan B and I’m outside of God’s will’.  The bible never talks like that.  You are here today because he wants you to be.
Not just Jacob – Abraham before him was also told about it (Gen 15:13ff).
And in the New Testament we are told how to understand this:

“Through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope”

– Rom 13:4.

Are these tough times too much to go through?  Exodus is for us, that we’ll keep going, that we’ll have hope, that we’ll know the plan’s not in the balance.  However dark the days, however sorrowful our paths, God is still in charge.  He’s with us and working out our plan.

Days of darkness still come o’er me,
Sorrow’s paths I often tread;
But the Saviour still is with me;
By His hand I’m safely led.

- ‘I Will Sing The Wondrous Story’ by Francis H. Rowley

One of the problems of discouragement is that it gives us tunnel vision.  When things get tough we focus only on the problem and the hardship.  Nothing leads to discouragement more than false expectation; Exodus says God is committed to our good but not to our comfort.
But why this particular darkness – slavery and oppression?  Why does God deliberately engineer things so that his people know exactly what it’s like to be under the power of a ruthless ruler who seeks to exploit and destroy them?  He does it to show that He is above all a rescuer and a redeemer.  From a New Testament perspective, we know the supreme slavery is to sin; we know that the cost of that rescue is the death of Jesus; we know the only ultimate alternatives in life are either to serve sin – which will exploit and destroy us – or to serve Jesus, whose service is perfect freedom (Romans 6: we are either a slave to sin or to Christ).  Exodus is a gigantic visual aid of this (more in chapter 5).

3. Personal fulfillment (2:1ff)
God’s plan is fulfilled through the use of individuals.  He involves people – the midwives, Moses’ mother and daughter, and Moses himself.
Chapter 2 has an odd beginning – lots of people mentioned, but nobody named until Moses, and even that at the very end.  This is possibly because he’s just an example in point.  Many little boys were born and surviving; the hero of Exodus is none of them, but God – although his plan does involve people who have a prior allegiance and take incredible risks.  Ephesians 1:10 explains that God’s plan ultimately is Jesus; yet it includes us, in personal fulfillment one at a time as we align ourselves with his purposes.  For the midwives, this meant guts.  For Moses’ mother, it meant sacrifice.  For Miriam, it meant taking the initiative with real boldness.  For Pharaoh’s daughter, it meant compassion with a big heart.  For us, taking part in God’s purposes may involve one or more of these: guts, sacrifice, boldness, compassion.
Verse 11 onwards sets up many of the later themes of the books., like an overture of an opera where you get snatches of the tunes to come:

• Moses was saved through water, next to the reeds; the people were saved through water, through the Reed Sea;
• Pharaoh’s daughter paid Moses’ mother to look after Moses; the Egyptians gave gifts to people as they left the land;
• The rescuer was not readily welcomed; later the people shun Moses and grumble.

But the main theme is clear.  These are stories of people in need of rescue, and attempting to rescue others.  Both these key themes come to a head in v23-25.  How much more will God rescue his people!  Pharaoh’s daughter hears the cries; how much more will God hear the people’s cries and come to help!  Moses can see the trouble and have mercy; how much more will God, whose nature is to have mercy!  The Priest of Midian takes compassion and offers shelter; how much more will God take compassion and offer shelter!  God did hear their groaning and remember his covenant, and was concerned – and when these happen, we can expect to see some action.

Taught by Lindsay Brown at UCCF South Team Days, March 2009.

11 areas worthy of consideration as we think of global mission:

1. The growth of the church.
There is no parallel with the last 20 years, apart from the early church.  In 1989 there were 100 IFES movements, with 270,000 students; now there are over 150 movements, with half a million students involved.  Key factors:

• The break up of communism and opening up of countries.  The number of baptist churches in Russia has quadrupled.  Nepal 1954 The first church in Nepal started in 1954; by 1989 the number of churches had risen to 1000 with 800,000 believers!  Key factors in this have been imprisoning of pastors, rise of charismatic movement.  It’s God’s time for Nepal!  It’s the same in Algeria and Mauritania; in Tunisia there were 25 believers in 2000, and around 4-500 today.  An official government statement 3 months ago put the number of believers in China at 120 million; there are probably 80 million evangelicals in that country alone.
• Increasing number of non-western missionaries.
• Pockets of sensational growth which were previously very closed; but at the same time increasing restrictions.
• Emergence of hostile new atheism.  9/11 was a wake up call; religion wasn’t just wrong, it was evil.

