Is it OK to disagree with the Artist?

Posted on by
4

Looking out of the window at the chilly rain this Monday morning, the weekend’s sunshine seems to belong to another season rather than being just a day ago. On those days when the sun does shine, I’m increasingly spending time down at Plymouth’s Royal William Yard enjoying the coffee, freshly made pastries, local cheeses from the deli, the passage to the beach and the art.

On most of our visits we pop in to see what’s new in the gallery of local abstract artist Martin Bush. That might be because my son insists on going in and peeking tentatively around the labyrinth of paintings until he finds an impressive three metre high sculpture of the minataur. But on the wall facing the minataur is what I’m going in to see, a 1.5 metre wide abstract painting called “In the Element”.

In the Element - Martin Bush 2011

In the Element – Martin Bush 2011

This picture is part of a series of works inspired by the America’s Cup sailing competition, which came to Plymouth last summer. Almost effortlessly, Martin manages to capture the movement and the energy of that competition, the constant action and attention needed to harness the elements and keep ahead of the competition. Discussing the picture, Martin wants the viewer to imagine themselves looking back from the bow of a racing yacht, the folds of the sails forming an expectant concertina of canvas on the deck as they are hauled down out of the wind.

When I first saw this picture, there was something disturbing about it, which didn’t sit easily with the adrenaline rush of having the sun on your back, the wind in your hair (and sails) and the spray of salt water in your face. For me the picture seemed more foreboding, and the title conveyed a sense of menace. For me this was not a picture of elements being harnessed for sport, but a darker vision of elements being fought back as they threaten to engulf the onlooker and dislodge them from their precarious perch above the waves.

Eventually I realised why I saw such a hostile scene. It was because there was another image lurking in the back of my mind, which Martin’s work evokes in its composition and in the positioning of the flashes and swirls. The scene which I now see when I look at “In the Element” is this one, Théodore Géricault’s 1819 paining of the Raft of the Medusa.

The Raft of the Medusa - Théodore Géricault (1791–1824)

The Raft of the Medusa – Théodore Géricault (1791–1824)

At over seven metres wide, the Raft of the Medusa towers over the viewer from its permanent home on the walls of the Louvre. In contrast to the Mona Lisa, which always appears smaller than expected, this massive work of art overpowers rather than charms those who stand before it. It tells the horrific story of the survivors of the Shipwreck of the Medusa, who clung to this hastily constructed vessel as they awaited rescue. A rescue which eventually came to just fifteen of the 147 passengers in the form of the French ship the Argus. This ship can just be seen as a hopeful speck on the horizon in the top right of the picture.

Once you’ve seen the similarity, the composition of “In the Element” makes it impossible to disassociate it (for me at least) from the Raft of the Medusa. In the top left corner the dark patch of the towering waves and the brooding clouds sit beside the flash of light of a hopeful dawn. The only bright colour in Géricault’s vision are the red flashes of garments, one of which is being waved in hope of being sighted. These are mirrored by the bursts of red in the abstract work which infuse the canvas with hope. The diagonal ropes holding the mast are evident in both works and, most powerfully, where the Argus sits on the horizon as a beacon of hope to the stricken souls on the raft, in the corresponding spot there is a blue cross – a symbol of salvation above the tumultuous waves.

In my dark vision of In the Element, instead of folds of canvas, lifeless as they wait to be hoisted into the wind, the swirls become the wasted and inert forms of those for whom the deliverance of the Argus would not come in time.

But which of us is right?

As I look at In the Element, I can see both the sporting scene Martin describes, and also the despair and hope of the dying passengers of the Medusa. But should it be possible to see both? Should the artist be able to dictate what we see, or is it OK to disagree with the artist?

As I reflect on this question, it seems that the answer to this question is bound up with the level of abstraction in the work itself. If this was a photo-realistic image of the bow of a modern racing yacht then we wouldn’t be discussing the similarities with the two hundred year old representation of a maritime tragedy. But because the work is abstract, because it leaves room for interpretation by the viewer, we are free to see more in here than what the artist intended. And once we’ve seen a bigger picture, the abstract often becomes clearer.

Now I’m no expert when it comes to art, so let’s move this discussion into a field with which I’m more familiar – making sense of the Bible.

I often hear people accuse the Bible of being incomprehensible and unconnected, but the Bible too has different levels of abstraction. Some parts of the Bible are meant to be photo-realistic: Histories, Letters, Gospels and all those parts which have the voice of a narrator showing us clearly what God wants us to think. We can’t read these bits and argue with the author about what they meant.  But there are some parts of the Bible which are more abstracted: Poems, dialogues, visions and proverbs all leave room for us to see layers of meaning, and are often the bits that leave us confused. But there is a bigger picture, an overarching story which once we’ve seen it will shape our understanding of even the most abstract sections.

Like the Raft of the Medusa, the big picture of the Bible has at its centre a scene of despair and hope where at first glance we cannot see whether the darkness of the clouds or the light of the dawn will triumph.  But like the Argus, like the cross on the horizon, the Cross of Jesus is the beacon of hope which makes sense of the whole picture. And once we’ve seen that the Bible is about one man, we can’t help but see Him across the whole canvas of scripture.

So what do you see?

If you want to make up your own mind about In the Element, then its on show at Martin’s Gallery in the Brewhouse in Plymouth’s Royal William Yard. Martin’s current show includes his current projects and older works. You can also book the gallery for private events and functions.  

VIsit Martin Bush's Website

Chill Out, It’s just Porn

Posted on by
3

There is one youth group teaching session that no-one wants to be at. Neither the leaders nor the young people want to be talking about pornography, but that isn’t because it’s not relevant.

