Carl Trueman, a professor at Grove City College, traces how the intellectual, aesthetic, and cultural developments in the global North set the stage for the societal pathologies noted above. He does so in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (Crossway, 2020), as well as in Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution (Crossway, 2022).

What appears below is a distillation, synthesis, and meta-analysis of the architecture of ideas that Trueman examines. This is followed by a summary of Paul’s indictment in Romans 1:18–32 of atheistic, idolatrous humanity, including its wallowing in the cesspool of sexual debauchery.

The author, while operating from a Reformed Calvinist perspective, approaches the subject of how the modern self has become psychologized, then sexualized, and finally politicized. That said, his evaluation and critique resonate with classic, orthodox Christians, including those within confessional Lutheranism.

Admittedly, as with any taxonomy that makes broad generalizations, a shorthand like that put forward by Trueman has its limitations, including the possible oversimplification of complex, multi-causal phenomena. Nonetheless, despite the provisional nature of Trueman’s various classifications, these help to distill important ideas in ways that are cogent and accessible.

Trueman begins by framing his historical narrative about thinkers, philosophers, and poets around three theoretical pillars. First is the concept of the “social imaginary” worldview (as articulated by Charles Taylor). This refers to the complex web of beliefs and assumptions, along with expectations and practices, that are unconsciously shared throughout a culture and shape the lives of its members in dramatic ways.

Second is the notion of the “psychological man” (as articulated by Philip Rieff). This claims that existential meaning and genuine authenticity are only found within a person, not in the outside world (such as one’s community and institutions).

Third is the assertion that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, all ethical discourse in the West is just a matter of a one’s subjective feelings, arbitrary preferences, and whimsical desires (in other words, “emotivism”; as articulated by Alasdair Macintyre).

Trueman uses the preceding triad as the foundation for the superstructure of concepts he sets forth in his treatise. His objective is to sketch how a diverse cast of luminaries—including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud, along with three poets of the Romantic era, William Wordsworth, Percy Shelley, and William Blake—have influenced modern thought over the past several hundred years.

In the process, Trueman outlines the dramatic transformation of the West’s understanding of the self. The author also delineates how this radically new conceptualization dominates the contemporary intellectual and cultural horizon (ranging from politics to the performing arts to literature to music).

For instance, the modern self is characterized by “expressive individualism,” which means that people are truly authentic only when they display outwardly what they are feeling inwardly. Likewise, the modern self equates happiness with an inner sense of psychological wellbeing and satisfaction.

Furthermore, the modern world sees all things immanently. Here there is nothing beyond the material realm to provide it with any significance or purpose. Instead, every aspect of reality is understood by the limits of what can be detected and experienced through sensory information.

The above is exhibited in contemporary society’s notion of moral right and wrong. Rather than being determined by a transcendent, metaphysical, or supernatural authority, ethical thinking is driven by what enables a person to feel happy.

The upending of morality is most explicitly seen by the way in which the sexual revolution now dominates the modern cultural imagination. This development is not just a relaxation and expansion of acceptable ethical standards.

Instead, the sexual revolution is an across-the-board repudiation and overturning of traditional morality. The preceding is evident by the fact that, in just a few generations, there has been a dramatic change in how society understands sexuality and its importance.

The sexual revolution goes beyond a mere fine-tuning of what is permissible behavior. More importantly, the rules of right and wrong have been so attenuated that violating them carries virtually no public stigma.

The current social and cultural movement is an utter break from the traditional notion of human identity. Specifically, sex is regarded, not so much as an activity, but rather as the way in which individuals define and describe their personhood.

Trueman cogently observes that the “sexual revolution, and its various manifestations in modern society, cannot be treated in isolation.” Instead, it “must be interpreted as the specific and perhaps most obvious social manifestation of a much deeper and wider revolution in the understanding of what it means to be a self.”

What follows is a further development of the ideas covered in brief up to this point. For instance, a more traditional view is that the self and culture are rooted in an external, transcendent, sacred order (as reflected in one’s ethnic group, family, and faith community). According to this understanding of reality, personal, private morality, along with how society is shaped, are meant to conform to and imitate what God originally established in creation before the fall of humankind into sin.

Yet, since at least the mid-twentieth century, secular thinkers have argued that either God does not exist or is irrelevant to daily life. Likewise, individuals and institutions (whether public or private, religious or secular) have jettisoned the notion of God and supplanted it with the dogma that the self reigns supreme as an autonomous, normative entity over every aspect of life.

Moreover, it is said that society exists to resist the oppressiveness of entrenched heterosexual norms. This includes obliterating sexual taboos, repudiating the biblical teaching about gender and marriage, and abolishing the biological family, along with not just tolerating, but also affirming the validity of abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, no-fault divorce, rampant pornography, and other forms of perverse sexual behavior.

Trueman utilizes various labels to trace the historical trajectory of the evolving notion of the self. At its most basic level, human selfhood is the conscious awareness people have of who and what they are. This notion includes the ways in which people imagine their purpose in life, what makes them happy, and wherein their freedom is found.

One label Trueman puts forward is the “psychological / therapeutic self.” The underlying concept is that individuals find real identity in their inner, emotional autobiography.

One’s conscience is informed, not by a heteronormative, patriarchal, misogynistic, and systemically racist society that is cruel, degrading, and inhumane, but by a person’s empathy and sympathy. What a person instinctively feels becomes the sole basis for making decisions that have ethical ramifications.

The above mindset gives rise to the modern notion referred to earlier as “expressive individualism.” It is claimed that everyone has a distinctive core of emotions, intuitions, and sentiments. Moreover, these must be allowed to develop, as well as be publicly voiced and enacted, for one’s identity and potential to be fully actualized.

The “romantic self” picks up on the notion of turning inward, along with going back to an idealized, rural existence. In this way of looking at reality, true morality is determined by what impulsively looks and feels right to those living in harmony with nature.

The “plastic / pliable self” refers to those who affirm the notion of an independent, self-consciousness. They also deny any real dependency on others, a view that leads to an idolization of autonomy.

These individuals imagine they can shape and reshape their personal identity whenever they want. Allegedly, through the utilization of technology (including the alteration of bodily appearance through medical, surgical, or other means), everyone can rise above their innate biology (particularly, their sex assigned at birth) with the intent of redefining who and what they are.

The basis for the preceding view is the conviction that one’s anatomy and physiology are neither fixed nor required to abide by the fossilized, repressive, ethical norms imposed by traditional society. Rather, all aspects of human nature—especially one’s sex / gender—are fluid, malleable, and ever-evolving (particularly in response to trendsetting cues, prescriptions, and norms).