2. Unreached people groups are still critical.
At the 1974 Lausanne Conference a helpful distinction was made:  “ethni” = distinct people groups rather than a nation state.  There are 12,000 such groups in the world; 639 do not have scriptures, radio, churches, believers, or missionaries.  So there is a church in every nation state, but not in every ethnic group.

We preserve too much and pioneer too little

- Anon

3. The provision of Scripture.
Wycliffe’s 2025 focus is to have a bible in every major language.  There are 8000 language groups; 400 have a bible, 1500 a New Testament, and 3000 not a single verse of Scripture.  Many have access to a second language but there are still large numbers who need it in their first language.
4. Oral learners

2 billion in the world.  In the USA 58% who left high school at 18 had not read a book in 20 years; 42% the same in the UK.

5. Pluralism

The notion that there are many routes to the truth, and no one is superior.  John Stott was once asked, “What concerns you most about the church today?”  His answer: 2 things: (i) pluralism – not a unique gospel – this permeates all around the media; (ii) the persecution of the church, which is growing around the world.
6. Issues relating to poverty, injustice, AIDS, & the importance of ministries of compassion.
We cannot separate evangelism from the compassion Jesus showed.  We must do both.  Rodney Stark evaluated the growth of early church before Constantine and asked how rapidly it grew and by what means (not a theological approach but a sociological one).  It did so in staccato fashion; after the New Testament is was not rapid before 150AD.  There were two plagues, and in some provinces one third of the population was wiped out.  And yet:

“Christians showed more compassion than the pagans, even to the point of losing their own lives.”

- Julian

These plagues were in 150 AD and 250AD – and people were attracted to the gospel.

“Ministries of compassion should not be denigrated.”

- Michael Green, ‘Evangelism in the Early Church”

7. The growing impact of the diaspora – migration – to the growth of the global church.
Similar to Antioch, in Acts 10 &12.
People are moving across boundaries, in the EU, and former colonies; in some countries it’s led to the rapid growth of the church.  The 10 largest churches in UK are lead by immigrants.  So can we partner better with people from other coutnries so that their gifts are released into the UK?  We’re not very good at it, as it usually leads to enthic churches.  Yet we have more in common with international Christians than we do with English pagans!
8. Mega cities.

LSE’s research has dubbed it “The Endless City”.  Today 50% of the human population live in cities; by 2050 it will be 75%.  The future of the city is the only subject in town.

9. Technology

How can we use it creatively to reach people?  In North Africa the ministry of SAT7 broadcasts programmes by satellite, resulting in Christian stories getting into Muslim homes!  We need more Christians in the media.

10. The need of partnerships

What is the one big challenge facing the church of Christ around the world?  Splintering – not working together.  So many Christian agencies are doing the same thing separately.  We should seek to connect rather than criticise.

11. Issues in the field of bioethics.
What does it mean to be human?  It’ll hit you like a runaway train in the next 20 years.  Be very wary of simplistic answers, you will end up defending the indefensible (like the Pope has).

Taught by Lindsay Brown at UCCF South Team Days, March 09.

Why Bother With Mission?
Some say, “it’s not for me”.  Michael Griffiths in his book ‘Cinderella With Amnesia’ says that engagement with global mission is the Cinderella of the Christian culture – it’s been forgotten about.  Why should I be bothered?

Firstly let’s give a definition of mission:

Mission = the proclamation and demonstration of the truth, wonder, and power of the gospel by word and deed.

So mission involves:

• proclamation and demonstration.

Like the two wings of a bird, like the two legs of scissors, are justice and justification.

- John Stott

• the truth of the gospel, ie the defensibility of it.  There is exhaustive/sufficient knowledge for salvation

• the wonder of the gospel: what keeps people going for 30 years is not just that the gospel is true, but that it is wonderful.  It is a subjective experience as well as cerebral.

