I've just driven home behind a bus advertising job vacancies with the slogan:

'Discover through examinations - become an examiner for OCR'

Mm. Think I'd always presumed examiners had to know something before they started.

This really is good. After the philosophical quagmires of divine timelessness it's a blessed relief to read someone whose language I understand, who knows when a fact is a fact and a theory is a theory and a model is a model, who is properly cautious and thoughtfully challenging.

It's fifteen years since I first read it and, for those of you who've never quite got round to it, here are some of my favourite bits (so far):

'In order to talk about the nature of the universe and to discuss questions such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simple-minded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean).' [p9]

'Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.' [p10]

SO: scientific theories are provisional models which relate and predict some of our observations of the universe. Hawking also agrees with Popper that a good scientific theory should be falsifiable - that is it should make predictions which can, at least in principle, be tested by observation.

Which leads him (by way of some interesting history of 20th century physics) to point out that:

'even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.' [p46]

Here, Hawking's point is that no event occurring before the big bang has any effect whatsoever on any event after the big bang, and vice versa. Therefore, there are no observations we can make which will confirm or deny any theory which attempts to describe what happened before the big bang. Such existence can never be properly the subject of scientific endeavour.

Which is quite different from affirming that there was no space or time before the big bang. Just that we can never (from our observations of the physical universe) know either way.

Which is a shame, since it means that it's back to the philosophers for me.

Not really sure that I'm yet fully persuaded but the following is the result of reading too many difficult books with long words...

It seems the suitability of God’s immutability
depends upon his timelessness (and that shows off my rhymelessness).
Neither present, past nor future tenses adequately give the sensus
of God unchanging and unbending, no beginning and no ending.

We deny all temporality, assert his immortality.
He has no ‘when,’ no ‘now,’ no ‘then,’
there’s no succession, no progression, no cessation, no duration.
For him all ‘nows’ are simultaneous, but that don’t mean he’s instantaneous.

More alive than you or I, he was not born and will not die;
our timeless God who does not change and cannot lie.

What a joy to hear James Robson preaching in chapel this morning with such evident love for the Lord and for the law of God, reminding us of some obvious truths about the OT view of the law - that it came in the context of grace, that it had a historical and social particularity which meant that it needed to be applied thoughtfully even then, that it was relational not legalistic, and so on. AND pointing out the nuanced understanding of the law in the NT, especially in Romans, which again is better understood if we recognise its context in the flow of salvation history.

Sure, there are questions he didn't address - what do we do (or not do) on Sundays, for example. But how helpful to have the foundational principles for the way we approach that question so clearly laid out.

Here's an odd thought: maybe polygamy isn't quite such an evil as we all assume. Nelly Stienstra in 'YHWH is the husband of his people' explores the OT view of polygamy and shows that although 'the Hebrew ideal throughout the Old Testament period was a monogamous marriage, blessed with children,' nevertheless, 'Polygamy is tolerated, but only as a necessary evil, in the case of childlessness - apart from the harems of kings - and even enforced under certain circumstances when the violation of an unbetrothed virgin is involved, but it clearly does not make for a happy life.'

Hannah's misery, for example, in 1 Samuel 1, seems to result not only from her childlessness but also from her husband's transfer of his affections to his new wife. (I take the difficult phrase in v5 at its face value, so 'one portion in anger' and Elkanah's love to be past 'for he had loved her'.)

To show that polygamy was recognised as generally undesirable, Stienstra points to the laws regulating it (Leviticus 18:18 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17) which she suggests are 'obviously intended to reduce the unsettling effect of polygamy on a household.’

So clearly not the ideal, nor the intended norm, and a source of misery to some. But nonetheless permitted because childlessness was worse.

What are we to make of this in the new covenant era? Well, it's true that having children is not so important economically. Nor does it fulfil quite such a significant role in terms of our own understanding of our posterity. But children are still a sign of God's blessing and favour and covenant faithfulness.

It seems to me that the prevailing attitude in our society is that women have the right to have children when and how they choose. Natalie Evans, for instance, has been fighting in the courts for years to allow her to use the frozen embryos created with her former partner (husband?) despite his withdrawal of consent. Whatever you think about the ethics of the case (or lack thereof) it clearly demonstrates her strong sense of a right to have her own child.

Interesting that in the OT it was the husband who had the right to a child, even to the extent of taking a second wife if his first proved barren.

So, my question is - are there still circumstances in which polygamy might be permissible (even required?)? And is the bible's focus on the importance of having children a mandate for IVF or other forms of assisted conception? Or should we simply learn to be content with whatever blessing God does or doesn't choose to give us?

I've been reading John Piper's chapters in 'Sex and the supremacy of Christ' and finding them less irritatingly American than some of his stuff. Here's his basic thesis:

'sexuality is designed by God as a way to know God in Christ more fully.'
AND 'knowing God in Christ more fully is designed as a way of guarding and guiding our sexuality.'

