The Church in the Woottons - The Rector’s Blog

The Church of England is a remarkable institution. It has persecuted those (like the Wesleys) at the forefront of major new movements of the Holy Spirit and then, later, embraced those new movements. It has survived huge crises of faith and surges of secularism over centuries.   

In addition to its worship and church services it also is the largest voluntary organisation in the country.  According to the recent church report Moral, But No Compass – Government, Church and the Future of Welfare, “50,000 churchgoers are regularly involved in church-based or church-backed social action, such as helping the poor, elderly or disabled.” They run “post offices, cafes, doctors’ surgeries, asylum rights centres, homeless outreach and bereavement counselling, job creation and economic regeneration programmes, eco initiatives and youth clubs, peace networks and third world solidarity groups.”  They are also involved in “Christian social innovations in housing, addiction, family support and anti-poverty campaigning.”
Yet, says the report, the Government shows “a significant lack of understanding of, or interest in, the Church of England’s current or potential contribution in the public sphere.” It is “positively excluding people of faith.” Its “conscious focus on minority communities was being achieved, to the relative exclusion of the Christian church and hundreds of other charities.” 

The report states that: “Three separate government departments admitted to possessing no evidence based on the Christian churches, despite one having proactively commissioned new research to underpin its faith-based agenda.”  It comments: “Based on our interviews with politicians, government officials and people in the faith communities themselves, we can only conclude that the absence of a ‘churches’ evidence base is grounded in a judgement that churches are not worthy to have even a modest role in government schemes. Such a judgement contrasts strongly with public declarations by Ministers that all of civil society is welcome to the public service reform table and that the government’s agenda is for all faiths rather than for a few.”  

The Charity Commission, which oversees all British charities (non-profit organisations) comes in for serious criticism. In 2007 the Commission expressed an interest in faith based charities which advance religion and began a dialogue which “excluded the two largest religious groupings in the country, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church!”  It claimed there were around 25,000 faith-based charities but it ignored the Church of England’s 16,000 parishes! 

One researcher concluded the Commission underestimated the number of faith-based charities by 62.5%. Researchers for the report discovered that the Bishop of Guildford’s Foundation, Church Action on Poverty, Methodist Homes for the Aged, several Catholic children’s societies, the St Vincent de Paul Society and even Islamic Relief, would not count as a faith-based organisation for the Charity Commission because they did not expressly state ‘advancing religion’ in its objects.  

Finally, the report calls for the appointment of a Minister for Religion and a new dialogue with the government. It concluded: “Only if such a fresh conversation emerges will the government manage to steer its faith-based policies back on course, and the Church step forward once again with a new confidence for the times. Only then will the government truly recover a convincing moral direction and its badly needed compass.” 

I congratulate the authors of the report on highlighting the growing secularisation and antagonism to Christianity in certain influential circles in Britain and for pricking the bubble of this government’s professed commitment to the importance of religion. It is wrong for the government to major only on minority religions, or those groups which might harbour extremists. Religion is more important than that, as is the rich Christian heritage of this country. Most people in this country call themselves Christians and hold some Christian beliefs. Democratic considerations require the government to take that seriously.  The church should not seek status and privilege for its own sake. But without a strong Christian influence this country will continue its social and moral decline. 

However, the church must put its own house in order and not rely on some mythical panacea of government support. We need to regain our basic spirituality: to emphasise prayer and the supernatural power of God, to affirm the gospel wholeheartedly and to deal with serious hypocrisy and ill-discipline within our ranks. The weakness of our leadership in these matters – at national or local level – makes us a laughing stock.  These are the priorities which must be addressed by the church. Then we shall be fit to partner secular authorities in addressing the social and moral problems of our society effectively and without losing our distinctiveness.

I don’t feel at home in middle-aged, middle-class, right wing lamentations about society’s moral decline.  Such laments can be self-righteous, self-satisfied, short-sighted and hypocritical. And sometimes the people involved have little social conscience about issues such as human rights. I do care about such issues, particularly where people are facing violence and oppression.[i]  But, as a Christian who cares about people  I am becoming deeply concerned at what is happening to British society. I feel obliged to sound a warning where I can. Hence this paper. 