Secondly, let’s tackle 3 common reasons, among students, not to engage with cross cultural mission.

1. It’s only for those who feel called, or are keen.  It’s not for me

A biblical argument answers this.  Here are 5 biblical responses (from John Stott) which conclude: the God of the bible is a missionary God.

(i) The God of the Old Testament is a missionary God
Psalm 96: after singing praises, the psalmist says, tell his salvation, and declare his glory among the nations.  In other words, reverential worship leads inevitably on to mission.  There is an indissoluble link between worship and mission.  If worship involves singing, it is not fully orbed worship if it does not lead/is not connected to mission to the nations.
A statement like “I’m into worship, not into mission” it is half-biblical, half-baked, self-absorbed.  Worship leads to sending.
Acts 10 & 12: this God is not just of the Jews but of the nations.  Note Naaman, Ninevites, Rahab etc – glimpses of God reaching out to the nations.

(ii) The Christ of the Gospels is a missionary God
He is seen reaching Gentiles with the gospel, eg in the Decapolis (Gentile region) and to the woman of Samaria.  Matthew 9:38 – the sending out phrase is the same word in common Greek for throwing out rubbish; ie pray God will move them because otherwise they won’t move.

(iii) The Holy Spirit of Acts is a missionary God
Acts 2: the gift of tongues was given in that context, very clearly, not for the purpose of worship but for the purpose of mission.  The gift of foreign languages for the purpose of cross cultural mission.  The whole book is people being sent out – sometimes reluctantly – for mission.

(iv) The New Testament Letters were written to mission-planted churches
Two thirds of the New Testament would disappear if you removed what is written to missionary planted churches or relating to mission.

(v) The last book of bible looks forward to the final day, and talks of every kind of person worshipping God together.
This can’t happen unless we take the gospel to them!  639 people groups still exist today who never in history have had a bible verse, Jesus film, tract, gospel outline or even a missionary in their own language.

Not for you?  But the God of the bible is a missionary God.  So which God are you worshipping?  He is too small or not the God of the bible.  If you want to worship the God of the bible you must be concerned with what is on his heart.

2. The state of the church is so poor in Britain.

An historical argument answers this.
Consider the current global scene.  80 million evangelical Christians in China, but only 1 million in the UK.  China, Nigeria, India, Brazil, and USA are the top 5 evangelical Christian countries; in the UK, liberal numbers are dropping like a stone, and evangelicals are growing slowly, but they are still small.  We can be so consumed with this that we can think, “we’d best keep the best here rather than sending them to serve in other contexts”.
What can we learn from history in response to this?
When a national church looks inwards and neglects its responsibility to take the gospel outwards, it dies.  And it usually ends up fighting over secondary issues.
(Keep your disagreements in perspective!)
Two periods in church history show this:
(i) The early church in North Africa.  In 50-150AD the church was small, and in the 2nd Century saw spectacular growth, through 2 major growth spurts.  Who were the great leaders in the church in the last 500 years of that period?  Not one Anglo-Saxon.  Many were North Africans: Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine (Algeria claim him), Athanasius.  We are indebted to them.  But then in 350-500/550 AD something went wrong.  If you get into the habit of defending your position over 40/50 years it can lead you to fighting all the time, about everything, with a growing hardness of spirit.  Fighting about secondary issues led to dryness, hardness, and lobbying for position.  Then Mohammad came to North Africa and the church was completely lost and swept away – and has never recovered.

An inward looking church is like an in-growing toenail.

(ii) Calvin and the European Reformation.  Some say they were interested in truth but not mission; this is not true!  Read their writings – there is a passion for mission there.  In Wittenberg there are stained glass windows of Reformers influenced by Calvin and Luther – and they are from all over the world.  Captivated by the truth of the gospel, they took it all across Europe.  The success of the Reformation was due not just to re-finding the gospel, but taking it out.    In 1558 John Knox prayed,

Please give me Scotland or I’ll die!

You’re asking us to go to the ends of the earth, when we can hardly keep the doors open.  If you don’t go, the doors will almost certainly close.