Piper restates his point negatively:

'all sexual corruption serves to conceal the true knowledge of Christ, but the true knowledge of Christ serves to prevent sexual corruption.'

I guess we'd all be happy to point to the sexual depravity of society as evidence of the rejection of Christ (and as Romans 1 reminds us, a judgment on such rejection). But some would find Piper's first point more controversial. He is suggesting that somehow human sexuality aids our knowledge of God.

I think it's amazing how many people claim (apparently without feeling the need to justify this in any way) that there is nothing in the bible to suggest that our relationship with God could be thought of in sexual terms. Piper rightly refutes this, citing Ezekiel 16:4-10 in which God speaks of Judah as his bride over whom he laid his garment, a clear sexual reference. This is confirmed when Judah's unfaithfulness is described in sexual terms - as prostitution.

Piper again:
'sexual language in the Bible for our covenant relationship to God does lead us to think of knowing God on the analogy of sexual intimacy and ecstasy. I don't mean that we somehow have sexual relations with God or he with man. ...But I do mean that the intimacy and ecstasy of sexual relations points to what knowing God is meant to be.'

Quite right. Odd then, that other contributors to the book (Ben Patterson, CJ Mahaney) are so certain that the Song of Songs is a book only about human sexuality. Since sexual language is used elsewhere of God's relationship to his people, why not here?

As of 6.01pm today (March 17th, 2006) I have 2,001,668,420 seconds to live. Apparently.

So, anyway, I'm planning a big party for Wednesday August 21st, 2069 - the day before. You're all welcome, though you might like to check at Death Clock just to be sure you'll be around.

I don't know how this makes me feel. Slightly smug, I think, to think I'll hit 95. But mainly alarmed at my utter lack of pension provision.

Hmm. Come, Lord Jesus?

Kingscliff, 9-1 in tomorrow's Gold Cup.

Don't put your shirt on it, but definitely worth a fiver each way.

St John's Wood is the only Tube station whose name contains none of the letters in the word mackerel.

I believe this because Wikipedia tells me so (see here). And I can't be bothered to check it, I'll just repeat it freely with an air of authority.

But what if every other wikipedia user thinks the same? So no-one ever checks. So it could be complete nonsense. Possible. But I think it's more likely that hundreds of computer geeks with lots of time on their hands have gone through the entire list of stations hoping to prove it wrong.

Although, the same geeks didn't spot that 'Charing Cross' is not an example of an alliterative station. It took a pedant like me.

I've noticed that this is the trendy thing to put when citing someone else on your blog (HT David Field). Anyone know what it actually stands for?

Christianity Explored claims to relate the truth of the gospel to our pluralistic pop culture. That's great, but no good for my grandparents' generation.

What resources are there which are suited to the kind of people who've regularly attended church on a Sunday for more than 80 years yet who aren't (and have realised they aren't) believers?

Helpful suggestions welcome...

the '10 items or less' aisle is called the '10 items or fewer' aisle.

learned his oracle from his mother (Proverbs 31:1).

One of the oddest things about this question (at least as it appears within the evangelical context) is the way it is so often presented as a biblical studies question, as if all that were required was a better exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 11. Whereas it seems to me patently obvious that this is a systematics question, depending very heavily on the doctrine of the church (and within that a proper understanding of ministry), and on a biblical understanding of creation and gender (with related issues such as the intra-trinitarian model of relationships).

Second, and the Leithart post notwithstanding, I'm just wondering where the bible commends a bible-teaching role for women at all. The OT instructions to teach children are primarily directed at fathers. And the Titus 2 passage most commonly cited seems to have in mind only practical wisdom rather than bible teaching as such.

With this in mind, and considering the practicalities of church finances, it seems to me that maybe we don't need a whole host more full-time womens workers in the UK. I can't remember who I was talking to from Sydney who commented that some churches there are experiencing the problem of women in the congregation being much better taught than the men. Makes it very difficult for men to take the lead and women to submit appropriately.

I do think we have a long way to go before this danger is even a faint possibility in the UK, and I do think women need more and better teaching and equipping for ministry. And I think some of this needs to be done by other women (who therefore need an appropriate level of training and experience themselves). But we should be clear that what they are being equipped for is unlikely to be full-time paid ministry. It seems to me that what we really need is a way for the many, many women who are able and willing to give time to the church on a voluntary basis to be properly equipped for these tasks - whether teaching a Sunday school class, or running a mid-week bible study, or reading one-to-one with a younger Christian, or teaching their own children about Jesus, or visiting elderly members of the congregation to encourage them.

How best to achieve this? Proper adult education in the local congregation strikes me as an ideal solution. Available to all, cheap, local, focussed on the particular needs of the church, clearly under the authority of the pastor.

So if anyone wants to employ me...

...read what Peter Leithart has to say here.

the 'alternate' (sic) American ending of the new film of Pride and Prejudice should be banned. If ever anything were designed to make poor old Jane Austen turn in her grave, this is it. If anyone knows how I can delete it from the DVD, please let me know!