Human beings, it appears, get used to anything. That is in some ways a strength but in others a serious weakness. We are getting used to the moral and spiritual collapse of our society.  Oh yes, of course there are many good and beautiful things.  After all, the Holy Spirit is at work in our society in terms of what theologians call Common Grace. If he weren’t, then this world would be a man-made hell. Britain has made huge progress in overcoming poverty, in health care, in human rights, in conservation, etc.  But the existence of many good and beautiful things should not anaesthetise us to the serious moral decay happening around us. 

What has lulled us into this false sense of security? No doubt there are many factors. One is a powerful media which, whilst alerting us to some evils – world poverty, political oppression natural disasters – provides powerful propaganda for personal moral decadence.  

We’re strong on human rights and global warming, but weak on personal morality. Too exclusive an emphasis on human rights can, and does, lead to selfishness, irresponsibility and a hedonistic lifestyle.  

ABORTION 

There are also strange inconsistencies. So we (rightly) react strongly against the abuse of children, so long as we can see them.  One main argument used in resisting the reduction of the latest time an abortion can take place under British law (24 weeks) is that very few unborn babies of that age survive. Being interpreted, that means that because many children at that age, if born, would die we are allowed to kill any or all of them. So, on the one hand, we are horrified at child abuse and, on the other, we authorise a very serious version of it. 

In the recent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill debate in the British Parliament, MP Nadine Dorries, a former nurse, described a botched abortion of a baby boy she had witnessed: “As I stood and looked in that cardboard bed pan this little boy was gasping, through mucous and amniotic fluid, for his breath as I stood with him in the sluice, in my arms is a bed pan, for seven minutes while he gasped for breath and a botched abortion, which became a live birth, became a death seven minutes later.” 

Recent statistics[ii] show that, in Europe there is one abortion every 25 seconds, or 141 abortions every hour … equal to more than one million two hundred thousand (1,235,517) abortions annually (2004). 1 out of every 5 pregnancies (19.4%) in Europe ends in termination. In fact, abortion is the main cause of death in Europe. 

It is quite obvious that the vast majority of these are not justified as the lesser of two evils, say, to save the mother’s life. It is simply abortion on demand – legalised infanticide. What about the fundamental right of a very small child to life? 

Someone will object to my “emotive language” but my response is that such an objection indicates the powerful influence of emotive pro-abortion propaganda and a lack of clear thinking. One thing is certain, if we are killing tiny babies with no strong justification then the blood of these little ones is crying out to God. 

EMBRYO RESEARCH 

I don’t doubt the motives of many of those involved in this kind of research. They are seeking to combat diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinson’s and motor-neuron disease. This is a laudable purpose. But it is a highly dangerous area, not least because our ethical standards, when it comes to embryos are, to say the least, very suspect, as the abortion statistics and debate show. 

It is clear that the whole issue of admixed, human-animal embryos marks a crucial Rubicon. We have now crossed it in Britain and it is unlikely there will be any going back.  Do we really know what we are doing or where it will lead? 

Sixteen leading scientists and clinicians actively involved in stem cell research wrote to The Times[iii] expressing serious concerns about the recent proposals then before the British Parliament and now approved. They cautioned against “false optimism and unrealistic claims for as yet unproven avenues of research” and claims that a vote against such research would “delay treatments for incurable diseases.” 

They added: “there is no demonstrable scientific or medical case for insisting on creating, without any clear scientific precedent, a wide spectrum of human-non-human hybrid entities or ‘human admixed embryos’.” 

More seriously they went on to say: “We note with concern that, though not widely reported, the Bill does not just propose licensing cybrids (99.9% human, 0.1% other species). It also proposes that embryos ‘created by using human gametes and animal gametes’ (50% human, 50% other species) or human embryos ‘altered by the introduction of one or more animal cells’ (i.e. any percentage of human material) could be created under licence.” 

It must be remembered that whenever the government has legislated over these areas of personal morality, the legislation has seemed modest and reasonable (if one agreed it should be passed at all). But the outworking has been far more liberal and radical.  Hence the original Abortion Law was intended to stop dangerous backstreet abortions for women who had serious medical need for an abortion, recognised by two doctors.  Since then the UK has had 6.5 million abortions, the vast majority for reasons of social convenience. Basically we have abortion on demand. 

That being the case, we ought to be afraid of where the new legislation allowing hybrid embryos, “saviour siblings” etc., will lead. Currently, such hybrids may be cultured only up to 14 days and never allowed to be transferred into a human or animal womb. But what will happen in practice?   Alarmist? No, realist.  