The “sexual self” builds on the preceding ideas by equating personal identity with sexuality and sex (rather than seeing these as a function of who people are). For this reason, people are categorized according to their sexual desires, whether straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender, and so on.

Moreover, the sex drive becomes the all-defining center and meaning of a person’s identity. Indeed, those who are happiest and most fulfilled constantly indulge their sexual cravings with abandon.

One’s inner, imagined notion of their “sexual self” even takes precedence over their biological sex. This explains why such assertions as, “I am a woman trapped in a man’s body,” or, “I’m a man trapped in a woman’s body,” are now part of a militant social orthodoxy to which everyone must conform.

Because personal preferences about sexual desire and orientation are treated as truth claims, they become the basis for charting the ethical path one follows. So, to be completely free and authentic as a human being, one must recognize one’s distinctive urges and brazenly act on them, regardless of how debased and degrading they might seem to traditionalists.

It is believed that society exists to satisfy an individual’s psychosexual needs and appetites. For instance, schools traditionally were centers of learning to educate, train, and mentor students. Now these organizations have devolved into platforms for seizing recognition, especially through such performative acts as public protest and exhibitionist behavior.

Even institutions and communities (including churches) must accept and accommodate the above egocentric outlook. If necessary, compliance is ensured through such enforcement mechanisms as updated speech codes, housing regulations, school curriculum, employment laws, adoption standards, and so on.

A failure to virtue signal one’s fealty to the new authoritarian ideology invites outrage, scorn, and vilification (including animus toward Christianity), especially on social media. Supposedly, dissenters suffer from a serious mental illness that is labeled as phobic (for example, homophobic, transphobic, and so on).

Moreover, free speech is condemned as a means of oppression, a tool of linguistic hatred, and an instrument for psychological harm. When free speech runs counter to the narratives lauded by a strident secular orthodoxy, such communication must be policed, censored, penalized, and banished by all available means.

Concurrent with the preceding developments is a marked shift throughout the global North in its cultural attitudes toward Christianity (a development explored and debated by various observers of societal trends). In general, until around 1994, the West seemed largely positive in its sentiment toward Christianity. Then, for roughly the next two decades, the West adopted a more neutral posture. Finally, around 2014, the West embraced an increasingly negative, antithetical stance toward Christianity.

The “politicized self” considers traditional society’s disapproval of one’s sexual desires as a moral offense, as well as a form of assault and tyranny. Those who feel stymied to express their sexual whims claim they have been unjustly stigmatized, marginalized, and victimized by cruel, pharisaical codes of conduct.

Any attempt, then, to challenge someone’s right to personal happiness is labeled as a wicked or even illegal act. So, if traditional society outlaws certain sexual orientations and activities, it is tantamount to the criminalization of particular sexual identities. Stated another way, it is a dehumanizing attack on the core personhood, dignity, and worth of an individual.

The modern self regards the above circumstance as so odious that the authoritarian state, as reflected in longstanding, Western ideals, must be toppled by means of a culture war centered on issues of race, gender, and sexuality. It is claimed that through sexual revolution, all white, male, hegemonic power structures can be demolished, resulting in political liberation.

To further understand the triumph of the idolatrous self, we turn our attention to Trueman’s discussion of two different ways of thinking about the world (as articulated by Taylor). First, mimesis (from the Greek term for “imitating”) considers the world as having a given order and meaning. Likewise, people discover that meaning and conform themselves to it.

Second, poiesis (from the Greek term for “making”) regards the world as nothing more than raw material out of which everyone constructs their own meaning, purpose, and destiny. Expressed differently, the world is comparable to a giant blob of playdough over which a person can impose his / her will.

Here the autonomous self is like a god who is free to explore and create its own personalized reality, yet without any pushback from others. This mindset fosters a cult of individualism, in which the all-out pursuit of happiness and the rituals associated with self-fashioning take center stage in one’s life.

Trueman draws attention to Reiff’s delineation of three different types of worlds. “First world” cultures are predominantly heathen, and devise ethical codes based on widely accepted myths.

In contrast, “second world” cultures are established on some sort of faith in God. Like “first worlds,” “second worlds” anchor their moral outlook on what is transcendent and external.

“Third world” cultures reject moral imperatives being linked to anything metaphysical and sacred. Instead, ethics are defined by each individual. Since there is nothing and no one above the autonomous, normative self, people become the sole basis for their idiosyncratic attitudes, priorities, and actions (all of which are beyond critique, disapproval, and regulation).

In keeping with what was noted earlier, the widespread repudiation of Judeo-Christian moral values has led to an antagonistic view of Christianity as an incomprehensible, dubious, fringe sect. Indeed, biblically-based ethics are not only regarded with suspicion and hostility, but also considered to be an existential threat to the axiomatic views favored by left-leaning radicals (including their desire to usher in a progressive utopia).

The above reality explains why devout followers of the Lord Jesus increasingly find themselves to be social pariahs. This is particularly so among elitists within education, politics, corporations, journalism, and entertainment.

Also noteworthy is Reiff’s concept of deathworks. This is described as an all-out attack upon anything considered to be of utmost importance to the entrenched culture.

So, for example, Reiff labels “third worlds” as being an “anticulture.” In keeping with what was stated above, the moral frameworks and civilizations connected with the “first” and “second worlds” are so oppressive and restrictive to the freedom of the idolatrous self, that they must be renounced, dismantled, and invalidated.

In a similar vein, Rousseau claims that at birth people are inherently moral creatures whose instincts and sentiments are misshapen by their environment and culture. Put another way, it is a corrupt society, not a fallen self, that is the repository of and catalyst for evil.

There are also such Romantic writers as Wordsworth, Shelley, and Blake, who each emphasize an emotive intuition of reality. It is alleged that for the autonomous self to be genuinely authentic, it must discover and freely act on the inner, pristine voice of one’s (sexualized) nature.

Yet, by throwing off all moral restraint, those championing pervasive self-indulgence have unwittingly spawned the destructive forces of ethical nihilism, chaos, and anarchy. Then, as competing factions battle one another for power, privilege, and cultural dominance, every part of society is reduced to a toxic, tooth-and-claw hellscape.

To revisit what was described earlier, Trueman discusses what Taylor calls “expressive individualism” and Rieff labels the “psychological man.” These notions of personhood contribute to the radical redefinition of human sexuality.