- Oswald Smith, The Challenge of Mission (a dynamic book)

3. The need is less.  The church is growing spectacularly so let’s take a step back.

An argument from need answers this.  The needs are still great.
Yes, the church has grown, and yes, there is plenty of mission; but of the 8000 language groups in the world, only 300 have a whole bible.  6000 don’t even have one verse.  And the vast majority are oral learners – 60% of world don’t read.  There 12000 people groups, 3000 without the gospel.  There is also the added dynamic of mega-cities and increasing urbanisation in the world.

In the 1950s when UCCF first got going one of our prayers was that through the student ministry God would raise up one good bible teacher in every university city in the country.  In 1980 by and large God has answered our prayer.

- Oliver Barclay.

An example of this is Bangor, North Wales: the first evangelical church was started by people doing doctorates who stayed on.

Thirdly, let’s consider where to go from here.

1. How should we encourage students to be involved in world mission?

(i) They should be informed:

• ‘Operation World’ is very helpful.
• Get small groups to pray for different countries.
• Read about the super missionaries – they weren’t perfect, so they are encouraging!  CT Studd is an example in point – no-one could last with him for more than a year, he was a nightmare to work with!  Saw his wife 3 weeks in 18 years.  Most of the people who accomplish things in life are difficult to work with.  We want strong-willed, truth-orientated staff.  The downside is that they can be difficult!   But live with it.  “Most quality people have a fiesty dimension to them”
• Have one missionary biography a term.
• Arrange missionary tours – make a list of the 6 best missionary speakers you know and get them speaking at your CUs.  There are not that many who are very good.  Look around for young people who have served overseas.

(ii) They should be involved:

• Through short term mission.  Sometimes it seems like a holiday brochure but it can have enormous effect long term.
• Through giving sacrificially.  But don’t then duck the responsibility of giving through local churches
• Through starting a prayer group for international mission.
• Through adopting missionaries
• Through international student mission

2. How can we stimulate a concern for cross-cultural mission in our CU’s?

Should we only send people who can train, so that people groups can be trained to reach their own people groups?
No.  We should send as many people as possible, in as many ways as possible, to reach as many people as possible.  Use strategies, but hold on to them lightly.

Part 2 of 2.  Taught by Ann Brown, at UCCF South Team Days March 09.

In the Acts 17 account of Mars Hill, Paul gives us a brilliant example of how to engage with the surrounding culture:
- He was greatly distressed by it
- He studied their culture and uses a cultural cue v23 (possibly a classical sculpture) to begin his address
- He reinforces his argument by quoting from the Stoic philosopher Aratus, v28
- He demonstrates the inadequacy of the Athenians’ polytheistic worldview – focuses on the point of tension and highlights their inconsistency.

This is what Francis Schaeffer called “taking the roof off someone’s argument”.  Every non-Christian protects themselves from the reality of life and the gospel by building a roof over themselves.  It is helpful to very gently prise the roof off, by finding the inconsistencies.  Visual art & apologetics are a brilliant bridge builder in this.

4 different ways to use visual art as such a bridge builder:

1. As a starting point for dialogue.

To connect, find common ground, focal point for discussion; it helps us understand where people are coming from and the questions going on in their heads.  Creates an opportunity for an apologetic argument, and for asking questions.  Note:

“this doesn’t mean that we use the arts as nice colourful wrapping to attract people’s attention.”

- Jeremy Begby

We have to treat the art with real integrity.  There is no point in doing it if you haven’t got a genuine interest, or a desire to cultivate an interest.

Paul Gauguin,  D’ou venons-nous?  Que sommes-nous?  Ou allons-nous? (Where do we come from?  What are we?  Where are we going?)  1897-1898

Like a fresco (a wall painting/freeze fairly flat without depth, painted in churches in the medieval period, but also usually of a certain shape), this piece should be read from right to left.  Starts with birth, through maturity, to the old lady dying at the end.  They are pondering the questions of human existence.  The woman on the far left is near death and accepts her fate with resignation.  At the time, Gauguin’s favourite daughter had just died, and he no longer loved God.  He  saw this painting as a statement on a par with the gospel.  He admits it’s a riddle; but there are strong senses of loss and despair – a hopelessly tainted paradise.  He went to Tahiti to find paradise – it was based there – but found none.  When finished, he climbed the mountain and attempted suicide by drinking arsenick.  Had he failed?  Or had his task finished?  Uncertain.

