You can now view photographic evidence of the girls' day out to Ireland online here. Thanks Mandy!

From John Gill, 'A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity':

We commonly say that sin is infinite, and the truest reason that can be given for it is, because God is the object of it; for as an act, it is finite, being the act of a finite creature; but with respect to the object against whom it is committed, it is infinite, and requires an infinite satisfaction; which none but an infinite person can give, and which Christ is in his divine nature, and so gave to his sufferings and death, in his human nature united to him, an infinite value and virtue, whereby justice had from them an infinite satisfaction.

Thanks be to God!

As David Field pointed out in chapel this morning, the lectionary is a wonderful thing. Psalm 133, John 20, Acts 4 and 1 John 1-2. Our God is a God who pours out blessings - oil, dew, breath, the Spirit... And as a result his people go out and tell the world.

But what this made me think of was (what a surprise!) Song of Songs. For there, the name of the bridegroom is oil poured out. Which I'd always taken to mean he was like one who had oil poured out on him in anointing (royal or priestly) and/or that his presence was like oil being poured out in an offering, just as his arrival in chapter 3 is like columns of smoke going up in a burnt offering.

But now I wonder if it's that he is the one doing the pouring. That he is the pourer of oil and dew and breath and the Spirit and every good blessing. That his name, his defining characteristic is the pouring of oil which is good and pleasant, like brothers dwelling in unity. And so on.

before I get back to some serious theological debate and reflection.

Brad Pitt is 43. Tom Cruise is 44.

I think that's extraordinary. I would certainly have thought Brad could give Tom 5 years, if not more.

Still, it all goes to show that, given the right area of discussion, Dawn is the expert!

There's a great contribution to this debate, in the context of insurance claims and Acts of God, in today's episode of 'Think the Unthinkable' - listen again here. Thanks Jam!

Short.

Disturbingly orange.

Wearing bad sunglasses.

But unmistakeably Tom Cruise.

How exciting is that!!! When you've just turned up randomly in Leicester Square to meet a friend for dinner and find Tom already there, smiling and waving and looking gorgeous. Sadly, he didn't join us for dinner.

Although that was probably a good thing given how much Corinne and I managed to disgrace ourselves in the Italian restaurant anyway.

But if you're reading this, Tom, (and I know I have a large American fanbase)and you'd like to meet up next time you're over here, just leave a comment. Regular users will know that this is easier said than done, but I believe perseverance is the key.

'All those who either are or pretend to be atheists, who either disbelieve the being of God or would be thought to do so, which is all one...'

So begins Samuel Clarke in his 'A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God', 1704.

Which makes me wonder, why would anyone pretend to be an atheist? Why would you want others to think you don't believe when you do?

You may or may not have noticed the way that this blog seems to be sponsored by a random selection of google links. These seem to be prompted in some way by things I mention in my blog. So, for instance, when I wrote about drinking Earl Grey tea, a series of links to 'Assam Tea', 'Tea UK' etc. appeared.

Which makes me think that one could devise a kind of blog game, the object of which is to get a particular link to appear on the blog. Any suggestions to start me off?

We learned this in chapel this morning. What a great way of spending 12 minutes. Anyway, here's the version that's currently in my memory:

Psalm 67
May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us. Selah
that your way may be known upon the earth and your saving power among the nations.
Let the peoples praise you, O God, let all the peoples praise you.
Let the nations be glad and sing for joy
for you judge the peoples in equity
and guide the nations on earth. Selah
Let the peoples praise you, O God, let all the peoples praise you.
For the earth has yielded its increase. God, our God shall bless us.
God shall bless us; let all the ends of the earth fear him.

Amen!

If you missed the very excellent 'Narnia Day' on BBC7 over Christmas, you may like to know that BBC7 is currently rebroadcasting these dramatisations of the first four Narnia books (The Magician's Nephew; The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; The Horse and His Boy; and starting today, Prince Caspian). You can listen again, here, or catch them every day this week at 10am or 9pm.

Sitting at the breakfast table, drinking the perfect cup of Earl Grey tea, looking out at a deep blue sky and a sparkly blue sea watching the dolphins jumping. Not in the Caribbean but in North Wales last week. Sometimes it's hard to see how the new creation is going to beat this one!

I've also recently read Ian McEwan's 'Saturday'. I would thoroughly recommend it as a thought-provoking and page-turning read, though I think it's unlikely to make it onto my list of regular re-reads.

McEwan seems to be addressing two different ways in which our actions and their consequences cannot be held to be our responsibility.