Furthermore, Trueman spotlights the works of Nietzsche and Marx, who politicize the concept of the autonomous self. Freud and Reich go further by sexualizing the self.

The result is that sex moves from a physical act to the basis for defining one’s inner identity as an innately satisfied and fulfilled human being. In brief, homo eroticus (“sexualized man”) replaces homo adorans (“worshiping man”).

Each of the above thinkers pave the way for the rise of the therapeutic self, along with the constructs of sexual and gender identity. Those who adopt this view of reality experience cognitive dissonance between how they perceive their gender versus the sex assigned to them at birth.

To reiterate some previous observations, gone are any notions of people being created in the image of God as either male or female, who, though fallen, are redeemed through faith in Christ. Embraced is the mantra of being liberated from allegedly repressive and abusive forms of sexuality, as well as the racist, colonizing political structures imposed by an obsolete and impotent moral order.

Stress is placed on one’s feelings and psychological impulses. These become all-defining, especially as each person looks inward to indicate who they are as unique, sexually liberated, and self-determining individuals.

Furthermore, true personhood is equated with self-consciousness (in other words, the ability to operate as a sentient, free, and intentional agent). According to this view, since an unborn fetus, a newborn infant, and people suffering from severe forms of dementia, do not possess a minimal degree of self-consciousness, it is lawful to deny them any rights and treat them in nonpersonal, inhumane ways (including abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia).

Classic, orthodox Christians view reality (both physical and metaphysical) quite differently. Instead of making the autonomous self the measure of all things, believers consider God to be the sovereign Creator and Scripture to be the highest revelatory authority.

The preceding stance is validated by a summary of Paul’s indictment in Romans 1:18–32 of atheistic, idolatrous humanity. This includes people wallowing in the cesspool of sexual debauchery.

The apostle explained that God, who reigned from heaven, made known His “wrath” (vs. 18) against all forms of wickedness. Manifestations of His righteous judgment in the present anticipated the final day of reckoning.

The lost used profane thoughts (especially about God) and debased behavior (especially between people) to hold down the “truth” about God’s eternal existence and sovereign rule. All such efforts were futile, for the Creator would never permit anyone to restrain the knowledge of His character and the reality of His invisible qualities from being disclosed in creation.

In verses 19–20, Paul declared that God has made the truth of His existence obvious to humankind. Scripture reveals that the Lord, who is “spirit” (John 4:24), is invisible (Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27); yet, even though the physical eye cannot see the Creator, His existence is reflected in what He has made.

Moreover, Paul explained that since God brought the universe into existence, He has made His “invisible attributes” (Rom 1:20) plainly clear. This included the Creator’s “eternal power” and “divine nature.”

Indeed, since the dawn of time, people have an instinctive awareness—which is reinforced by observing creation—that there is a supreme being. So, they cannot justify their decision to reject the Creator and refuse to submit to His will.

By seeing the intricate design of the universe, people—who bear God’s image—can innately understand certain aspects of His nature (vs. 21). Regardless of pagan humanity’s mental prowess and educational attainments, the Creator’s assessment is that they are morally deficient (vs. 22).

Verse 23 draws attention to a descending hierarchy of idolatry, beginning with the veneration of humans and moving to the worship of birds, animals, and reptiles. Expressed differently, the lost invent gods and goddesses patterned after various forms of life (Deut 4:15–18; Ps 106:20; Jer 2:11). In turn, unsaved humanity’s enslavement to idols leads to their alienation from the one, true, and living God.

Because of idolatry, God deliberately abandoned the Gentiles to their depravity (Rom. 1:24). So, instead of attempting to restrain their wickedness, God simply allowed their vile behavior to run its course. Specifically, the Creator removed His influence and permitted fallen humanity’s willful rejection to produce its natural and inevitable consequences, which in this case were deadly.

Paul was writing from Corinth, the location of Aphrodite’s temple. At the time he penned Romans, this shrine housed hundreds of temple prostitutes who were used sexually as an act of worship to pagan deities. These degrading acts were believed to provoke the gods and goddesses into doing similar acts, which resulted in increased crops and larger families.

Such religious prostitution was common in Roman culture. In this way, the unsaved traded the truth about God’s existence and rule for a “lie” (vs. 25), particularly when it involved idol worship.

As noted earlier, through people’s attitudes and actions, they revered created things, rather than the all-powerful Lord. As a counterweight to humankind’s perverted acts, Paul burst forth in praise to God and sealed the exclamation with an “Amen.”

In verse 26, we read for the second time that God intentionally abandoned humankind, but in this case it was to degrading passions. Yet, unlike the immorality committed by the cultic prostitutes, these sexual sins were private.

Individuals perverted God’s gift of physical intimacy in the context of marriage by shamelessly engaging in homosexual acts. Men and women exchanged “natural relations” (between men and women) with “unnatural” relations (men with men and women with women).

Indeed, Paul literally said those of the same gender “burned with intense desire” (vs. 27) for one another. As a result of such indecent behavior, people received the divinely-sanctioned “penalty,” namely, the scourge of wallowing in their perversion.

In verse 28, we read for the third time that God actively abandoned people, but in this case it was to a morally reprehensible way of thinking. People not only refused to acknowledge the Creator’s existence, but also to submit to His will.

Expressed differently, the reprobates put God’s sensible boundaries out of their thoughts, and He responded by surrendering them to a warped view of reality. Out of this mindset arose all kinds of evil deeds.

Verses 29-30 list the indecent behaviors condemned in verse 28. Paul categorized the conduct of the morally degenerate into four clusters of active sin: wickedness (the opposite of righteousness), evil (the profound absence of empathy, shame, and goodness), greed (the relentless urge to acquire more than one needs), and depravity (a constant bent toward immorality). These four basic kinds of deliberate, odious behavior in turn express themselves in specific ways.

Those whom God abandoned are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God haters; they are insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless (vss. 29-31).

The despicable conduct of these individuals was not due to ignorance of God’s commands (vs. 32). Rather, they sinned despite their limited awareness of God, making them all the more culpable.

Even worse, these reprobates applauded these reprehensible practices among others. Perhaps seeing their peers do these debased activities filled the instigators with a sense of self-justification. In any case, they received what they deserved, namely, death or eternal separation from God.

Short bio: Dan completed his doctoral studies at North-West University. He is widely published and has a particular interest in intertextuality between the testaments, Biblical ethics and spiritual care in professional settings. Dan has extensive experience in tertiary education and a passion for scholarly excellence.