FAMILY BREAKDOWN 

Then there is the breakdown of marriage and the family. In the EU there are over one million divorces…  equivalent to one marital breakdown every 30 seconds. Marital breakdown has increased by 369,365 in 25 years (1980-2005), a percentage increase of 55%. For every 2.3 marriages there is 1 divorce).  I am well aware of the trauma that causes, not least to children and the many long-term emotional and social problems it engenders. How can society survive such decay?  Children have a deep need of a stable, loving family with a father and a mother who can provide essential male and female role models. 

And how does the British parliament help? They undermine fatherhood by removing the requirement that fertility clinics consider the child’s need of a father. This, of course, is all to do with the human rights of lesbian couples etc. But what about the fundamental right of a child to have a father as well as a mother?   

We are sowing the wind and we shall inherit the whirlwind. One result is: 

VIOLENCE 

Thirteen teenagers have been murdered in London alone in the first few months of this year. Many teenagers carry knives and join a gang for protection. They live in fear of rival gangs and of being robbed and stabbed. One 12 year old said: “Mum says it never used to be this dangerous. I think I must have been born too late.” 

Responding to this, the Bishop of Chelmsford said (amongst other things) we require “a fresh commitment to the basic importance of good family life and a tackling of the breakdown of family relationships.”  Quite, but the prospect is hardly encouraging. 

He added: “For the whole of our society we face an urgent challenge to renew our culture in the values of equality, the fundamental dignity of every human being and with a fresh sense of our shared accountability as children of God for our citizenship of the world.”  In fact, we need to come back to God through Christ. 

 

---

---

[i] See my other website www.prayerforpeace.org.uk

[ii] Report on the Evolution of the Family in Europe 2007, Institute for Family Policies

[iii] Letter to The Times, 16.05.08.

I remember years ago seeing a TV programme which used hidden cameras. A number of large artists’ canvases where erected and members of the public were asked to daub paint on them using a house decorator’s paint brush.  Then the canvases were placed in a

London art gallery and various art experts were secretly filmed admiring them. They were making all the usual earnest and sophisticated comments. To give them their due, they did laugh when it was revealed to them that they were admiring complete rubbish. But it finally debunked a lot of modern so-called art. 

I think people who put a pile of bricks in the National Gallery and call it a major work of art are very clever artists, con-artists, that is. Either that or they are two pictures short of a gallery! 

The latest, and perhaps the worst, example is the German “artist” who is searching for some dying person who will be willing to die in public in an art gallery so that the public can admire the way the light plays on the flesh of the victim. This is real Emperor’s New Clothes stuff, but it is really sick. Like the above TV programme it shows how debased so-called art can become and how silly some art critics are. 

“In comparison with 25 European states, … the UK scores poorly for the quality of children’s relationships with their parents and peers, for child health, relative poverty and deprivation, for risky behaviour (cigarette smoking, drunkenness, the use of cannabis and inhalants, teenage pregnancy, underage and unsafe sexual intercourse) and for subjective well-being (children’s own evaluation of how happy and healthy they are). Amongst the rich, western member states the UK ranked lowest.” 

“The UK leads Europe for the proportion of young people living in single parent or step families … Between 1972 and 2004 the proportion of children in the UK living in single parent families more than tripled to 24%.” These are quotations from the Good Childhood Report carried out by the Children’s Society. 

The report goes on to say: “Depression and anxiety have increased for both boys and girls aged 15-16 since the mid-1980s, as have what are called ‘non-aggressive conduct problems’ such as lying, stealing and disobedience …. Two-thirds of young people felt that their life had a sense of purpose ….. 78% of young people agreed with the statement ‘I find life really worth living’.”   

Why is it that our children are more depressed, anxious, irresponsible, disobedient, dishonest and have poorer relationships with parents than other European countries?  Why do a third of them have no sense of purpose and 12% (one in eight) not find life worth living? 

The answer is complex and will include factors like the breakdown of marriage, the powerful influence of electronic media and the national obsession with over-protecting children. (“A 2002 survey by The Children’s Society and the Children’s Play Council showed that in some parts of the country children were prevented from riding bikes in parks, climbing trees or even, in one case, from making daisy chains as these activities were deemed too risky”). 

However, it is obvious to me that a lack of spirituality, of relationship with God through Christ, of caring Christian fellowship in our post-Christian society is a major factor.  The report says: “The UK Government has identified five key outcomes for children – ‘stay safe’, ‘be healthy’, ‘enjoy and achieve’, ‘achieve economic well-being‘ and ‘make a positive contribution.’”  