As part of a recent series looking at relationships with our 14-18s group at church, we spent an evening exposing some of the lies which pornography tells us. At the start of the session I conducted a little bit of casual research as asked why sort of things they were being taught at school about pornography. Initially, the answer took me by surprise: “Nothing”. Those at the top end of the group had sat through nearly a decade of biology, PSHE, citizenship and religious studies lessons teaching them about sex, but no-one had every had the courage to talk about pornography, even though this is probably the area of sexual behaviour which effects a larger number of teenagers than any other.

Maybe it has taken a while for curriculums to catch up with technology, or maybe teachers underestimate the scale of the issue. As one youth leader once explained it: “When I was a teenager, the only way I could get hold of pornography was to go to our village newsagent and ask buy magazines from someone who not only knew my mum, but was also my Sunday School teacher. Now teenagers don’t even have to search for porn, every other e-mail in their inbox and every nearly every pop-up advert is herding them towards it”.

What is more likely, though, is that more of us have bought into the biggest lie that porn tells us, which is that this is normal. Back in 2002 the band Trucks hit the nail on the head when they sang:

“It’s just porn, mom, you’re running away
You wouldn’t believe what the kids see today
It’s just porn, mom, and it won’t go away
Wherever you turn you find porn everyday”

Trucks, 2002

So should we be bothered, or should we take the advice to Trucks’ mothers and Chill Out, because “It’s just porn”?

As I was preparing for the teaching session, I turned to one of the most significant websites for those seeking to stay pure online, Covenant Eyes. The flagship service Covenant Eyes offer is internet accountability software, but the site also has a host of research, information and advice on the subject. One of their online publications is called ‘Your Brain on Porn’ written by Luke Gilkerson, it’s where most of the statistics and research in the following post came from. You’ll have to give your e-mail, but you can download it here.

What follows is uncomfortable and at times disturbing, and this is the sanitised version for general publication! But my guess is that you’ll think twice about using pornography once you realise how it lies to you. Here are four way you are being deceived:

#1 Porn lies about other people.

From the very start of the Bible we are meant to see our fellow human beings as having intrinsic value. Chapter one of the book of Genesis (‘the Book of Beginnings’) describes us as being made “In God’s Image” and that as His image-bearers we reflect his character and glory. But Pornography help us to forget that other people, especially women, have value as we learn to compare them to ‘Porn girls’.

This comparison was powerfully described by Naomi Wolf, writing for New York Magazine: “Today real naked women are just bad porn.”

But this comparison is not simply anecdotal. One of the most interesting studies into the effects of watching pornography was conducted in the early 1980s among North American college-age participants. This research, by Zillmann and Bryant, draws a number of conclusions, including establishing that consumers of pornography eventually compare their partner or spouse with images of porn models. More recent research (2002) backs this up, reporting that when men and women were exposed to centrefold images from Playboy and Penthouse magazine, their assessment of the ‘attractiveness’ or normal people was significantly lowered.

Now we might expect this sort of comparison, after all, when we listen to a great symphony or study a renaissance masterpiece, we can’t help but judge whatever we subsequently listen to or see against it. But pornography doesn’t just open our eyes to what is available, it reprogram our eyes to want fantasy over reality and it also seems to warp our minds and our judgement about people in other spheres.

Zillmann and Bryant divided the participants up into three groups. One control group did not view any pornography. One group watched a ‘moderate’ amount and the final group viewed a ‘massive’ amount of pornographic material over a six week period. As we would expect from 25 year old research, some aspects are now outdated, but it is not the analysis that is no loner true. What has changed since the 1980′s is that what was then considered to be ‘massive’ exposure to pornography could now be described, using Dr. Mary Anne Layden’s phrase, as the ‘Friday Afternoon Group.’

Gilkerson reveals the scale of the issue on page 10 of ‘Your Brain on Porn”:

“A recent survey of 29,000 people at North American universities shows 51% of men and 16% of women spend up to five hours per week online for sexual purposes, and another 11% of men spend anywhere from five to 20 hours per week. What used to be “massive” exposure is now common practice”

To see how pornography alters our perceptions in the non-sexual sphere, Zillmann and Bryant asked the male participants in the three groups to answer the question “do you support women’s rights?” 71% of those in the control group answered ‘Yes’ compared to 48% in the intermediate group and just 25% in the ‘massive exposure group’. It seems that the simple act of watching pornographic films significantly reduced the likelihood of a man giving value to women. Gilkerson concludes:

“Often pornography, and even mainstream media, portrays women as people who are glad to be used and objectified. It isn’t surprising to find women increasingly devalued in our porn-saturated culture.”

#2 Porn lies about relationships.

But these days we are more sophisticated in our judgment about what we allow to influence our thoughts, aren’t we? After all, countless TV sit-coms proclaim how porn is no longer a ‘dirty little secret’, but something to be enjoyed together with your partner and even given as a gift or used as a vaccination against adultery.

But if we think that pornography is a positive factor in relationships we are kidding ourselves, because pornography blinds us to the most important thing that intimate relationships are designed for – giving ourselves to the other person and seeing our satisfaction and happiness as secondary to theirs.

C.S. Lewis, writing in the 1960′s talked about the consequences of sexual intimacy where the focus is on ones own satisfaction. In ‘The Four Loves’ he says:

“We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, at he “wants a woman.” Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude to her five minutes after fruition (one does not keep the carton after one has smoked the cigarettes).”