Believe it or not, a tree if a church meets under it creates form and space and thus in this instance is considered architecture. In this case, it promotes ‘grassroots’ theology and discipleship. You might imagine Jesus leaning against a tree in ancient Israel teaching his disciples. A coffee shop is informal and thus demonstrates a theology of common fellowship and hospitality, and the focus is usually on the immanence of Christ. It’s primarily a horizontal theology rather than a vertical one where one might feel a sense of the supreme transcendent majesty of God in the architecture and liturgy, you would however get that at the York Minster. There are countless other types of church architecture, each with its theological emphases. Of course, I am speaking in generalization here, but you get the point. I remember studying Architecture History and Appreciation in first-year Architecture. When it came to modernist architecture, one of the South African examples was the old  Dutch Reformed style which, we were told, was designed with apartheid ideologies in mind employing certain modernist architectural motifs. Church buildings tell you something about the theology and ideology of our churches.

As with most other buildings, form follows function. A house looks like a house, not a bank. A school looks like a school, not an airport, and so on. And so, a church building ought to look like a church. Yes, of course, a church is made up of its people, it’s not the building itself, but still, the building tells you something about its congregation and their theology. I have no problem with the re-use of other building typologies for churches when there are economic or other considerations for doing so. However, I propose that designing church buildings in the typology of convention centres, shopping malls, or business parks is a deviation from authentic church and Christianity. Its either architecturally dishonest, or such architectural typologies are used to mimic an ideology. These church buildings, I argue, are moulded by consumerism and capitalism. These are generally not considered Christian virtue and theology. I have no doubt that many of these buildings are brilliantly designed fitted with state-of-the-art equipment. But was this what Jesus had in mind when he founded the Church?

Even if it is argued that these ‘shopping mall churches’ or whatever else are relevant, providing an evangelistic tool to reach outsiders, one need only listen to the sermons and walk into their bookshops to see that their architecture is in fact a tactile expression of their theology. Anyway, Scripture calls us to be attractive, not relevant. I can’t imagine Jesus, the Apostles, the Church fathers, or even the great Reformers seeking to create a relevant church. This in my view is a post-modern ideal.

I am not suggesting that churches begin designing Gothic cathedrals again, it’s simply impractical and uneconomical. However, we do need to be intentional about church design as a proclamation of who God is. It reminds me of something Paul Washer once said, “Don’t tell people that God has a wonderful plan for their life; tell them who God is”. Let that be true of our architecture too. Further, think about beauty and aesthetics—sadly this has been missing in evangelical Christianity.   

Church architecture matters. Take a moment and reflect on what the exterior and interior of your church architecture communicate about the theology of your church. Do they align? If not, why not? If you were to give your church building theological expression, what might it look like? If you are considering designing a new church building, hire an architect who has experience in designing churches and exploring ideas that may reflect your theological convictions. Liturgical and contemporary churches will have their own styles, but even contemporary church buildings can be Biblical and God-honouring. Let’s aim for exquisite world-class church architecture that is deeply theological, rather than commercial.

Short Bio: Dr. Robert Falconer (robertf@sats.edu.za) is the Masters and Doctoral Research Coordinator overseeing all aspects of student research at the M.Th. and Ph.D. level.

First, in reading any biblical narrative, we have to look for the protagonist and remember that the story is about them. For example, this story is not about Abel’s martyrdom. The original readers would have realized that a character whose name means “vapor” probably does not have an essential role in the story. This story is about Cain.

When I reread this story, I felt compassion for Cain because his sacrifice was rejected. However, I later realized that God also had sympathy for Cain, but not so much that he would redefine “proper.”

A bit of background is needed here. See, God’s choice of sacrifice was not an arbitrary show of favoritism. To “look with favor” (NIV) means to regard as “proper.”[1] While Cain offered some random fruit, Abel offered the fat portions of the firstborn of his flock. Abel’s offering was precious and in keeping with the requirements.

Cain was understandably devastated. However, God did not leave Cain alone with his sense of rejection and disappointment but mercifully reached out to him. Like a caring Father, the LORD spoke the truth in love to Cain and reminded him[2] that if he would do what is “proper,” he would be accepted.

In our modern world that emphasizes humanity’s right to free choice and demands tolerance and pluralism, these words might seem cruel, but there is deep mercy in them. Back then, just like now, God had provided a way of having fellowship with him and being welcomed. But only one “proper” way was acceptable to him.

In a further show of mercy, God warns Cain that if he chooses not to do what is “proper” before God, a force is waiting to overpower him. God personifies sin here and cautions Cain that he must master it. But Cain does not accept God’s words of correction and his invitation to fellowship. Instead, he lets sin personified pounce on him. He chooses vengeance.

After Cain murdered Abel out of envy, in yet another show of mercy, God approached Cain with a simple query, rhetorical though the question might be. Cain, however, did not use this chance to confess. Instead, he shunned God’s mercy and replied with biting sarcasm.

Failing to receive the proper response, the LORD then issued a judgment. Because Cain murdered his brother out of jealousy, shedding his blood on the land, Cain could no longer cultivate the ground successfully. Furthermore, he was cursed to wander around restlessly because of his wickedness.

After judgment was issued, Cain finally softened up and showed remorse. He finally appreciated the weight of what he had done. He realized that he would no longer live in God’s presence. Regarding his fear of being killed, God never said Cain would die for what he did, but perhaps he realized that murder was a capital offense.

As the last act of mercy, perhaps because he had shown some remorse, God put a mark on Cain that would protect him from being killed for his actions. But he still had to leave God’s presence, be removed even further East of Eden than his parents, and wander around restlessly. His fellowship with God and humans was irrevocably damaged.

I hope this blog gave you a greater appreciation for just how merciful God was to Cain and is to us today. May we have soft hearts so that when God’s Spirit convicts us and tries to nudge us back on track, sometimes through others (e.g., Nathan; 2 Sam 12), we would cry out for mercy and not be clever about it. May we give in to his tug so that our fellowship with him and our spiritual siblings would not suffer damage.

Let us master what would damage this fellowship and have us wander restlessly through our lives by submitting our lives to God (Jam 4:7). Let us be living sacrifices, which is our “proper” service to God, and not conform to the world around us (Rom 12:1) that is not open to correction and will only devote themselves to the God of mercy on their terms.

Short bio

Izaak holds an MTh from SATS, where he has lectured in biblical studies since 2015. He is pursuing a Ph.D. in Old Testament with a focus on Deuteronomy at SATS. Izaak is passionate about helping believers delight in the beautiful things that the Old Testament reveals about the character of God. Izaak is married to Karien and lives in Stellenbosch, where they fellowship at the local Joshua Generation Church.