What a pity it couldn’t have added “have faith.”  But British politicians don’t do God  …. and the nation’s children suffer. 

It has been said that British people love animals more than human beings. But it appears the Swiss are even dafter about their pets. Their Federal Parliament has passed a law that:

·          Aquariums must not be transparent on all sides and fish must be in the dark at night.

·          Dog owners must do a two-part course (theory and practice – probably 10 sessions) on how to keep a dog before they are allowed to have one.*

·          “Guinea-pigs are very sensitive social animals. They are interesting to look at, but not at all appropriate to be cuddled or carried around by children.”

·          Anglers must do a course on catching fish humanely.

·          Social animals including horses, guinea-pigs, budgerigars and goldfish must live with or have contact with others of their own kind. 

[*It is to be noted that the Federal Government has not passed a law that potential parents must do a course before they are allowed to have children – or even get married/cohabit in the first place – that I would agree with]. 

There are rumours that the law also includes:

·          A universal speed limit for vehicles of 4mph to ensure that no flying insects are killed in collisions.

·          A ban on human beings going out after dark lest they inadvertently tread on slugs and snails and other creepy crawlies.*

·          A ban on digging the garden and mowing the lawn, to prevent earthworms being accidentally bisected.

·          A ban on sleeves and long trousers so that mosquitoes have enough exposed flesh to feed.

·          A ban on swatting houseflies and wasps rather than asking them to leave (politely, so as to avoid traumatising them).

However, I am assured that these measures are not included – yet. 

[*Britain failed to pass a law in 2006 which would have given legal protection to slugs and snails. But it did succeed in banning children under 16 from winning goldfish at fairs]. 

It’s not so much nanny state as Dr Doolittle government. 

When Tony Blair was still prime minister, his press secretary, Alastair Campbell, once said: “We don’t do God.”  We British are a fairly cynical lot and so we tend to react negatively to our political leaders expressing religious faith. We are happy with the Queen doing it (and she sometimes does it particularly well) but not the Prime Minister.  I do, however, wonder how impressed God is with politicians who try and keep him in the background for political advantage.  One day they’ll find out. 

To be fair, Tony Blair was always explicit about his private Christian Faith. He said recently: “I’ve always been as interested in religion as in politics … if you are somebody of faith it affects everything that you do.”  “But,” he added, when I was Prime Minister, if I was to give interviews n faith, I’d just have ended up with a load of trouble. However now Tony Blair has set up his Faith Foundation which aims to uphold the relevance of religion, to discourage extremism and to encourage reconciliation and peaceful co-existence between religions. It will also be concerned about combating poverty and hunger, lack of education as well as HIV/Aids.  

Years ago I would have been quite suspicious of such a venture as a step towards some universal religion which marginalised or excluded Jesus Christ. And I am not saying that is something about which we should be unconcerned. Religion, especially extreme religion, is causing such trouble and suffering in our global village that some might feel that a one-world religion which amalgamates all religious views would be an excellent panacea. Watch this space! I believe this would be disastrous, it would mean the loss of the gospel of Christ. 

Tony Blair, however, stated: “This is not about chucking all the faiths in a doctrinal melting pot and coming out with the world religion as it were, that’s not what it is about. 

I support what I know of his aims and congratulate him on using his experience, resources and influence to such an important end.  

I am wholeheartedly committed to Jesus as the only Saviour for everyone in the world. But that does not mean that we should show lack of respect to our neighbour of another faith and clearly we should not try to coerce him to become Christian. However exclusive my commitment to Jesus might be, I believe we can and should seek to work with other faith groups towards global peace, justice and welfare. We can work together against extremism and exclusivism (in the sense of antagonism and oppression). 

Talking of politicians doing God, I read recently about Mikhail Gorbachev declaring his Christian Faith. More surprising, given his hard-line image, I learnt that Vladimir Putin is baptised and has appointed a monk as his spiritual director.  Marx and Lenin would doubtless turn in their graves!  “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” And there were plenty of martyrs in the USSR, as in China.  Jesus is Lord! 

Does a child need a father? 