Someone suggested to me yesterday that the female equivalent of pornography is the chick lit novel or the romantic comedy film. I think there's a lot of mileage in that - since what women are most attracted by is the relationship and the intimacy which these kind of things portray, rather than just sex. And I'm sure I need to think more carefully about the contents of my bookshelf.

But also, I think this may be a useful thing for men to remember when teaching a mixed congregation about sexual purity. Often there can be an unspoken assumption that women don't really struggle with sexual temptation, or at least not as much as men, and so the application tends to be about the issues that men particularly struggle with. Which really doesn't help women - not only because their struggles aren't addressed but because they're then allowed to continue thinking these things aren't even a problem.

Don't you think this sounds like a Dead Ringers George Bushism? Why not just 'purifiers'? Or even, 'napkins'?

Have you ever tried to follow the path of a snowflake? It brings home in a peculiarly visible way Jesus' point in John 3:8 that 'The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.'

Listening to the Bible read aloud, I find I hear things that I've never noticed before. Like in Genesis 15:6 'Abraham believed God and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.'

Which is subtly different from Romans 4:3 'Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'

Not that the two things are in contradiction. But it's interesting to be reminded that justification is a personal action of God, not just the necessary outworkings of a forensic system.

Having been tenant long to a rich Lord,
Not thriving, I resolved to be bold,
And make a suit unto him, to afford
A new small-rented lease, and cancel th'old.
In heaven at his manor I him sought:
They told me there, that he was lately gone
About some land, which he had dearly bought
Long since on earth, to take possession.
I straight return'd, and knowing his great birth,
Sought him accordingly in great resorts;
In cities, theatres, gardens, parks and courts:
At length I heard a ragged noise and mirth
Of thieves and murderers: there I him espi'd,
Who straight, Your suit is granted, said, and di'd.

George Herbert

But that thou art my wisdom, Lord,
And both mine eyes are thine,
My mind would be extremely stirr'd
For missing my design.

Were it not better to bestow
Some place and power on me?
Then should thy praises with me grow,
And share in my degree.

But when I thus dispute and grieve,
I do resume my sight,
And pilf-ring what I once did give,
Disseize thee of they right.

How know I, if thou should'st me raise,
That I should then raise thee?
Perhaps great places and thy praise
Do not so well agree.

Wherefore unto my gift I stand;
I will no more advise:
Only do thou lend me a hand,
Since thou hast both mine eyes.

George Herbert.

Members of the Liberal Democrats, apparently. I wonder if they pressganged the 1 in order to avoid the potential nightmare of an equal three-way split of the vote?

Why do we think that change in God necessarily implies that before or after such change he must be less than perfect? Could he not change 'from perfection to perfection'? Different, but no less perfect?

The Bishops of Shrewsbury, Stafford and Wolverhampton are going to live on the minimum wage during Lent. Good for them.

Aside from the issues of why we pay these people at all, (and certainly why we pay them so much), I wonder why so many evangelicals are nervous about the idea of Lent as a season of self-denial. Obviously we don't think that giving things up for Lent earns Brownie points with God. And I'm not suggesting that not eating chocolate is a worthwhile endeavour.

But simply to say therefore we shouldn't take the opportunity to use Lent as a season for growing in self-control strikes me as pretty close to 'sinning that grace might abound all the more.'

Surely anything which prompts us to greater endeavours in godliness is a good thing? And anything which helps to form better habits of spending time or money or of relating to others is probably a good thing too. And the six weeks or so of Lent is long enough for proper habit forming.

So what am I doing for Lent? Well, I'm still trying to stop grumbling and complaining. And one day in, it's going okay. I think.

Song of Songs 3:6 tells us that the bridegroom coming out of the wilderness for his wedding day is 'like columns of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense.'

Joel 2:30 picks up the same language, telling us that 'columns of smoke' will be one of the signs heralding the great and glorious day of the Lord.

Implication? The day when the bridegroom comes for his bride, to marry her and lead her into his garden-sanctuary is the great and glorious day when all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Apparently the Met Office have decided to redesignate today (March 1st) as the first day of Spring in preference to the traditional date (March 21st) which is the vernal equinox.

Well, around here, crocuses are almost out but daffodils are not. Buds are appearing on trees but only just. And snow is definitely in the air. So I'm not convinced.

Does it matter that we recognise the changing seasons? Yes, of course! How else will we learn to recognise the coming of our Bridegroom?

Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come away,
for behold, the winter is past;
the rain is over and gone.
The flowers appear on the earth,
the time of singing is come
and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land.
The fig tree ripens its figs,
and the vines are in blossom;
they give forth fragrance.

Song of Songs 2:10-13

Or the coming kingdom of God?

Look at the fig tree, and all the trees.
As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves
and know that the summer is already near.
So also, when you see these things taking place,
you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Luke 21:29-31