[1] Hoogendyk, Isaiah (ed). 2017. The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[2] The phrasing suggests he was aware.

1. Pentecost and unity in diversity

The first verse of Acts 2 begins with “they were all together in the same place”. This verse is well expounded in 2:9-11, here all the ethnic groups that were in the upper room are presented. There was indeed unity in diversity – all races and languages of the world in those days were represented. If Genesis 11 made people scatter across the earth, Pentecost in Acts 2 brought people together.

This feature of Pentecost should be encouraged rather than breakaways and divisions that have become rampant in most Spirit-oriented churches in Africa and other parts of the world. More and more independent ministries and church denominations are being planted almost every day in Africa not necessarily out of passion or God’s calling but because of breakaways in other existing churches. This trend is against the unity that is displayed in the Triune God, the unity that characterized the early church, the unity that was central in the Lord’s prayer in John 17, and the unity that is embedded in the body metaphor for the church in 1Cor 12. As Pentecostals, we should learn from the mainline churches that do not put much emphasis on the Spirit as we do but they remain united. For unity promote the Missio Dei as it helps the body of Christ draw strengths from every member. Where there is God’s Spirit there should be both freedom and unity because he is not the Spirit of confusion and division. To help us reflect again on this important feature of Pentecost here are some questions: when did you last hear about breakaway in the church and what denomination was it? What was the cause for that breakaway? What do you think should be done to address this evil, especially amongst Pentecostals?

2. Pentecost and the experience of the supernatural power

The unity of the disciples in the upper room made it possible and easier for the promise of the Father to come. The Holy Spirit came like a violent rushing wind from heaven, Acts 2: 2. The wind symbolizes the power of the Holy Spirit that cannot be resisted by anything or anyone. Christ in Acts 1: 8 promised the reception of divine power by the disciples before they venture into the mission. This agrees with what Luke says about the Lord Jesus who was filled with the Holy Spirit and power and went about preaching, healing, and doing good to people. In fact, the manifesto of Christ’s mission in Luke 4:18-21 emphasizes the anointing with power for mission.

God’s mission includes preaching the gospel, teaching the truth, healing the sick, teaching the truth, and doing good to the poor. But all these can not be done without supernatural power from above. As Pentecostals more emphasis should be laid on the infilling with power continuously for mission to be accomplished, we do not do missions in our own strengths. When this feature in encouraged the desire for Satanic power will reduce and have no place in the church. It is very surprising that amongst Pentecostals we hear about preachers, prophets who consult Sangomas to get magic or Satanic powers to attract the crowd and perform wonders. This is a pity indeed for a church known for experiencing divine power from heaven seeking magic powers from the earth. Of course, this has come into the church because the genuine supernatural power has disappeared in some contexts and people try to bring in what is false or fake to close the gap. It is time as Pentecostals we emphasized the authentic mark of supernatural power so that the church in Africa will desire it and be filled with it as it was declared by the Lord in John 7:37-39. Here are some questions for our reflection based on this second sign of Pentecost: how often does your church teach about spiritual empowerment? When did you last hear or teach about Spirit- baptism? How do you know that you are filled with the power of the Holy Spirit? What have you done in the recent past because of Spiritual power?

3. Pentecost and the experience of fire

Not only did the Holy Spirit come with a symbol of the wind but there was also like tongues of fire resting on each one of the disciples, Acts 2:3. The language of fire was also used by John the Baptist when referring to the coming of Jesus who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. The use of fire in this context meant judgement, Christ’s coming opened a door for Christians to receive the Holy Spirit and the non-Christians to be judged by his word. But the fire in the book of Acts 2 symbolizes the coming of God the Spirit amongst his people, he has come to dwell among us just as Christ lived among people. Pentecostals are known as People who sense God’s presence, walk with God and experience God where they gather. This distinctive must not be lost in the church, people are not interested in seeing the so called “men of God” and “women of God”, people come to church to encounter the Lord, to enjoy his presence. The cult of men or the church that promotes men more than God is not the church of God. We should avoid quenching the fire of the Spirit in our personal lives and churches, let the church be the place where God is real and touchable. For where God presence is more people will come and wonders take place, Acts 2: 43, 47.   This Pentecostal distinctive requires some reflective questions: how present is God’s Spirit in your life? How often do you experience God’s presence in your church service? What makes God’s presence real in your ministry? How do you know that God’s Spirit is present practically?

4. Pentecost and hearing God’s voice

The last sign of Pentecost from Acts 2:4 was that the Holy Spirit spoke in human languages because he wanted people to be drawn to God. He is the speaking Spirit, he reveals God’s mysteries to the church, he did it on the day of Pentecost, he did it with apostles like Peter and Paul and he is doing it today. Pentecostals should continue to teach and emphasis the need to be sensitive to the voice of God. When we gather for worship, when we sing and pray, we should expect God to speak to us. We serve and worship God who speaks, he uses various ways to speak to his people. Christians do not need to consult prophets or any seers to hear what God is saying about their lives and families, especially now that we have an increase of false prophets and miracle workers in Africa. Christians should be encouraged to consult the Spirit and be sensitive to his voice. He dwells in them, and he is ready to counsel and guide them.

The church should be a place or an environment where God speaks to his people through scriptures but even directly through his Spirit as it was on the day of Pentecost. Hearing God’s voice is a very important mark of Pentecostalism that must be promoted and protected by all those who are led by the Holy Spirit. As you reflect on this mark of Pentecost here are possible questions for you: when did you last hear God speak to you? How does he speak to you? Why has he stopped speaking to you?

Conclusion

This short article was simply a reflection on the four distinctive features of authentic biblical Pentecostalism that need to be preserved especially in the church of Africa. The coming of intruders into the church has started to bring doubt among some people about these marks and we are likely to lose them and their relevance among us who continue to believe in and work under the Holy Spirit. Unity in diversity instead of breakaways, Spiritual power for mission instead of magical power for deception, divine fire as a symbol of God’s presence instead of having churches where men are the centre and finally, we need to be eager and sensitive to listen to God’s voice through the Holy Spirit.

Short Bio:

Jesse earned his D. Th in Missiology from UNISA and has been in full-time ministry for more than 20 years. Jesse is passionate about Pentecostal missions and ministry and has published three books. Jesse is the SATS BTh Honours coordinator, MTh & PhD supervisor, Lecturer, and Senior pastor Liberating Truth Mission church international, Lubumbashi, DRC.