But are people really asking these sorts of questions today?  The book ‘Eat, Pray, Love’, which sold 5m copies, is described as one woman’s spiritual investigation.  Julia Roberts gave it to all her friends for Christmas, and is starring in a film of it.  Eats in Italy, Prays in India, Falls in love in Bali.  A cherry-picking spirituality that highlights people’s desire to find the answers to these questions.

Damien Hirst, Where are we going?  Where do we come from?  Is there a reason?  2000-4

A deliberate reference to Gauguin, but changed the last question deliberately.  A depressing statement of death, closed systems, evolutionary theory.

If people you know aren’t into fine art, start with Gavin & Stacey.  Check out advertising, and its offer of fulfillment.  There is an astonishing use of religious language in advertising!

it satisfies the thirsty and helps the weary;

it adds life;

it’s the real thing;

it’s beyond global refreshment;

always coca-cola.

- various Coca-cola adverts

UCLA tackled the question of diversity and justice, a huge question on the campus, by using a large number of visual stimuli outside, as well as questionnaires and music, with the aim of getting people into evangelistic bible studies.  See IV website to learn about the case study.  www.intervarsity.org

2. To illustrate a point.

Ann’s husband Lindsay explained the meaning of Christmas with the Tate Modern’s annual Christmas tree competition, highlighting what people think Christmas is about and the futility of the hope a material Christmas offers.  He then moved on to Rembrandt picture in National Gallery:

Rembrandt, Adoration Of The Shepherds

Note the light coming from the baby, much brighter than the light coming from the lamp; the rafters make shape of cross that anticipates what is to come.   A wonderfully simple scene that displays the meaning of Christmas.

3. Worldview analysis.

To get at a worldview behind the art.

Os Guinness used to use ‘Winter Light’, a film by Ingmar Bergman.  It’s about a Lutheran pastor who has lost his faith.  One of his parishioners asks him about the meaning of life, but he can’t answer him; the man commits suicide and the pastor concludes that there is no God.  The colours are dark; there is no hope.  Yet at a key point, a woman close to the pastor points out: what always surprises me is your total indifference to Jesus Christ.
A friend of Ann commented at the end: “That made more sense than any sermon ever had.”
It made sense because the film shows the problem of where we are at.  Many non-Christian artists expose this problem differently, and we ought to use it!

Chocolat – fun, watch it with chocolate!  A woman moves to a village during lent when they shouldn’t be eating chocolate, and opens a choc shop to tempt them to eat chocolate.
Considers themes of temptation, abstinence, tolerance, hypocrisy, pleasure, how to get to God.

Mamma Mia!
Feelgood, brings much needed relief from credit crunch; the highest grossing film ever at the UK box office.
Nay gave a talk on ‘Why does Mamma Mia make me feel so good?’ CS Lewis – God puts those desire in us to point us to Jesus.

How to use film?
Can be good, can also be very bad.  Sometimes use clips, sometimes use the whole thing.  Some films are so overwhelming that emotionally people are not ready for it.  Some won’t stay after to talk anyway.
France – an evening where they eat, watch film, discuss; create an atmosphere to do it.

‘My mates don’t want to engage and talk about film!’
Be realistic and start small.  Go to an early showing and have time afterwards to go for a drink and pray for an opportunity.  Pick up on one small point or comment that causes even a small amount of discussion; over time it will build into discussion.  The great challenge to the gospel is triviality, but there will be points of deep resonance within people when they watch film.  What are the ‘rush points’ when you watch it – when do you get a rush?  Why?

4. Reception history of the bible.
How has the bible been mediated in our culture?  Often people are reacting to what they perceive to be biblical when it might not be accurate.  eg Consider Mary Magdalene: how has she been portrayed in art and cinema?  How does that compare with the Bible’s teaching?

