Deep Creek Anglican Church Blog

It’s hardly surprising that Stephen Hawking’s statements in The Grand Design have generated lots of comments.  Check out these in The Melbourne Age (including a short but great clip of an Alfa Romeo on a mountain pass – I feel a holiday coming on!).

And C Michael Patton writes Stephen Hawking worships the “Unknown God”.

Roger Olson comments:

“…as the scientists and philosophers debate the existence of a Supreme Being, I have the feeling they are not talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  If some Christian (or non-Christian, for that matter) scientist or philosopher could refute Hawking, would I be happy?  Yes, but not because Christian faith in God depends on that.  The only reason I would be happy about it is that it might help remove a false obstacle to faith put in the way of some seeker after God.

But that seeker won’t find the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the end of a scientific or philosophical argument.”

And Aussie Mark Stevens adds some humour.

Now please excuse me while I go and watch Hawthorn play over in the west – during half-time, I might just see how I go making some dirt out of nothing.

ABC online news tonight posted God didn’t create the universe: Hawking along with this magnificent photo of part of the universe.  The news item opens:

“God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe due to a series of developments in physics, British scientist Stephen Hawking said in extracts published from a new book.

In a hardening of the more accommodating position on religion that he took in his 1988 international best-seller A Brief History of Time, Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he writes in The Grand Design, which is being serialised by The Times newspaper.”

I have to say that Hawking’s proposition raises more questions for me (eg. what the ‘first cause’ of gravity) than the simple words of the psalmist:

^{Ps 19:1} The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of His hands.

Here’s a short post on a really helpful section at the very end of:

Chapter Eight: Life Between the Cross and the Coming.

Graham Cole highlights three ‘commissions’ that Christians are to obey, as we live for Jesus in the world:

1. Creation Commission (Gen 1:28).  Our exercise of dominion is one of both care and control (eg. Gen 2:15).  I would put it this way: care for the environment is one aspect of being a follower of Jesus and a citizen of God’s Kingdom.
2. Discipling Commission (Matt 28:18-20).  God calls His people to make disciples – of all nations.
3. Moral Commission (Matt 22:37-39).  The Creation and Discipling Commissions are “to be shaped by love of God and love of neighbour.”  Indeed, as Graham rightly concludes: “Without love, creation care and discipling others become vacuous.  We gain nothing (1 Cor 13:1-3).”

Chapter Twenty One: 1 Timothy 2:13-14: The Need for Respect, the Danger of Deception

¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (NIV)

Payne makes the following points:

• v13 is best understood by 1 Cor 11:8, 12.  Man is the source of woman, and all the things that Paul has just commanded are predicated on respect for man.  Note that in Scripture the obligation to respect the other sex is mutual
• Eve’s deception in v14 “fits perfectly as a reason for an explanation of Paul’s restriction on women teaching in verse 12.”  The problems caused by women in the Ephesian church are reminiscent of Eve in Eden.  Eves in Ephesus were causing havoc, even brining spiritual death to themselves and others.
• What about Adam?  Elsewhere Adam is regarded as culpable for the fall (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21f).  v14 “faithfully reflects Gen 3:1-5, where Satan did not target Adam for this deception but rather the woman.  Like Eve, women in Ephesus  were the target of false teachers…”
• The view put forward by some that women are more susceptible to deception than men is not sup[ported by Scripture.  ”Neither the Genesis narrative nor Paul draws any anthropological generalization from Eve’s deception.”

Our author concludes:

“This logical relationship between verses 11-12 and 13-14 supports the view that Paul restricted teaching by women because false teachers had deceived women in Ephesus….Eve’s deception vividly illustrates the danger when a woman is deceived.  Consequently, there is no need to attempt to find here a cryptic appeal to gender-based hierarchy established at creation.”

Chapter Three: The great need: peace with God, with one another and for the cosmos

As the author of God the Peacemaker says, we live outside of Eden and therefore “our great need is peace…with God, with one another and for the cosmos itself.”

Do you agree with Graham Cole that in the West, peace with God is not such an obvious need?  He explores in Chapter Three the barriers to enjoying shalom:

• problem of sin: we inherit a corrupt nature (its influence is seen in every part of our lives) and consequently we act in sinful ways.  This creates “moral guilt before a righteous God” and “ought to cause shame before a holy God”
• problem of wrath: sin offends God personally and invites divine wrath – the expression of divine holiness against human sin
• problem of judgment: sin puts us in the wrong before a righteous God and invites judgment.  The Bible reveals all facets of justice – deterrence, reformative, restorative and retributive (ie. we get what we deserve).  “A universe without final retribution, even a hell, would be a morally indifferent one.”
• problem of the human other: our relationships with one another are spoiled because of sin
• problem of the god of this world: Satan uses our sin to hold us in bondage – as an instrument of fear and oppression.  Our author gives a succinct summary of the ‘doings’ of the devil – he is “evil’s all too personal face.”
• problem of the groaning creation. The created order also needs liberation (Rom 1.21 cf. 8.20).