I remembered walking down those same streets thirty years ago as a student, on fire for God, sharing the message of the Gospel, praying for marginalized people, and growing in my love for missions. There was a certain kind of romantic mystery about ‘street life’ to which I have always been drawn to. For me, the assumed lurking danger in dark alleys was merely an opportunity to discover something extraordinary, someone extraordinary, whose story hadn’t been heard yet.

This was different. This was no ordinary outreach with Gospel tracts, little pocket Bibles, or prepared evangelical phrases. We were on our way to where the drug dealers, addicts, and prostitutes ‘hung out’ every night. My two companions were in full-time ministry at the time, managing a ‘drop-in center’ where local prostitutes could come to during the day for food, Bible study, and a refreshing shower. Their approach was different from what I had been exposed to in ‘street ministry’. The goal was to befriend the girls first and establish a trusting relationship without specifically talking about Jesus, sin, or repentance. Only much later on, after trust has been created and maintained, would my companions invite the girls to their Bible study. It was a long process and it often took a couple of years before some of the girls would accept Christ, or come off the streets. An important factor to consider was that the girls ‘belonged’ to someone who was exploiting them, preventing them from leaving.

As we were approaching a well-lit low bridge, she swung herself around the railing, startling me. “Hey, sweetie,” cooed the velvet voice. She had beautiful features: high cheekbones, full lips, and perfectly straight teeth. She was dressed in a revealing, tight-fitting animal print dress, and she could barely balance on her high heels. She placed her arm around my shoulders and used me for support, while chit-chatting, often looking over her shoulder. Her name was Ruby. “Aw, sweetie, you girls are always so nice to us,” she smiled when I gave her a handful of Sparkles. She struggled to unwrap the candy and I assisted. She wiped her nose with the back of her hand, her bangles cling-clanging. She glanced over her shoulder,  leaning closer to my ear. “He’s always watching, you know? I can’t go too far.” We came to a halt and I told her about the drop-in center. “Don’t you have a job for me, sweetie? If you could just … (sniff) … I wasn’t always like this.” She staggered, but I caught her before she fell. She seemed breakable. “It’s the drugs, you know?” she slurred. “If you could do anything, what would it be?” I finally asked and she seemed to sober up for a moment. “I would be a jeweler,” she giggled, but it soon turned into an uncontrollable hackle, and then … wailing. I was perplexed. My companions had ended their conversations with another girl in the meantime and joined me. We prayed for the sobbing girl and afterward said our goodbyes.

Ruby wouldn’t let me go. She looked at me earnestly, digging her nails into my arm. “Why do you believe I’m worth something?” she wanted to know. Her question tugged at my heart. It was not the right time to tell her that I understood more than I had let on. I knew the pain and shame of being exploited intimately, and how that erodes one’s self-worth. I couldn’t possibly identify with her life, or what she had to endure, but I was familiar with the loss of identity and womanhood; the desperate longing to be valued.

“You have worth, Ruby, because God gives you worth,” spilled over my lips. She sank down onto the pavement and hugged her knees against her chest. I didn’t want to bombard her with placated, meaningless phrases. Instead, I sat down next to her, and we smiled at each other through our tears, experiencing a comforting kinship for a brief moment. “How will God find me in this dark place, sweetie? There is so much evil, so much suffering here. I’m too deep in the gutter.” I prayed for guidance under my breath but didn’t get the opportunity to respond. Ruby hastily got up and motioned with her head. An expensive car was driving slowly towards us, flashing its headlights. “Got to go, sweetie, I’m an expensive girl.” Ruby cautiously crossed the road and the fancy car flipped open an entrance. She fell into the seat, and as she closed the door, the driver sped away. The buzzing city enveloped them. Ruby was gone.

I have often wondered what I could have done differently that night. Prayer didn’t seem adequate―it was comforting but didn’t change Ruby’s situation. Perhaps it did. I will never know. Could I have rescued her? Should she have simply run away from her captor? It’s more complicated than that. I have discovered many years after that night, that ‘fixing’ someone was impossible. Such brokenness takes a long time to heal, and it requires a network of people investing in such a process. Then there is the issue of rescued girls returning to the same world they desperately wanted to escape from. It’s a tough journey. It’s easy to criticize from the sidelines, but after having sat on the pavement with Ruby, I knew that God was the only one who could safely bring her through her pain. He knows more than I do, and I had to trust him to complete the work he had started in her. It doesn’t mean I don’t have to do anything, but it means that I can do what God had called me to do for such a time, in such a speechless moment where the pain is shouting at the top of its voice; even if it is only to listen and comfort, and share my Sparkles. I can’t do what only God can do.

We couldn’t find Ruby the next time went back to the same area. Anything could have happened to her, and we could only trust that she was safe. I had unwavering faith that God had already found Ruby as she was crying out in the darkness, amidst the evil and suffering, just like he would find all the other Rubys out there. Nothing was impossible for him. He had created Ruby possessing great worth as his precious creation, even if she and others didn’t believe it. He paid the most expensive price for her on the cross. She was a diamond in the dark.

Short Biography: Idalette (idalette@sats.edu.za) is a part-time co-lecturer at SATS, in the Christian Counselling courses, she completed the Higher Certificate in Christian Counseling at SATS in January 2020 with distinction. She earned a degree in music (BMus (Ed), 1992), and honors in Educational Psychology (1993) at TUKS. As a part-time counselor with survivors of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, she is interested in effectively applying music- and art therapeutic techniques in trauma counseling, she is also a motivational speaker, writer, and spokesperson for Human Trafficking Awareness. She is married to Andrew and they have three children and live in Centurion.

We are also pleased to announce that Conspectus 33 is out now. (Conspectus is the peer-reviewed journal of the Seminary). It is available on the SATS website under Resources. You can access it for free HERE.

Celebrating with our Graduates

On 12 May, we finally had an opportunity to celebrate in person with our students at the SATS Graduation, held at Rosebank Union Church in Sandton. This is the first live graduation the Seminary hosted since before the Covid-19 pandemic, which made it extra special for us. A recording of the Livestream can be viewed on our YouTube channel HERE.

SATS Staff Retreat

We recently had our SATS Staff retreat in the Drakensberg, where the staff had an opportunity to connect and reflect, and to play, pray and praise together. Being a decentralised Seminary, we normally work from our homes around the world and connect online, so being able to spend time together in person is a highlight on our calendar.