At one level, he demonstrates very effectively the far-reaching consequences of the most minute of all of our actions. We can't possibly know all of these consequences and even if we could attain the kind of omniscience required to work them all out, we couldn't compute them. We'd be paralysed. And so we can't possibly be held responsible for these kind of consequences of our actions.

But McEwan also wants to explore genetic predeterminism. Who we are and thus how we behave is determined by our genes. And so we can't be held responsible.

McEwan clearly doesn't want to work through the logical consequences of this view. If we're not responsible for our actions (because they're genetically determined) or their consequences (because we can't know what they'll be) there can be no sense of moral right or wrong. And yet there is morality in McEwan's world. Some actions are good and some are bad.

So there must be more to this than McEwan admits. Like, for instance, an all-seeing, all-knowing God who can act in a perfectly moral and responsible way, not bound by any genes, nor limited by lack of foreknowledge. Like a proper understanding of the human will which acts responsibly on the basis of a whole range of factors (no doubt, including genetic factors) but is not thereby constrained to act against itself in such a way as to lessen responsibility.

There's something wonderfully reassuring about children's fiction. I've recently re-read Harry Potter 5 and 6 and thoroughly enjoyed both.

I feel I ought to give some warning here for anyone who has not read but intends to read these books (it seems quite unlikely that any such person exists...). If that's you, you should know that I'm about to give away some of the plot.

Dumbledore's explanation of the prophecy concerning Harry and Voldemort makes it clear that the giving of the prophecy itself affects its own fulfilment (or not). J.K.Rowling evidently has a more developed understanding of speech-act theory and the purpose of prophecy than lots of OT scholars and preachers. It was because he knew of the prophecy that Voldemort made his attack on Harry thus marking him as Voldemort's potential conqueror and also conferring on Harry some of Voldemort's own powers which could be used in defeating him! Making a prophecy is not a neutral event; it has consequences which may either lead to its own fulfilment or which may act as a warning to prevent the circumstances described in a prophecy.

Incidentally, the content of the prophecy about Harry and Voldemort strikes me as one of the most meaningless sentences ever written: 'either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives'. Surely throughout books 1-6 both Voldemort and Harry have managed to live while the other survives? And their mutually exclusive existence has no logical link to the first part of the prophecy - that either must die at the hand of the other. Why couldn't someone else see Voldemort off?

Very exciting day, today - my first ever flight!

5.30am: leave for Stansted (via Dawn's house) not having slept at all the night before.

6.00am: Five girls in the car: so much chat, giggling,and general excitement about our 'holiday' that we hardly hear any of Dawn's special 'Going to Ireland' tape.

8.35am: In the air! Not too scary so long as you don't look out of the window. At all. Ever.

9.45am: Landing. Horrid feeling in the ears and sudden bump but otherwise fine.

10.00am-6.30pm: Fun and games with the girls IN IRELAND!!!! The most drawn out game was 'Finding somewhere to eat lunch which caters for a coeliac vegetarian, a low GI diet and a no-yeast person.' Around 3.30pm we finally sat down to lunch. Just to add to the total number of means of transportation used in any one day, we took the car ferry across the river Shannon (longest river in the British Isles at over 200 miles - thanks for the inflight quiz, Sarah).

6.30pm: Back at Shannon airport. Not really looking forward to flying again but not actually requiring sedation.

9.30pm: Solid ground!!! Ears still a bit funny, though have popped.

11.00pm: Home sweet home. Well, college anyway.

Not sure I'll be rushing onto a plane again for fun, but not as bad as it might have been, thanks to Dawn ('If we were in Australia, we'd be in Shannon by now'), Sarah (action songs in the airport bus at 6am), Helen (if it moves, or even if it doesn't, she'll have taken a photo) and Mandy('Where is America?'). Still laughing after 17 hours in each other's company - must be true friends after this!

Interesting article on blogging on R4's 'Word of Mouth' today - listen again here. Apparently there are now more than 30,000,000 blogs online. Amazing that any of you bother to read mine!

Some people have been sacked for things they've written on their blogs (watch out if you work for Google!) - less of an issue for those of us in the Great Unemployed. Others have been sued for libel - mm, worth bearing that in mind.

Word of Mouth are also running a simile competition which sounds quite fun...

Dissertation done, copied, waiting to go to the binders to be made pretty. And, happily, the conclusion is that it (i.e. the Song of Songs) is all about the Lord Jesus.

I can't summarise it better than by borrowing Raymond Ortlund's description of John's purpose in Revelation:

The suffering church militant of this present evil age is to cultivate one great impulse, throbbing in her soul, viz. an aching longing for the Bridegroom to come to her, to take her in his arms, with nothing within herself to wrest her away, and to be held there for ever.

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.