Let me preface my remarks by saying that many single mothers do a first-rate job of bringing up children. But nevertheless the question is: do children suffer disadvantage when they have no father? The issue is raised by current embryo research. A recent survey found that British public opinion believes that fertility clinics should consider a child’s need for a father and not simply “supportive parenting.” However it is the over 55s who oppose more strongly than younger people who don’t. In no age group is there a majority in favour. Opposition was stronger from manual workers and Tory voters. 

It seems fairly obvious to me that God – or Nature, if you like – intended that children should have a male and a female parent. Although we can “create” children through IVF, that doesn’t remove the psychological needs of a child. Children need a close male and female role model and the different dynamics of relating to a mother and a father, if they are going to develop psychological and emotional wholeness. Sometimes that is impossible, because of death or divorce, but society should not widen the problem by creating lots of fatherless children. 

Computer game health warnings 

One of my main worries about Britain today is that common sense is in short supply. I have recently developed a new definition of an expert: “An expert is a person from whom common sense has been removed.”  Of course, I don’t believe that is true in every case – hopefully not in most cases - but its does seem to be frighteningly common. So it took a study commissioned by the prime minister to discover (no doubt at great expense) that some video games can harm the development of children’s belief and value systems and desensitise them to violence. Some of us have been waiting for the “experts” to catch up with us on this one. The “finding” is actually blindingly obvious and didn’t really require a search. Thank goodness there will now be health warnings on video games. Hitherto only games showing sex or gross violence – less than 2% of titles – have been classified.  I hesitate to think what the long-term effect of all the “moderate” sex and violence will have on our society, and I am not one who subscribes to the elderly “it was wonderful in our day” brigade. 

Children need stricter upbringing 

One expert not covered by my definition is Dame Jacqueline Wilson, best selling children’s author and a champion of teenage girls. She has recently made it clear that she believes teenagers need less freedom and parents who say “no” to them more frequently. She believes children grow up too fast and are therefore somewhat deprived of the benefits of childhood (although some would say her novels might encourage this). She stated the well-known fact that secretly teenagers need and welcome rules (although they rebel against them on the surface) because they afford them security. 

Bob Reitemeier, CEO of the Children’s Society agreed with her and said: “The Children’s Society is concerned that young people are continually subjected to pressure to achieve, behave and even consume like adults at an ever-earlier aged. Childhood is not just a path to adulthood, but a critical part of life in its own right. It’s essential that as a society we allow children to enjoy this crucial time in their lives.” Another expert with common sense! 

Marriage is out of fashion 

The percentage of British people getting married is the lowest ever – since records began in 1862. Clearly there is fear of commitment, also the complications and expense of divorce are a disincentive to marriage. The divorce rate is higher than ever. In the 1980s 37% of marriages ended in divorce. In 2005 it was 45%. But the government must bear some responsibility for the decline in marriage because it has removed the tax benefits from marriage. From 1991 to 2005 the number of marriages fell by 23%.  (However, part of the decline is the 2005 law against “sham” marriages which were only entered into to gain a British visa). 

Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at Kent University made a worrying comment: “It’s not that cohabitation has replaced marriage, it’s that more and more people are not able to have close relationships. People who are not married feel they resonate with the times.” 

Who will suffer most from the lack of secure marriages and any inability to have close relationships, together with a high divorce rate? The children of course. 

It seems to me that our children are particularly vulnerable and are being seriously harmed in modern Britain and, quite apart from the immediate suffering, this bodes ill for the future of our society.  

We need to get back to the principles enshrined in the Christian view of sexuality, marriage and the family. These principles are not propounded by a kill-joy God who regards sex as rather unfortunate. They are propounded by a God who loves every person and wants the best for them, who created sex as a wonderful gift to be fully enjoyed in the right context. These principles include:  

1.       Human sexuality exists primarily for the survival of the human race through procreation and the aspect of personal fulfilment is essentially linked with that primary purpose, and is an incentive for it.  

2.       It is physiologically clear that the human body is designed for heterosexual procreation.  3.       Although many single parents do a good job, it is generally agreed that children benefit from close examples of both male and female role models.  

4.       Since sexual intercourse has deep emotional effects, casual sexual relationships are not beneficial.  

5.       Since children are vulnerable, they should have parents who are permanently committed to one another and who should facilitate their children enjoying childhood to the full, shielded from harmful influences and disciplined firmly but fairly. 

These points are reasons for

·          sexual self discipline before marriage

·          marriage as a life-long, exclusive, heterosexual union,

·          the family as a loving context for the enjoyment of childhood (protected by firm discipline) based upon  a   committed marriage. 

US Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, who heads up the dictatorial behaviour of the Episcopal Church hierarchy did not follow the rules in deposing an 88-year old retired bishop, who had already resigned from the House of Bishops. She only gave him 60 days to recant then deposed him with a voice vote by the bishops. She should have informed him of the accusations, have sought the consent of three senior bishops and then held a trial at the next meeting of the House of Bishops. She said she hadn’t been able to get the consent of three senior bishops but one of them said he had never been asked to consent by Bishop Schori.  She failed to get the necessary majority vote of all bishops entitled to vote. Looking at the deplorable behaviour of the American hierarchy makes me even more grateful for our own English House of Bishops. 

UPDATE 13.04.08

On April 3rd an American judge ruled that, under a 19th century law, the Episcopal Church could not confiscate the property of breakaway parishes (property paid for by those parishes). The Episcopal Church has challenged the ruling but the Attorney general of Virginia has stated that he will defend it on May 28th.

Bishop Schori said that this law “plainly deprives the Episcopal Church … of their constitutional rights to structure their polity free from government interference.”  And free from mercy and compassion too, one might add.

Dr Williams’ remarks about Sharia Law have undermined democratic reforms in the Arab world according to a Libyan activist. However the Muslim Brotherhood has welcomed his comments, which has got to be a kiss of death. They wanted to remind the world that the “Islamic state” has always “allowed all citizens, regardless of their religion, to practise their personal law” in conjunction with their religion. Presumably they have forgotten that Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow Christians even to worship in a Christian way!

 Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue described the archbishop’s speech as a mistake because, whilst his intentions were good, he failed to take into consideration the reality of Sharia. David Cameron also waded in against different communities having different laws. I’m not sure he understood Dr Williams.  Cameron went on to slam “multiculturalism” saying: “I believe that state multiculturalism is a wrong-headed doctrine that has had disastrous results. It has fostered difference between communities. And it has stopped us from strengthening our collective identity. Indeed it has deliberately weakened it.”  I think he has a point here. 

UPDATE 13.04.08

Support for Dr Williams has come from the well-known German philosopher Jurgen Habermas. He accepted the “absolute essentialness of equal inclusion of all citizens in civil society” but added that the state must make room for religious belief and “avoid rushing to reduce the polyphonic complexity of the spectrum of public voices because it cannot be certain that this might not sever society from the meagre resources that generate meaning and identity [namely, religious beliefs].”

Habermas went on to say that Europe is entering a post-secular phase and its loss of religious belief was the exception rather than the rule. He thinks that America “seems to exemplify the norm, while Western rationalism that was once supposed to serve as a model for the rest of the world is actually the exception.” 

Society had to find a balance between the claims of religion and those of democracy, he said. It needs to be aware “of the fact that the other is a member of an inclusive community of citizens of equal rights, in which equal citizenship and cultural differences complement each other.”

57% of Britons (30 million people) believe Jesus rose from the dead according to a recent survey carried out by the think tank Theos. Half of them believe in the bodily resurrection, as opposed to spiritual resurrection.  Over 50 believe in life after death. 40% believe Jesus was the Son of God.  43% believe the Easter story is about Jesus dying for our sins.  Only 23% claimed to be atheists. 

So here is yet further proof that Britain is not as secular as some people make out. It fits with the 2001 Census which recorded 71.8% of Britons claimed to be Christian. However, the forces of militant secularism continue to ignore these facts and to undermine (or rather contradict) the widespread Christian views of the British population.  

I firmly believe in protecting the rights of religious minorities. But, whether consciously or not, the constant emphasis on Britain being multi-faith is undermining our remaining Christian heritage and, because the country is increasingly falling down the crack between the various religions, it is effectively furthering secularism. We need to remember the following figures: 2.8% are Muslims, 1% Hindu, 0.6% Sikh, 0.5% Jewish and 0.3% are Buddhist. Important minorities, yes, but clearly Britain still regards itself as Christian, especially when one adds that only 15.1% claimed no religion.
 

What am I arguing for, some privileges for the church? No. I am arguing against militant secularism which is very evident in our society. The Christian Faith has a strong humanitarian concern and, without such a religious foundation, moral standards will gradually and inevitably decline. If, as seems to be increasingly the case, decision-makers enforce secularism in society, this will affect such things as: 

·          Care for the vulnerable: including the unborn (that has already widely happened) and the elderly - the slippery slope of euthanasia is not far away. 