Graham leads us inevitably to the all-encompassing need for deliverance, as he asks:

• how can forgiveness and cleansing come?
• how can divine wrath be assuaged?
• how can anyone face the great white throne judgment?
• how can interpersonal hostility be removed?
• how can the evil one be defeated? and,
• how can the creation be set free?

We as individuals, nations and the material universe have a great, great need – and Graham Cole spends the remainder of his book unveiling “God’s project” – the reclamation of creation.

Bought God the Peacemaker yet?

I have previously posted on the magnificent Aurora Borealis.  Here’s another treat.  What a truly amazing Creator we worship.  In Scripture, creation is Trinitarian, with a particular emphasis on the Son as the agent of creation (John 1:1-4, Col 1:15-17, Heb 1:1-3).

The writer to the Hebrews begins his Letter with these words:

¹In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ²but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. ³The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Aurora Borealis – Iceland 2010 from O Z Z O Photography on Vimeo.

Chapter Ten: 1 Corinthians 11:7-10: Theological Reasons for Head-Covering Rules

Chapter 11: 1 Corinthians 11:11-12: The Equal Standing of Woman and Man in Christ

Chapter 12: 1 Corinthians 11:13-16: Shameful Head Coverings Explained as Hair

Chapter 13: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Conclusion and Application

We return to Philip Payne’s significant book Man and Woman, One in Christ and the final four chapters dealing with 1 Cor 11:2-16.

Payne has argued previously that ‘head coverings’ are wild hair, viz:

• men’s effeminate hair in Corinth attracted homosexual liaisons;
• women’s hair let down loose symbolised sexual freedom in the Dionysiac cult, which was influential in Corinth.

Both were disgraceful and undermined marriage.  In the particular setting of Corinth:

• men ought to respect Christ, their source in creation, by not displaying effeminate hair;
• women needed to exercise control by wearing their hair up in public worship.

Payne argues that vv11-12 are the heart of Paul’s concern.  He translates v11 as: “However, in the Lord, neither is women set apart from man, nor man set apart from woman.” ie. there are created differences between man and woman – but in the new community established by Christ, barriers between man and woman have been overcome.

v12 reveals that the “equal standing of woman and man in Christ is rooted in creation and biology and has its source in God” (194).  There is no hierarchy of man over woman.

Men and women can pray and prophesy in church but it must be done in such a way that marriage and the sexual differentiation that God created is not undermined.

Paul states that there is “no such custom” in other churches like what is happening in Corinthian church – in essence a rebellion against God’s will.  Paul prohibits those leading in worship from either practice.

Philip Payne then turns to the application of the passage, namely:

• the long hair worn by men and flowing hair by women in Corinth do not carry the same symbolism of sexual promiscuity today;
• but worship leaders must present themselves in ways that are not sexually suggestive;
• churches must not exclude those ‘outside of Christ’ from attending services, even if their hairstyle is sexually suggestive;
• importantly, men and women must show respect to each other, honouring the opposite sex as their source.  Men and women have equal rights and privileges in the Lord.  Payne concludes the section: “Since in the Lord woman and man are not separate, women who are gifted and called by God ought to be welcomed into ministry, just as men are.”

In the last post, I briefly reflected on the suffering in this present existence and the certainty of a future in the transformed cosmos, for all who are in relationship with the living God.

The New Heaven and New Earth will be spectacular beyond our greatest imagination, when you consider that even our very fractured world often has a breathtaking beauty.

Years ago I flew the Grand Canyon in a two-engine plane, between the walls of the Canyon.  I had done a lot of flying but this flight was something else.  The pilot would put the plane into a left slide to “get a better view of the Canyon floor” when all of a sudden we would hit severe turbulence and the plane would be in a right slide!

But thanks to Aerial Filmworks we can enjoy God’s magnificent Grand Canyon from the comfort of our chair:

Grand Canyon Aerials

Chapter Six: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Introduction and

Chapter Seven: 1 Corinthians 11:2-3: Head / Source Relationships

Get yourself a cool drink (or a hot coffee if you’re currently in the northern hemisphere!) and settle in for some heavy-duty exegetical work by our author, Philip Payne, as he considers 1 Cor 11:2-16, a passage that “contains many statements that are central to understanding Paul’s  attitude toward women.”

Chapter Six is brief, outlining the structure of the passage.  Importantly two culturally relevant conventions regarding head coverings in Paul’s time are highlighted:

1. A man having long hair was considered disgraceful because of its association with effeminate homosexual relations
2. ‘Respectable’ women wore their hair up, and not let down loose, in Hellenistic, Roman and Jewish cultures.