With pornography, the ‘necessary piece of apparatus’ is no longer even another person, which further distances us from the purpose of intimate relationships. Dr. Gary Brooks, author of The Centerfold Syndrome, explains it like this:

“The glossy magazine pictures or pixels on the screen have no sexual or relational expectations of their own. This essentially trains men to desire the cheap thrill of fantasy over a committed relationship. Pornography trains men to be digital voyeurs, to prefer looking at women more than seeking out genuine intimacy”

Zillmann and Bryant’s study also confirmed that pornography damaged relationships and even made sex less satisfying for those who used pornography. “Participants from the Massive Exposure Group reported less satisfaction with their intimate partners: they were less likely to be pleased with their partner’s physical appearance, affection, and sexual performance.” (Gilkerson, p3)

So pornography is not a marital aid, but a barrier to genuine intimacy and a killer of pleasure. Increasingly too, once a relationship has ended, it becomes a weapon. This week I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who rejoiced to hear that the website IsAnyoneUP.com was closed down by its owner Hunter Moore and the domain sold to anti-bullying site Bullyville.com. The site was live for more than a year, and it encouraged users to submit pornographic images and videos of the ex-partners, which were linked to social networking profiles. This genre of website is known as ‘revenge porn’ and it was very popular. IsAnyoneUp was receiving 300,000 hit per day and Hunter Moore had plans to develop the site with a mobile app and a TV spin-off, increasing the $20,000 per month which he was earning from advertising revenues.

Only the most naive of partners, then, would think that pornography is going to strengthen their relationship. But part of the deception is that porn not only lies about other people, it also lies about us, and causes us to devalue ourselves and doubt that we have any right to refuse to join in.

#3 Porn lies about us.

With all this pressure put on ‘normal people’ to try and live up to the fantasy promoted by pornography, is it any wonder that self-image is the biggest casualty? But again, the most worrying aspect of how pornography warps our judgement is not to do with image, but with what we think is acceptable.

To gauge how pornography might effect self-worth, Zillmann and Bryant asked their participants to consider a case study where a female hitchhiker had been raped and the rapist brought to trial. Participants were asked to rate how long they thought an appropriate prison sentence would be. In keeping with what we have seen before, male participants in the ‘massive exposure’ group recommended shorted sentences. The shock, however, came in the responses of female participants. Those in the ‘massive exposure’ group recommended sentences half the length of those in the control group. (77 months and 144 months respectively). The lesson is clear, women who are exposed to pornography consider sexual violence against women to be less serious then those who are not. They have also bought into Porn’s lie that we are less valuable than we are.

Now this is the really ugly side of the pornography industry and it is the secret that should turn casual users right off. Pornography promotes violence against women and seeks to silence those who speak against it. It does this by lying about what is normal and acceptable.

#4 Porn lies about what is normal.

Every so often a story hits the headlines about a young man who has been caught out by a comment he made on a social media site of some sort. a recent example (February 2012) was the comments written in an article on the UniLad website which suggested that with unreported rape statistics at 85%, it seems like “pretty good odds” they men might get away with forcing a girl to have sex with them. Following a brief media storm (and the threat of disciplinary action from Plymouth University against Jamie Street, the site’s CEO) the article has subsequently been withdrawn and the site re-launched, but when I visited today the lead article was a helpful guide to finding girls with such low-esteem or lack of judgement that they can’t refuse to take part in degrading sexual acts. So at least the sex is consensual now, but only just.

Social commentators have been quick to try and tease out the difference between harmless banter and incitement to sexual assault, but I’m not sure that the distinction is really there. Both seem to rely on the assumption that attractive women are simply there for the satisfaction of men, and that anyone or anything that might hinder that process is the legitimate target for abuse.

One such target for abuse were members of the Bristol Feminist Network, who has the audacity to be pleased that the Bristol branch of ‘Hooters’ had closed down. The group had been vocal in their opposition to the opening of the restaurant in the first place, and saw its closure due to as an indicator that the people of Bristol had voted with their feet and not become customers. On the afternoon of the closure, a member of BFN was asked to comment by the BBC, and they subsequently issued a press release, but the nature of the comments (on Facebook and personally directed against BFN) by ‘supporters’ of the restaurant was nothing short of open bullying and intimidation, promising to “kick [her] in the vagina” and that she was “a **** who needed to pay”. You can read the full saga, without my redactions here.

So why is it that seemingly rational men think that it is appropriate to talk like this, even among themselves, let alone on public forums? Part of the problem is that we have bought into the narrative which porn feed us about what is normal and acceptable.

Middlesex University recently published research that explored attitudes to this sort of sexualised banter by comparing statements which were published in these magazines with comments taken from interviews with convicted sex offenders. The magazine comments typically accompanied ‘soft-porn’ images in Lad’s Mags such as FHM, Nuts, Zoo & Loaded.

If you’ve got a strong stomach then you can try the experiment for yourself. Simply look through this list of statements and see which you think are the rapists, and which are the lad’s mags. The results were quite disturbing, with participants largely failing to distinguish between the sources. They were also more likely to identify with the quote if they were told it was from a magazine, even if the true source was a rapist.

And this is the narrative that not only accompanies pornographic images, it is built into the very fabric of the medium. To illustrate the problem we can look at the research of Robert Wosnitzer, Ana Bridges, and Michelle Chang, who analysed aggression in the adult DVDs

In their 2007 study of the 50 top selling adult DVDs, Wosnitzer, Bridges, and Chang recorded an act of aggression on average every minute and a half. Three quarters of the aggressors were men and nearly all of the recipients were women, but in 95% of the scenes the person receive the aggression acted neutrally or positively to it. The message is clear, violence against women is part and parcel of normal sexual behaviour. Is it any wonder that young men consider sexualised banter about rape and abuse to be normal, and that turning their boasting into action is a cause for celebration, rather than facing any negative consequences.