Two women: Eve and Mary Magdalene.  Could do it with any biblical theme or person.

(i) Eve.

Gen 3 – the first to be tempted and sin.  How it is permeated in our culture.  Belgian beer label, The Forbidden Fruit.  Intriguing that Adam and Eve are used so much in advertising!  Suspicion of the first sin being sexual.  Desperate Housewives.
What’s this case against Eve based on?  Blamed because she was approached first; often argued that she was the weaker. Satan attacks human nature where it is weakest: Eve – Luther; and that she was Satan’s accomplice in seducing Adam.  So she is often perceived to be more guilty than Adam.  And Satan is often considered a mirror image of Eve – female – in the major art works of the western world – Michaelangelo, Cistine Chapel in Rome.  Notre Dame in Paris.

You are the devil’s gateway

- Tertullian

Once she had become a temptress, only a little imagination was required to make the first sin sexual.  Where the bible is silent, generations of commentators have been happy to fill in the gaps and exploit the moral frailty of the weaker sex.

Eve was full of proud self-presumption

- Augustine

She was more puffed up than the man.

- Aquinas

Result – Adam becomes a tragic hero; it was against his better judgment.

He was unwilling to distress the love of his love

- Luther

He was fondly overcome by female charms

- Milton

It is the ‘way of the world’ to be swayed by a woman.  Sometimes Adam disappears and it was only Eve to blame.

It is worth noting that sex was in Genesis 2; it was a good idea, and it was not part of the Fall.  When God judges them, he finds them both guilty, and both punished the same way – to hard labour and death.  All their relationships are now disrupted – God, each other, the earth.

Adam and eve Together at last (2004) Damien Hirst

(ii) Mary Magdalene.
Has generated an enormous amount of interest in the western world – in art, cinema, literature.  Especially in France.  Magdalen College!  The Da Vinci Code, The Passion.  Why so interesting?
In a sense her image encapsulates every era, shaped to fit different ages.  A reformed prostitute becoming a devoted follower of Christ.  Where does this scarlet woman come from?

Not the New Testament – here she is merely one of Jesus Christ’s followers, present at crucifixion and first witness to the resurrection.  The legend is a fictional re-creation.  Gregory the Great merged three different women to create a composite Mary Magdalene: Luke 7:36-50 (probably a prostitute); Mary of Bethany – often assumed to be the woman who anointed Jesus prior to his crucifixion in Matthew 26:10-13; and Mary Magdalene herself on Easter morning went to anoint Jesus with spices.
Plus, the ‘Golden Legend’ – bestseller in Europe.  She legged it and ended up in Provence, France, where she lived as a penitent, paying for the evil of her past life, and then assumed to heaven – escapes death!
What we’ve overlooked in all this is that she was the first witness to the resurrection.

Rembrant van Rijn, Christ and St Mary Magdalene at the Tomb 1638

Part 1 of 2.  Taught by Ann Brown, at UCCF South Team Days March 09.

We are people of the Word, saved by an historical Saviour and called to verbally communicate the gospel; yet we live in an image-driven culture.  And there is a long-standing suspicion of the image in our protestant church.  What are the roots of this nervousness?  How should we engage ourselves with this culture?

1. What are the roots of this nervousness?

Post-Reformation, many churches were stripped bare of any imagery, and made completely bare.  As Protestants, we are heirs to this tradition, so we do well to examine it.  During the Reformation, waves of iconoclasm (burning of images) swept across Europe.  One of the first outbreaks was in Wittenberg, shortly after Luther nailed his theses to the door in 1517.  He, however, didn’t incite the violence; in fact, he tried to stop it.  But many people emptied the churches of the visuals of the old order, perceived as the idolatry of Roman Catholicism.

Images weren’t always despised in Christendom.  Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory in the 7th Century gave a role to images.

Images are useful for “the illiterate, who read in them what they cannot read in books”

- Gregory 600AD.

Compare this with our culture – people can read, but don’t like it!  They prefer the visual.

Images continue to cause enormous debate in Roman Catholicism.  In 790-792 AD The Caroline Books were introduced (referred to by Calvin and the Reformers).  They argued that images should be used, but only in very definite ways; for purpose of instruction, to promote piety, in memory of past events; but wrong to burn incence or lights before them in worship or adoration.