Missiology Month

June is Missiology Month at the SATS Symposia. You can find out more and register by clicking here: Live Events Registration

New Policy on Course Withdrawals

SATS recently introduced a policy on course withdrawals. Until now, we never had a policy that allows students to withdraw from a course once they’ve started it.  However, students have many legitimate reasons for needing to exit a course. Therefore, SATS now provides a framework for students to do so. SATS wishes to avoid the subjectivity of making case-by-case judgments regarding which reasons for withdrawal are legitimate. Therefore, a simple, objective standard is applied to all cases. You can access a tutorial called “How to Withdraw from a Course” on the Tutorials page in the Kiosk by clicking HERE.

The Gospel of John is the most eucharistic (referring to the Lord’s Supper) of the Gospels. There is no Last Supper, but all the eucharistic theology is there, and not only that, but it also develops it in full-bodied-bloom, beginning at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1–12) where Jesus turned water into wine. Jesus transformed one substance into another: from the ordinary to the special. The ceremonial washing jars of the old covenant became the vessels for something new and extraordinary. Later in John 6, Jesus fed 5000 people by miraculously multiplying five small barley loaves and two small fish! Considering Jesus’s discourse in John 6:25–59 and the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels, it’s difficult not to see that two of the seven signs in John’s Gospel develop eucharistic theology.

The Last Supper in all the Synoptic Gospels shares four primary elements, namely: (1) the Passover festival, (2) the new covenant proclamation, (3) words of institution, and (4) the betrayal. It might surprise you that John 6 includes all four elements as well.

1. The Passover Festival

John 6:4 arranges the entire narrative and discourse of John 6 around the time of the Jewish Passover Festival. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke position the Last Supper as the Festival of Unleavened Bread which starts on the 15^th day of Nisan, the same month as Passover. The Passover is mentioned in all three synoptic versions (Matthew 26:17–19; Mark 14:12, 14, 16; Luke 22:7–8; 11, 13, 15).

2. The New Covenant Proclamation

John creatively weaves the new covenant proclamation into his account. Here, Jesus reminds his audience of their ancestors who ate the manna in the wilderness and that it was Moses who gave them bread from heaven. Yet the ancient Israelites died. The Father, however, gives the new true bread from heaven. Jesus said that people who ate this bread would not die, but live (John 6:30–33; 49–50). He identified this true bread as himself, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:50). Do you see the proclamation of the new covenant and the comparison between the old and the new? The Synoptic Gospels have variations of the following, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20; See Matthew 26:28–29; Mark 14:24–25; cf. Luke 22:17–18).

3. Words of Institution

The Synoptics have what I will call, the words of institution which are formulated like this, “Take and eat; this is my body … Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26: 26–28, Mark 14:22–24, Luke 22:19–20). John’s Gospel offers a fully developed discourse on this, but for brevity’s sake, I highlight the following: “Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.’” (John 6:53–56). All four Gospels have the words of institution, even if John’s Gospel is a little different.

4. The Betrayal

Jesus warned that there was one among the twelve disciples who would betray him, and John identified him as Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot (John 6:64–65; 70–71). Likewise, Jesus also foretells Judas’s betrayal in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:23–25, Mark 14:18–21, and Luke 22:22–23). Considering that Jesus changed water into wine and multiplied five loaves of bread in John’s Gospel and that his eucharistic discourse shares the four elements from the Last Supper, could there be something very special going on as we celebrate communion. If we take Jesus’s words literally as I think we should, how might his real presence in communion change the way we participate in the Lord’s Supper, and how often would we want to participate in it?

Short Bio: Dr. Robert Falconer (robertf@sats.edu.za) is the Masters and Doctoral Research Coordinator overseeing all aspects of student research at the M.Th. and Ph.D. level.

Like most of us, David had a keen sense of justice. Upon hearing the story of the poor man and his ewe, he instinctively knew that the rich man had committed a terrible and unjust act. However, it was only when Nathan pointed out to David that he, in fact, was that man, that the realization of his own sin dawned on him. Without Nathan’s finger, David would have kept burning with anger against the sinful, rich man—completely missing the realization that he had done something far worse.

In a world obsessed with justice, most of us are quick to become enraged by the evil of others. Only in the last month, we have been overwhelmed by headlines of war, a celebrity slap at the Oscars, a wife on trial for domestic abuse, the misappropriation of state funds, and many other acts of injustice. We chime in and, in a similar way to David, exclaim, “such a person must pay!” What a pity that our acts of stone-throwing often leave us enraged and self-righteous, rather than humbled and repentant of our own sin. I recently had a friend in the Lord be Nathan to me. With the prophet’s finger, she pointed out that I often showed little respect for my husband by making fun of him at his expense. Far be it from me to rant about a celebrity abusing her husband when I have made it a habit to undermine my own. Nathan’s finger has caused me to see that I have sinned against the Lord, and this has given me the opportunity to repent and be restored.

In 1 Corinthians 11:17–22 we see Paul rebuke the church in Corinth for making a mockery of the Lord’s supper. They were bringing judgement on themselves by entertaining disunity, humiliating the poor, and not esteeming others higher than themselves. He encourages them to judge among themselves and to be judged and disciplined by the Lord, so that they will ultimately not be condemned with the rest of the world (vv. 31–32). Through Paul’s letter, Nathan’s finger clearly points to them. However, it becomes an emblem of hope, marking an opportunity for repentance and reconciliation.

Perhaps we need to recalibrate the way we see the finger of Nathan. It was not just meant for David in his adultery but comes to each of us as a symbol of God’s love, restoration, and hope in our lives. The finger of Nathan comes through the prompting of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16–17), and (very often) the faithful wounds of a loving friend (Prov 26:7). Let us learn to ask for it, embrace it, and respond in gratitude. How beautiful is the finger that points to me and says, “You are the [wo]man!”     

Bio: Dr. Cornelia van Deventer is the Coordinator of Faculty Research and a Senior Lecturer at the South African Theological Seminary. She obtained her Ph.D. in New Testament from Stellenbosch University in 2018. Her research interests lie in the Gospel of John, particularly its literary structure and rhetorical effect. Cornelia also serves as the editor of SATS’s journal, Conspectus (see here). She lives in Worcester with her husband, Johann, and their two sons, Ezra and Ilan, where they serve on the leadership team of Joshua Generation Church.  

Where is the ‘My Curriculum’ link in MySATS? 

The ‘My Curriculum’ option has been replaced by the ‘SATS Portal.’ Moving forward, the ordering of subjects and the managing of your study journey will be done in the Portal. 

Why can’t I see my chosen curriculum or edit my electives? 