So is anyone still chilled out about porn? By this point in the youth group even the most nervously giggling member was sitting in stunned silence. But this is a subject we cannot afford to be speechless about. Porn is widespread, but it is not ‘normal’, and by refusing to discuss it we buy into the lie that it isn’t really an issue.

Pornography distort our view of ourselves and other people, which causes us to have impossible exceptions of real relationships. It also normalises violence against women and the right to take sexual satisfaction whenever we want. So let’s make sure that an alternative narrative is seen as the norm:

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”

(Philippians 4:8 – The Bible – NIV11)

;

How much does it cost to buy-off God?

Posted on by
2

Today Christians across the country can breath a sigh of relief as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced his plans to allow a small North Devon town council to continue its 400 year old tradition of saying prayers at the start of council meetings.

Following last week’s announcement that the National Secular Society (NSS) had won a ruling that local councils could not lawfully include prayers as part of their formal business, Eric Pickles is quoted to have said:

“While welcoming and respecting fellow British citizens who belong to other faiths, we are a Christian country, with an established church governed by the Queen.

“Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation. Public authorities – be it parliament or a parish council – should have the right to say prayers before meetings if they wish. The right to worship is a fundamental and hard-fought British liberty.”

Source: Guardian Online

The announcement that Mr Pickles will rush section 1 of the new ‘Localism Act’ into force ‘within a week’ will no doubt mute the celebrations of the National Secular Society, as the new act will restore the rights of local councils to say prayers as part of their proceedings if they choose to.

So why is it that Mr Pickles’ assertion that we are a ‘Christian Country’ sticking in my throat?

It isn’t that I don’t applaud the decision to give councils the right to decide for themselves if they include prayers. Neither is it that I don’t enjoy the schadenfreud of seeing the NSS defeated in their latest attempt to remove the trappings of faith from public life. No, what I find so distasteful is the comparison between the Government’s reaction to the NSS case and their relentless pursuit of the Welfare Reform Bill.

In the former case, the Government are keen to cite our Christian heritage as a reason to keep religious rituals in public life. In the latter case they seem hell-bent on taking away financial aid from those in out society who are most in need of it. Could it be that the price of a clear conscience is allowing a little bit of public religion?

As I think of those who think that God is somehow pleased when we remember to name-check him, I’m reminded of Jesus’ words to the religious rulers of his time as he tells them that God cannot be bought-off with their religion:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices— mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law— justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practised the latter, without neglecting the former.”

Jesus Christ – Matthew 23:23

The big problem with public religion, especially the sort which we are forced to take part in, is that it tends to inoculate us against the real thing. And Jesus calls those who would come after him (and call themselves Christian) to pursue justice, mercy and faithfulness, not just to say a few prayers before we get down to business. Being a ‘Christian country’ must surely mean that we pursue matters of justice as well as maintaining those traditions which remind us of our Christian heritage.

I’m currently reading Timothy Keller’s book ‘Generous Justice‘, in which he presents the compelling case that through His Word, God is calling Christians to pursue social justice in their churches, local communities, nations and worldwide. Keller explains that God’s command in the Mosaic law that ‘there shall be no poor among you’ (Deuteronomy 15:4) is much more than an empty aspiration:

“God’s concern for the poor is so strong that he gave Israel a host of laws that, if practiced, would have virtually eliminated any permanent underclass”

Timothy Keller – Generous Justice, p27

I get the feeling that this assertion that ‘there shall be no poor among you’ is going to be increasing important to my church community over the next few year. This isn’t just because people around us are getting poorer (although many in our fellowship and parish will be hit hard by the ongoing financial crisis and associated austerity measures), but because I sense we are being called to live out this reality in our church family and our local community.

What this is going to look like I don’t know, but I do know that if we get anywhere near it we won’t be able to be accused of preaching an empty and irrelevant religion. Real faith in real action is what the Kingdom of God is all about.

Fanning the flames

Posted on by
Reply

Bonfire with woodpile in the background

Friday is fire-day and I’m now sitting by my second fire of the day. This one is a civilised affair in the living room fire-place, but the first was a proper bonfire as I cleared my lawn of the last of the cuttings from the trees which were keeping the sun out of the garden.

There were a lot of clippings, and over the last few weeks I’ve spent several hours watching them burn. While I’ve done this I’ve been reflecting on how tending a fire is a great illustration of how to lead a church.

What follows is not meant to be a serious theological treatise, but ten observations on church life and growth using the metaphor of fire.

#1 Wood that isn’t on fire only ignites when it is next to wood that is. So church growth 101 says that you need to have a church that is alight in the first place. And that people will only become christians by being exposed to people who have already made that commitment.

#2 If you throw an accelerant on the fire it burns, but the wood doesn’t. Sometimes a mission event or special course means that there are a lot of flames. This might not mean that the congregation are burning more brightly, merely that the effort you’ve put in is temporarily burning. Paraffin is only useful on bonfires when it has soaked into wood or paper, likewise special events which cause a big stir need to be backed up by Christians who are ready to use them to ignite those around them.

#3 Some logs are green or wet and take a very long time to catch fire. In a wood pile there will be twigs which with catch fire straight, there will also be logs which need more time to dry out and season before they will catch fire. In a church congregation, these green logs are often husbands or partners who have been on the fringes for some time, but show no real signs of interest. They need to be near the fire to dry out, and in contact with burring logs if they are going to catch fire, so find ways to keep them involved, and find excuses to get them into church.

#4 New wood needs to go on where the fire is burning. On a bonfire, it’s not uncommon to have one part burning strongly and one side fairly cool. On the bonfire you need to put the new wood on the side that is burning otherwise it won’t catch fire. Similarly, new people need to be put in contact with the parts of the church which are on fire. It’s no good adding new people to a ministry which is dead, they won’t revitalise it, they will just sit there.