Martin Luther in 1522 argued that iconoclasm was wrong, referring to Exodus 20:4-5 and Leviticus 26:1:

“We are free to have them or not; If only the heart does not cleave to them, or put its trust in them.”

Religious art flourished in Luther’s Germany, especially woodcuts; during the Reformation, images changed and were reformed.  An example is Lucas Cranach the Elder’s Wittenberg Altarpiece:

This has ordinary people in it.  It includes Luther!  Instead of the iconography of the medieval altarpiece, these were contemporaries that could be recognised.
This is an example of a new type of religious art surfacing around this time – very radical and contemporary.

Zwingly disagreed with Luther.  He thought they were a distraction; the emphasis should be on the word invisible and heard, over the image visible and seen.  Calvin agreed:

“All who seek visible forms of God depart from him…”

In faithful preaching of the Word of God “Christ is depicted before our eyes as crucified.  From this one fact they could have learned more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone”

However, none of the Reformers were opposed to The Arts in general:

“the invention of the arts is a gift of God, by no means to be despised.”

- Calvin

Outside the church, the Reformation helped form a remarkable and distinctive visual culture – for example, it was a key age of Dutch painting.

Rembrandt, The Mennonite Minister Cornelis Claesz.  Anslo in Conversation with his Wife, Aaltje 1641.

This painting highlights the pre-eminence of the Word over the image:

“The pages stir, rise, flutter with light and life.”

- Simon Scharne (BBC)

Rembrandt always gets at the psychological depth of the person.  See the wife – in a moment of suspence, caught between hope, apprehension, understanding.  A feminist reading argues: left to right shows supremacy of husband over wife, and word over husband; husband is bullying wife.   Ann Brown suggests in contrast to consider the candle snuffed out (usually symbol of someone died), the wife clutching handkerchief, the husband opening up Word of God and comforting her.

Jacob van Ruisdael, Windmill at Wijk dij Duurstede 1670.

The picture is aesthetically pleasing to us; but the 17th Century person, versed in the bible and in emblem books (which contained thoughts, bible verses, images), would recognise that as the wind makes the windmill move, in the same way the Spirit gives life.  So here, there is no wind, the women may not be able to grind their corn; but there is light shining through and thus hope.  So learning to read Dutch painting reveals a subtext; they invite us to move beyond just looking at a painting of the natural world to a reflection on deeper values.

Britt Wikstrom, Cathedral of Suffering, 1994.

Based on Amnesty International’s Declaration of Human Rights; an indictment of suffering.  The layout immediately reminds us of Calvary.  Man in middle, a woman mourning, a child crouching protecting his head; yet God has broken into this world of suffering – an immediate opportunity to explain the gospel.

“Paintings are philosophy on canvas”

- Ann Brown

2. How should we engage ourselves with this culture?

(i) Recognise the shift

There is a danger that as people of the Word we are separated – by an enormous gulf – from a culture dominated by the visual.  There has arguably been a real shift to the visual in our culture in the last 50 years, accelerated in the last 10-20.  The average age of a radio discussion programme is now 55-60.  Note also the change in newspapers today compared to 50 years ago – there’s been a huge shift in layout, and dependance on images rather than words.
Two questions for you: what’s your favourite book, and what’s your favourite television programme?  Instinctively we find it much easier to answer the latter.  That’s a crude test, but perhaps suggests we are more visually wired.

Jacques Ellul in ‘The Humiliation of the Word’ pushes this further:

In an image-saturated culture, “the word is humiliated by the image.  It is devalued and treated with contempt.”

“Since our culture traffics in images, should all our communication and ministry be shaped according to its dictates and preferences?”

Handout & Discussion: Review by Groothius on Arthur Hunt.  A decrying of a move away from the Scriptures towards a more visual culture (in church).

(ii) Recognise our reaction

Attitudes to the surrounding culture: which one are we?
- Suspicious Separation
- Assimilation and over identification
- Engagement/cultural apologetic/cultural transformation