In the new SATS Portal, we have done away with fixed student curricula. We made this change for the following reasons: 

Firstly, your interests and circumstances change as you progress through your studies. Instead of students having to pre-select their electives and stick with a rigid study plan, they should be free to choose from whatever electives appeal when the time comes to order.  

Secondly, SATS periodically adds new subjects and discontinues others. A fixed curriculum does not present students with the option of taking new subjects. It also forces students to replace discontinued subjects with something else – a lot of unnecessary hassle for you. 

The new portal addresses these issues, giving students the freedom to choose from all the electives available in the coming term, not just the ones that were pre-selected upon registration. This ensures that the options students can choose from are always up to date.  

 How am I to manage my studies? 

There are only four things students need to do to ensure that their studies are on track:  

1. Ensure that you take all the compulsory (required) subjects included in your programme.  
2. Ensure that you complete the requisite number of credits at the exit level for your programme. For the BTh, this is 120 credits, or 10 subjects, at the third-year level. 
3. Fill up the balance of required credits with electives of your choosing for each year level. 
4. Remember to refer to the relevant programme information and timetables on the SATS website. 

We realise that these changes can be disconcerting. However, we have included a progress report within the portal to assist you in the selection of your courses. We have also prepared a helpful tutorial on how to navigate the new portal.  

This tutorial may be found in the How to Choose and Order New Courses tutorial on the Kiosk, which answers all the commonly asked questions about navigating the portal, and gives some guidance on how to approach the choice of courses (start with compulsories, how to choose electives, etc.) 

Should you have any further questions feel free to contact your programme administrator: 

• HCCL, HCCC, BTH – Grace grace@sats.ac.za or Joy joy@sats.ac.za 
• Honours and MDiv – Elsie elsie@sats.ac.za  
• MTh and PhD – Marilyn marilyn@sats.ac.za  

We trust that you will find the new SATS Portal to be liberating and exciting. 

We heard that a presentation was being given in the local cultural center about this famous tapestry that was crafted in Hamburg. I had read Karl Barth’s momentous Church Dogmatics not so long ago and knew that he wrote much of it in front of a copy of Matthias Grünewald’s (1470–1528) Isenheim Altarpiece for his theological inspiration. Walking into the gallery in Hamburg I recognize the shape and the colors of the tapestry.

It’s a re-envisioning of the Isenheim Altarpiece with a distinctly Keiskamma feel, artfully weaving together local history, culture, and religious motifs with detailed embroidery. The project was the brainchild of a medical doctor, Carol Hofmeyr, and was crafted by 130 women (and seven men) from the Keiskamma Art Project. It is 4.15 meters high and 6.8 meters wide, as per Grünewald’s altarpiece. But it is the lives of the artists and their stories that make this project come alive and it is to them that tribute is due. The work has traveled the world and has been displayed in various Cathedrals—not surprisingly because it is an impressive project!

The altarpiece is a triptych, which is a paneled art piece that is divided into three sections hinged together so that its leaves can be opened out with three different displays.

The first display with the panels closed has mostly brown colours showing people with little material means searching for purpose. There is a Xhosa widow who mourns the loss of her husband who died from AIDS, together with images of orphaned children whose parents were victims of the virus. The central image is flanked by two of Hamburg’s saints. Both were chosen for their wisdom, and their love for their community. Lagena Mapuma is dressed in her red Methodist church outfit, and Susan Paliso wears a white shawl; you can meet her here. A cross foregrounds this tapestry, reminding us of Jesus’ participation in humanity’s suffering. The cross is empty, providing us a window into the next panel: The Resurrection.

	Fig 1. The Keiskamma Altarpiece – Closed View		Fig 2. Isenheim Altarpiece – Closed View

There we were sitting, listening to the presentation, the panels were flung open in vibrant colour, and my 6-year old son cries out in amazement, “Whoa!” The panels open to a “vision of hope, redemption and restoration.”[1] Lagena Mapuma and Susan Paliso appear again, this time much smaller among images of birds, trees, fish, and all those things that make up an abundant life. The large figure in the second display is a local mystic who runs on the dunes marking his prayers in the sand in art form. You can see him in action here. Traditional life and spiritual worship are woven in harmony with the Christian hope of resurrection and the renewed creation.

	Fig 3. The Keiskamma Altarpiece– Open View 1		Fig 4. Isenheim Altarpiece – Open View 1

The third and final display of the triptych contains photographs in black and white of children and their grandmothers. As with the original Isenheim Altarpiece where the third display had three-dimensional wood carvings, this piece has three-dimensional wire beadwork of Coral and Acacia trees. I could not help noticing the parallel of the Acacia thorns above the photographs as symbolic of Christ’s atonement as with the very first display in Grünewald’s masterpiece.

	Fig 5. The Keiskamma Altarpiece – Open View 2		Fig 6. Isenheim Altarpiece – Open View 2

I should mention that the wounds of those diseased in the Keiskamma Altarpiece are depicted similarly to Jesus’s wounds in Grünewald’s work. As the Keiskamma Trust explains, “In the 16th century Matthias Grünewald painted the Issenheim Altarpiece for a hospice in Germany, where the inmates were dying of ergot poisoning. At that time the disease was painful and incurable. Grünewald’s work shows the crucified figure with all the stigmata of the disease…. It depicts the suffering and hopes of a society in the throes of an incurable epidemic.”[2] The Keiskamma Altarpiece draws parallels with contemporary diseases like HIV and AIDS offering hope to the local people of the Keiskamma.

I reflect upon myself as a professional theologian with a PhD focussing on the atonement and African Theology, and those who created this magnificent altarpiece. They too are theologians as much as I am, we stand side by side as brothers and sisters. I do theology in prose grappling with abstract concepts, and they do theology in tapestry telling their stories of Christian faith, suffering and hope in the here and now. We need more of this sort of theologian, grounding theology meaningfully in context, beauty, and the visual arts.

*Much of the information in this blog was adapted from the article, “The Keiskamma Altarpiece” by the Keiskamma Trust. You can read the full article here.

Photographs of the Keiskamma Altarpiece courtesy of Carol Hofmeyr and her son, Robert.

[1]The Keiskamma Trust. 2022. “The Keiskamma Altarpiece.” The Keiskamma Trust, 9 April 2022. http://www.keiskamma.org/art/the-keiskamma-altarpiece/

Short Bio: Dr. Robert Falconer (robertf@sats.edu.za) is the Masters and Doctoral Research Coordinator overseeing all aspects of student research at the M.Th. and Ph.D. level.