#5 You need to keep moving to wood to keep things burning. In the same way that new Christians need to be added to the burning parts of the church, sometimes you need to move people around to keep them alight. As an example of how this might work: at my church during Lent this year, we’re giving people the chance to temporarily change home groups, this will hopefully have the effect of mixing up those parts which are burning and those parts which have got a bit cool.

#6 It is easy to put lots of very flammable material on the top of the fire, which will burn brightly, but will make no difference whatsoever to the bottom of the woodpile. And this is easy to do in church, all you need to do is start a vibrant youth or student ministry and everyone will see the flames. The difficult thing to do is to enable these flames to work their way through the pile when there is no cross-over between your new ministry and your core.

#7 It is possible to put a fire out by smothering it with too much new wood. However brightly a fire is burning, you can still put it out by cutting off the oxygen to the core. Initiatives which attract people in large numbers can have the opposite effect to the one you intend, as meeting their needs stifles the flow of oxygen to the existing congregation. Instead of the new wood catching fire, the core is starved of oxygen and begins to cool. (Oxygen is your attention, pastoral care and preaching.)

#8 If you take a piece of burning wood out of the fire, it doesn’t stay alight for long. Likewise if a Christian tries to go it alone, they will cool off very quickly. The writer to the Hebrews says ‘don’t give up meeting together, but keep encouraging one another’ (Heb 10:25) that’s because we need each other and the heat of the fire to keep up burning. This is an especial warning for evangelists, who are most effective among non-christians. The danger is that away from the heart of the fire, they  cool off quickly.

#9 Sometimes you need to use put the lid on an incinerator to really gets things burning. For the past few weeks I’ve been using a metal dustbin with a hole in the lid to burn my garden waste. My technique is to put green twigs in the fire and put the lid on, and then after five minutes to lift the lid. The dried out twigs then blaze up very quickly. Residential camps and intensive courses are like an incinerator, they get people burning much more rapidly, but you need to take the lid off to really see them  burn.

Woodpile#10 Your job is not to keep the fire alight, but to burn all the available wood. It really doesn’t matter how warm the little pile of remaining sticks gets, what is important is that your bonfire has the power to ignite the new wood around it. There are plenty of churches which are small and not really interested in growing but church leaders should not be content with palliative care, our call is to nurture churches which reach out with the incendiary Gospel of the Lord Jesus.

Ok, there are many more ways I could apply this, but that’s enough for now. If you want to add fuel to the fire, why not post a comment below?

 

Where are the stand-out preachers?

Posted on by
6

There’s been a lot of excitement this afternoon about the forthcoming interview with Mark Driscoll in Christianity Magazine in which he makes the following comment:

“Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.”

Now, usually when this sort of quote is released ahead of the interview, the content is much less interesting than the hype. Without waiting for the full interview though, I thought it was worth saying that not having a “young, good Bible teacher that [sic] is known across Great Britain” is something to be celebrated.

When John Stott began to emerge as a nationally recognised evangelical Bible teacher, it was because he was one of a kind. In the generation that followed names such as Sandy Miller, Michael Green, Dick Lucas, David Jackman and many notable others were part of a growing cohort of preachers who followed in Stott’s footsteps. They were followed by countless others (now in their 50s and leading churches, theological colleges, missions and other ministries). So by the time I began to lead a church in 2010, (in my mid thirties, and in my mind still ‘young’) the cohort of well trained, gifted, passionate and ‘good’ young Bible Teachers was so large that few stand out from the crowd.

In addition to this, these preachers are not well known, because they are doing what they have been called and trained to do – leading church congregations up and down the country, not just pastoring mega-churches.

Far from being ‘cowards who aren’t telling the truth’, Bible teachers in the UK are often young men and women who are committed to telling the truth in places where the Gospel hasn’t been heard, and growing congregations that will outlast the transient culture of celebrity.

So I’m glad not to stand out as a preacher, but I’m still striving to be outstanding whenever I open up the Bible and bring God’s word to my congregation.

Christmas Preaching

Posted on by
Reply

This year I was on the rota to preach at nearly all our Christmas services at St. Pancras. For the past few months I’ve been moving away from using a full script for preaching and have generally been happy with the results. (PGP students should take note, however, this is a process that has taken over a decade, so I’m not advocating this for preachers who are starting out.)

With only scant notes saved for posterity (and in some cases, no notes at all) I thought it would be worth recording my sermon ideas and outlines somewhere, so here they are. Some were also recorded and put on the sermon podcast, but most were not.

15th Dec – Pennycross School Carol Service (Whole School)
Matthew 2:2 “We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him”

Very short (I thought, they didn’t) introduction to the school carol service. Looking at seeking out ways to worship Jesus this Christmas.

15th Dec – All Saints Academy Carol Service (Compulsory for Year 7′s)
Luke 1:46-55 (Mary’s Song – The Magnificat)

Same main outline as the Carol Service on the 18th, but with more of an apologetics angle on ‘God is Powerful’.

18th Dec – Morning Service
Luke 1:39-56 (Mary and Elizabeth)
Audio Recording

  • Before Sermon: The Virgin Birth – Picking up on last week’s comments
  • Elizabeth is a model of:
  • 1) The Spirit’s Work (v39-42)
  • 2) Humility (v43)
  • 3) Joy (v44-45)
  • Verses 46ff were left for the evening.