In Chapter Seven, Payne focuses in on the opening verses 1 Cor 11:2-3.  He notes that in v2, Paul is commending the Corinthian Christians (notwithstanding numerous matters that needed to be addressed).  In v3, Paul brings attention to the head covering issue with “But I want you to know.”  Paul is going to address shameful ways that some men and women were covering their literal heads.  And so in v3 he introduces “each of the three key foundational relationships that these actions affect.”  Payne notes that in each one, Paul uses ‘head’ [Gk translit. kephale] metaphorically.

Those who have followed the women’s ministry ‘debate’ will know that the translation of  kephale has destroyed many Tasmanian forests!  In very general terms, those holding to a complementarian view translate as ‘authority’, while those translating the Greek as ‘source’ would typically hold an egalitarian view on man/woman relationships.

Payne’s treatment of this vital word and concept is extensive.  He provides fifteen reasons for holding to a translation of kephale as ‘source.’  In my reading of Payne’s analysis, I found his case persuasive – but not because of the number of ‘reasons.’  Rather, because of the extensive support for such a translation from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) and the use of kephale in secular Greek in Paul’s time.

In Payne’s extensive review, he notes in passing some ‘interesting’ interactions between evangelical scholars on this topic (120n12, n13; 122n28).

The translation of kephale as ‘source’ also makes best sense of the three relationships, according to Payne.  The end of v3, “and the head of Christ is God” raises the issue of whether the Son is eternally subordinated to the Father.  Payne interacts with both early Greek Church Fathers and modern scholarship in rejecting eternal subordination.  He takes the position that ‘God’ in 1 Cor 11:3, 12; 15:28 is best understood as the Godhead rather than the Father.  He further understands the three ‘source’ relationships in v3 as chronological: the creation of man, the creation of woman, and the incarnation.

If you have spared yourself, in the past, from the detailed debates on kephale, then you might find Chapter Seven quite heavy.  But it’s worth rolling up your exegetical sleeves.  Verse 3 is foundational to understanding the important passage, 1 Cor 11:2-16, and  Paul’s attitude toward women.

Chapter Four: Galations 3:28: Man and Woman: One in Christ

According to Payne, Gal 3:28 is “the classic statement repudiating ethno-religious, socioeconomic, and gender discrimination in the church.”  The verse speaks to more than the spiritual state of individuals before God (cf. 3:26).  The “you all” implies a social unit that has no distinctions.  Payne devotes the bulk of the chapter to repudiating views that divorce this verse from the life of the church. In so doing, he looks at:

• parallel passages, Col 3:11 and 1 Cor 12:13 that apply Gal 3:28′s principle of equality to the practical life of the church
• Paul’s argument in Galations against the Judaizers, who were seeking to elevate the Jews to a status with special privileges over the Gentiles.  In this context, Gal 3:28 is the core theological argument.  There is to be no discrimination within the community of faith.
• the Greek and Jewish cultural background where a number of famous thanksgivings affirm practically the opposite of Gal 3:28.  Paul clearly was rejecting discrimination and granting equal status and privilege to Gentiles, slaves and women in the church
• the reality of gender distinction in the New Testament, but this is not an excuse to deny privilege or status in the church based on gender.  In considering 1 Cor 12 and Eph 4:16, Payne comments, “Equality of opportunity does not entail uniformity, but it does prohibit discrimination or ranking by class.”  Paul’s praise of women gospel co-workers in Rom 16:1-6 demonstrates his commitment to actualising the social implications of Gal 3:28 in the church.

Payne provides detailed exegetical comments on the verse.  He notes that “male and female” is an illusion to the creation account in Gen 1, with new creation being a key theme in Galations.  He comments:

“It is not that Christ is irrelevant to the relations between male and female, but that gender, just as ethnicity and socioeconomic status, is irrelevant to status in Christ….discrimination and special privilege based on these external factors is contrary to the unity of Christ’s body.”

In discussing the breaking down of barriers ‘in Christ’, Payne considers the ‘barrier’ metaphor employed in Eph 2:14, noting that the court of the women with its own dividing wall lay between the court of the Gentiles and the temple.  “The barrier metaphor…implies not just equal spiritual standing but equal access and privileges within the church.”

When Paul states, ‘you are all one in Christ Jesus” he does not mean that individual believers merge into one personality in Christ.  Rather it is a distributive sense – harmony in the midst of diversity distinguishes the Body of Christ.

As Payne concludes his analysis of this critical verse, he assesses the counter arguments that Gal 3:28 applies only to one’s individual standing before God.  He comments:

“It is against Paul’s normal usage to divorce “in Christ” from relationships in the family and church, and no such divorce is supported in Gal 3:28 (98) …The eschatological new creation in Christ overcomes the barriers that excluded Gentiles, slaves, and women and grants them acceptance and full participation in God’s people (104).”

My review of this first exegetical chapter is necessarily brief – it is well worth reading Payne’s comprehensive treatment of Gal 3:28.