18th Dec – Carols by Candlelight
Luke 1:46-55 (Mary’s Song – The Magnificat)
Audio Recording 

  • Introduction – Exchange between US warship and a Lighthouse
  • We can worship Jesus because:
  • 1) He is powerful (v46-51) – creation testifies to God’s power
  • 2) He is Just (v51-53) – he deals with the problem of sin
  • 3) He keeps his promises (v54-55) – he will return

Christmas Eve – Christingle and Messy Church
Standard ‘What does a Christingle represent?’ talk

Christmas Eve – Midnight Communion
Luke 2:1-20 (Jesus’ Birth and the Shepherds)

  • Intro: Occupy Movement – Why would God choose to be born in this way?
  • 1) Jesus chose the stable (even though it was beneath Him)
  • 2) Jesus chose the cross (even though he didn’t deserve it)
  • 3) Jesus chooses His followers (even though we’ve done nothing to earn it)

Christmas Day – Family Communion
Luke 2:8-20 (Angels & Shepherds)
Especailly: 2:12 “This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger”

The baby in the manger is a sign that:

  • Intro: The most overzealous security guard, a sign to recognise the sovereign.
  • Innkeeper Video
  • The baby in a manger is a sign that (Luke 2:12):
  • 1) What impresses us is not necessarily what impresses God.
  • 2) Jesus didn’t come to be served but to serve.
  • 3) ? (Can anyone remember my third point?)

Carols by Candlelight

Posted on by
3

This year our Carols by Candelight service at St. Pancras is looking at the theme ‘Come and Worship the King’. The Bible readings all pick up this theme and are as follows:

  1. Isaiah’s prediction of a ‘wonderful counsellor’ etc.
  2. Mary’s song
  3. The angels and the shepherds
  4. The Wise Men and Herod
  5. Thomas’ confession ‘My Lord and my God’
  6. John’s vision of Jesus as he is now in Revelation 1
Usually at this sort of event I pick one of the passages and preach from it, but this year I’m thinking of using the following outline and picking up themes for different passages.
Jesus is worthy of our worship because:
  1.    His birth split time in two
  2.    His death changed the course of history
  3.    His future holds all our futures
Any comments – or should I just go back to explaining one of the passages?

Books for Bible Teachers

Posted on by
2

I’m currently putting together reading lists for students on the PGP course who will be writing essays as part of their assessment. Some of the books on my own bookshelf are beginning to look a bit dates, so I’m looking for suggestions for books for the essay titles below.

All these essays are being marked at HE Level 4 (First year of a degree course) so the level needs to be suitable for people who might not have studied theology academically before. Also, at this level, 90% of the marking criteria is aimed at explaining and synthesising views which are taught on the course. This means that the reading list should include non-evangelical views, but this will only contribute a small component of the mark. For more information about PGP’s approach and methodology, please see this statement on our website.

If you’ve got any suggestions, please leave them as comments or send them via Twitter, FB, e-mail, etc. If you are able to include the full bibliographical information then it makes my life much easier – but the suggestion is more important. Please use the essay code to say which essay your book is for.

Thanks

Jon.

Module PPTC01- Applied Biblical Theology

C01-1. Is it possible to identify a single storyline throughout the whole of the Bible?

C01-2. ‘The Bible doesn’t make any sense without Genesis chapters one to three’ To what extent does our interpretation of the Bible stem from an understanding of its first three chapters?

C01-3. “The Psalms are a mirror for the soul – every human emotion is there.” How does an emotional engagement with the Psalms help us interpret and apply them?

C01-4. How do the Old Testament prophets speak beyond their own situation and into the contemporary Christian Church? Illustrate your answer with examples from the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel.

C01-5. ‘The new is in the old, concealed – the old is in the new, revealed.’ How important is an understanding of the Old Testament for a responsible reading of the New?

C01-6. How does an understanding of different literary genres help us apply the Gospels?

Module PPTC02 – Biblical Theology for Christian Ministry

Doctrine

C02-1-1. “St. Patrick said the three leaves of the shamrock represent the trinity: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That’s why four leaf clovers are so lucky, you get a bonus Jesus.” – Stephen Colbet. Explore the usefulness and limitations of using illustrations to teach the doctrine of the trinity?

C02-1-2. “The cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith” – Steve Chalke. Using both Old and New Testament passages, discuss the importance and relevance of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

C02-1-3. Explain which Bible text or texts you consider to be most important when teaching about the role of women in the Christian church.

C02-1-4. “That which he has not assumed, he has not healed” – Gregory of Nazianzus. Discuss whether Jesus needed to become fully human to redeem humanity.

C02-2-1. “The next time you see a clean-shaven fundamentalist wearing a poly-cotton shirt and eating a shrimp, remember to shout ‘Abomination!’” – Jeffrey John. How does the ‘six act’ division of the Bible contribute to our understanding of the ethics of human sexuality? Answer with reference to either homosexuality or marriage and divorce.

Ethics and Pastoral Ministry

C02-2-2. What role should the Bible have in Christian Counselling?

C02-2-3. How should an awareness of the culture of our hearers influence our teaching of the Bible? Illustrate your answer with reference to communicating with children, teenagers or people with a postmodern worldview.

C02-2-4. How do the pastoral epistles (1&2 Timothy and Titus) challenge Christian leaders today? Illustrate your answer by reflecting on your application of these letters to your own life and ministry.

C02-2-5. Can prayer be taught or just caught? Illustrate your answer by reflecting on the development of your own prayer life.

Copyright Notice: All the above material relating to the PGP course is © Peninsula Gospel Partnership, 2011. Please feel free to link to this post, but please do not reproduce or copy anything without written permission from the Training Course Director (me).

Do we need to put God back into Esther – Part II

Posted on by
1

Yesterday (in part I of this post) I looked at two historical approaches to understanding the Bible book of Esther, and began to highlight some of the drawbacks of these approaches. The first approach is to ‘downgrade’ the book to something that is useful and historical, but not scripture. The second approach is to ‘fill in the gaps’ so that the story has a particular interpretation and application, even though this is not required by the original text.

Today I’m going to look at a third approach to this book, which is:

Approach #3) Use it as an illustration for New Testament preaching.

This approach is very common in many sectors of the church, even if Bible teachers don’t admit that this is what they are doing. When preaching an Old Testament passage, it is all to easy to look for some jumping-off point to take us to a New Testament passage, and then expound the NT passage, briefly referring back to the Old only to add colour or illustration.

In my own tradition (Church of England), the idea of having several set readings plays into this approach almost without thinking. We have a reading (OT or Letter) and then a Psalm and a Gospel, but the sermon is often from the gospel. If there is any thematic link between the passages, they will be strip-mined for illustrations, but seldom is there any sense that the preacher is attempting to exposit and apply the OT text.

In Esther, this can work its way out down one of several blind alleys. Most obvious is the ‘Esther as a good example’ model, where all the events of her life are reduced to the one action of coming before King Xerxes and this is used to illustrate some NT principle like hope or faith. We might go on modify this to look at Esther as the forgiven person who is used by God when she starts to make good choices, or even as the one whose obedience to her uncle led to God’s blessing.

Another potential blind alley is to look at the story in our chain-reference Bible to see if any of the language reminds us of larger principles or other events. So in Esther, a royal wedding becomes nothing more than an allegory for Christ and His bride, Xerxes illustrates for us the splendour of Jesus and Esther’s perfume becomes the adornment of a living sacrifice.

Now I want to suggest that these are blind-alleys because they don’t allow the text to speak for itself. As such, they either fall into the trap of approach 1 (seeing it is the illustration to the main event – ie our New Testament Passage) or of approach 2 (forcing us to see an interpretation which isn’t necessarily there).

Now at this point I need to be careful about definitions, because what I’ve described above sounds similar to the use of Typology as a means for understanding the Old Testament in the light of the New.

As I understand (and teach) it, typology is when we can see an event, person, place or ritual in the Old Testament (the type) pointing us forward to something (the anti-type) in the new. Old Testament types are important for our understanding of the New Testament as they often give us categories of thought to help us understand key events (see the passover example below). Types also show us that what happened in the life of the Jesus and the NT church was part of God’s unfolding plan. We are given authority to see OT types in this way by the NT writers make these links themselves.

Typology in Action – The Passover

The Passover is one of the most important ‘types’ in the Old Testament as it lifts our gaze beyond the rescue of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and points us to the rescue that Jesus won for us on Calvary.

The Exodus story explains that God brought a plague on the whole of the land such that the first born would be killed in every home. Those who would escape God’s anger would be those who took an unblemished lamb and paint its blood on the door posts and lintel of their homes. When the destroying angel saw the blood, they would know to pass-over that house, because there had already been a death in that house.

The Passover, then is the type. The anti-type is seen in the New Testament in the person of Jesus. When John the Baptist sees Jesus approaching in John 1:29 he says “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”. This is flagging up that here is the person to whom this type points and Jesus is the fulfilment of the type.

In fact, the typology here does not merely give us a way of applying the exodus to ourselves, it also gives us the framework for understanding the death of Jesus.

The New Testament does not give us a complete theology of the work of the cross, but as we see the cross in the light of the Passover (and the day of atonement, etc), we are able to understand what is referenced in the New Testament. We need the whole counsel of God (OT & NT) to do biblical theology.

So, can we use the principles of typology to help us understand Esther? At a macro-level there there is certainly a powerful demonstration of God delivering his people. But in the absence of any explicitly NT link, what about the characters themselves?

There are two drawbacks with simply making connections in this way. The first is that we don’t know where to stop if our only criteria is what this reminds us of. So if Xerxes is a type of Christ (for his power and generosity and his choice of a bride) then why do we not also see Esther as a Christ-type for her self-sacrificing actions to save her people. If we want to take this to its logical extreme then we might also see Vashti as a type of Christ (the one who was despised and rejected) and even Haman could help us see calvary as he is cursed and hung on a tree. Hopefully our tolerance for silliness will have been exceeded by this point.

But the more serious drawback in attempting to see these characters as types, is that they don’t reveal God to us. In fact, if we try and find out what God is like from these ‘types’ we will have a seriously skewed view of Jesus.

For example, if Xerxes is a type of Christ, and Esther is the church, what does that tell us about our relationship with Jesus? What we would have to conclude that we are chosen on our own merit (Esther’s beauty), that our status is granted on our ability to please God (2:14 paints an unpleasant picture of how we might do it), that we should not expect any ongoing relationship once we are his, and that we have a god who will reject us on a drunken whim to save face (1:10, 1:16-17).

Since we are (hopefully) unwilling to accept all of these as Christian doctrines, we are left having to pick and chose those bits we like to make our point. This is hardly allowing the Bible to speak and to reveal God to us on His own terms.

So how should we read the book of Esther as holy scripture? In my next post I’ll begin to explore how this exciting story teaches us about God’s covenant faithfulness to his faithful people and how the apparent absence of God in this book provides us with a dramatic picture of faith in a foreign land.

Do we need to put God back into Esther?

Posted on by
2

During a recent Twitter conversation between Tanya Marlow and Dave Bish about how we read the book of Esther, Dave described it as “a gospel-shaped story laced with bible language”. This is a evocative description and, in the interest of sharing notes, I thought I’d try to explain how I approach this enigmatic book and see the God of grace glorified in its pages.

Over the years Esther has provoked a number of strong reactions, not least because the Hebrew text of the book omits any mention of God. We’ll return to this later, but for now it’s worth noting that the specific name of God, ‘YHWH‘ appears 6828 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, the more general ‘God’ (elohim) appears 2602 times and the word ‘Lord’ (adonai) appears 775 times, many of which are references to God. In addition to this there are countless circumlocutions in the Hebrew text which refer to God and His name by euphemistic words such as ‘name’ or ‘place’. In Esther, not only are YHWH, Elohim and Adonai absent, there is only one possible circumlocution. As we shall see, however, I think it’s an important one.

I’m going to look at three different ways in which people have tried to understand Esther and highlight some of the drawbacks of these methods and then offer what I think is a more helpful way forward as we try to understand, apply and teach this book. The first two approaches are outlined in this post, and I’ll look at the third and at my response tomorrow.

Approach #1) See it as useful, but not scripture. 

Now before we dismiss such an approach as crass and heretical, we need to remember that during the formation of the Christian canon, the book of Esther has not always made the cut. In fact, in what is arguably the most important list of canonical books, Esther is relegated as follows:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read.

The 39th Easter Letter of St. Athansaius (367AD)

In a similar way, some Jewish communities were also suspicious of Esther. In the Essence community (the first century BC separatist Jewish sect from whom we were bequeathed the Dead Sea Scrolls) there is no mention of Esther, suggesting that they too excluded it for their canon.

Some have also argued that the New Testament writers found themselves in a similar position, as the NT doesn’t seem to quote from Esther. This is a red herring, though, as there are other unquoted Wisdom (and history) books which don’t share the same ignominy as Esther.

So, what do we make of the claim that Esther is useful for instruction, but not scripture? Well, the drawbacks to this approach are fairly obvious, as Esther does appear in the hebrew versions of the Old Testament (which the other books Athanasius mentions do not) and we are not free to pick and choose which books of the Bible we want to include based on their content alone.

So, if Esther is holy scripture, then we need to see it as part of God’s revelation of Himself to his people. Which has led some people to a second approach, which makes it easier to see how to apply Esther, but at the same time it removes and opportunity of discovering what this book is actually about.

Approach #2) Fill in the gaps left by the original author.

As with the first approach, protestants will be quick to dismiss the very idea of adding to the Bible, but a quick look in the Bibles of our fathers will reveal that until 400 years ago the story of Esther had a very different shape.

The variations between the Canonical Esther, and the version found in the Apocrypha can be traced back to Jewish scholars in the first century BC who were having real problems accepting with what they read in the Hebrew text. Here was a book with no mention of God, where Jewish people were depicted defiling themselves, hiding their nationality, unaware of what God was doing and trusting their deliverance to fate. What was needed was a jolly good redrafting, and this is just what happened as the Greek translation of the Old Testament took shape.

The first thing to do was to redress the balance of the language. So the names of God were hastily included. In the few extra chapters the word God (theos) appears 26 times and Lord (kurios – which is what we would expect as a translation of YHWH into Greek) appears 25 times.

More important, though, is the introduction of new content which seeks to justify the actions of the books Jewish protagonists, and to make explicit their faith in God and their expectation that it is He who will deliver them from the ethnic cleansing contrived by Haman.

So as we fill in the ‘gaps’ we have Esther praying for forgiveness for her defilement at the hands of the uncircumcised pagan king and his court:

You have knowledge of all things, and you know that I hate the splendor of the wicked and abhor the bed of the uncircumcised and of any alien.  You know my necessity—that I abhor the sign of my proud position, which is upon my head on days when I appear in public. I abhor it like a filthy rag, and I do not wear it on the days when I am at leisure.  And your servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I have not honoured the king’s feast or drunk the wine of libations.  Your servant has had no joy since the day that I was brought here until now, except in you, O Lord God of Abraham.

Apocryphal Esther 14:15-18 (NRSV)

We have Mordecai seeking to justify himself in prayer, explaining that his refusal to bow to Haman was simple faithfulness to the Law.

You know all things; you know, O Lord, that it was not in insolence or pride or for any love of glory that I did this, and refused to bow down to this proud Haman;  for I would have been willing to kiss the soles of his feet to save Israel!  But I did this so that I might not set human glory above the glory of God, and I will not bow down to anyone but you, who are my Lord;

Apocryphal Esther 9:12-14 (NRSV)

And in the prologue for the whole book we find the description of a dream in which Mordecai sees quite clearly the source and method of the delivery of the Jews.

Then they cried out to God; and at their outcry, as though from a tiny spring, there came a great river, with abundant water;  light came, and the sun rose, and the lowly were exalted and devoured those held in honour.

Mordecai saw in this dream what God had determined to do, and after he awoke he had it on his mind, seeking all day to understand it in every detail.

Apocryphal Esther 11:10-12 (NRSV)

If you haven’t ever read the apocryphal Esther, then its fascinating to see what else these scholars though was missing.

Now the drawback of such an approach will readily become apparent as we think about how we derive meaning from a text. The Greek version of Esther is more than a translation, it is also an interpretation. Now although we might look at the Hebrew text and come to the same conclusions as those scholars, we might not. The additions drive us to a particular meaning, which is not necessarily there in the original text.

Once this book has been given the airbrush treatment, we can again see Esther and Mordecai in the same light as Ruth and Boaz, as faithful followers of God whose godly example we do well to follow. In doing so we miss the compromise and the ambiguity that characterises these people and this book and we are presented with a trite answer to a profound question which we do well to grapple with “where is God in this book?”

With that question hanging in our minds, I’ll leave approach #3 until tomorrow.