·          Marriage and the crucial benefits of a stable family (that has already widely happened with very widespread harmful effects). 

·          A sense of the sacred which is essential to morality. I understand the reasons why bishops supported the abolition of the blasphemy laws but it will contribute to the growing and widely influential contempt for Christianity amongst the non-religious minority in Britain.  We need to beware the removal of the sacred. Someone said: “Where nothing is sacred, nothing has intrinsic value. Everything is thus a commodity, acquiring value only from economic use. …  where nothing is sacred, there is no awe, no humility, no sense of limits…and no guilt or shame.”  

 ·          The opportunity for people to hear the Gospel of Christ. I am deeply saddened that the message of days like Good Friday no longer impinges on the consciousness of British people, and even Easter is thought to be only about bunnies and eggs. If the Christian festivals are marginalized, this will remove opportunities for people to experience worship and to hear the Gospel.

You will have heard something about this in the news. But what is really going on? Let me summarize: 

1.                   I warned the Church of England General Synod back in the 90s that if church did not sort itself out on the issue of homosexual practice, it would head into major problems. Bishops rebuked me for saying it. In 1997 I wrote: “Were the church to tolerate officially or even bless [homosexual] practice it would experience division and other damage. It could lead to the break-up of the Anglican Communion.” 

2.                   Despite various agreements to the contrary in the worldwide Anglican Church, The American Episcopal Church unilaterally and arrogantly appointed a practising homosexual, Gene Robinson (an alcoholic divorcee who now lives with a male partner), as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. 

3.                   19 American Bishops, led by the Bishop of Pittsburgh, objected to the appointment, as did many conservative bishops from around the world. Some of them, including a college friend of mine, began to leave the Episcopal Church. 

4.                   American parishes (some of which I know) and even dioceses began to split off from the Episcopal Church. In 2005 some formed the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) which has accepted oversight from Peter Akinola, the Archbishop of Nigeria. Others have accepted oversight from the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina. Still others have joined the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas (FACA) which itself is composed of seven smaller Anglican societies. These groups are now relating through the Common Cause Partnership which helps overcome the tendency to splinter. The conservatives themselves disagree over the issue of women priests. 

5.                   African archbishops began to consecrate new bishops in America (one of whom is a friend of mine).  (There, are, of course, dangers in this. I had the experience of a conservative African Anglican Archbishop ordaining someone who had no relevant theological and pastoral training - or experience - and who was totally unfit for ordination, without any selection procedure or reference to me as the local Rector).  

6.                   These consecrations not only infuriated the so-called liberal bishops in America, but led them to take legal action against those parting from the Episcopal Church. In particular the former sought to take away all the property of parishes which have left the Episcopal Church, despite the fact that all such property had been financed by those local parishes. 

7.                   Katherine Jefferts Schori, the American Presiding Bishop since 2006, has taken legal action against conservative Bishops who disagree with Robinson’s appointment, seeking to suspend and even sack them and, of course, to confiscate their diocesan property.  Schori, a so-called liberal, said that it was wrong to allow congregations or dioceses to walk away with Episcopal Church property. “In a sense it’s related to the old ecclesiastical behaviour towards child abuse,” she said in a grossly offensive statement. (In 2006 she affirmed that Anglicanism is not a religion for the working classes!). God deliver us from illiberal liberals!    

8.                   In 2007 the Archbishop of Canterbury and senior archbishops from around the world called on the American Episcopal Church to give assurances that they would not appoint any other active homosexual bishops or authorise public same-sex blessing services. But the response was unclear and unsatisfactory. Conservative Anglicans around the world called for the expulsion of the American Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion until they repented (an opinion I share).  

9.                   The Archbishop of Canterbury avoided such action but he has not invited Robinson, or any new American bishops appointed by overseas churches (a practice he condemned), to the worldwide Lambeth Conference of Bishops in Canterbury from July 20-August 3 this year. Many conservative bishops and archbishops are threatening not to attend the Conference. They are holding a Global Anglican Future Conference in the Middle East from June 15-22. 

10.               The Canadian Anglican Church is moving in a similar way to the American Episcopal Church. 

11.               The situation is a mess and I’m allowing myself to say: “I told you so!” not in glee but in deep sadness. 

[I realise this is a sensitive issue which applies to many couples nowadays. So I want to say that we readily welcome and respect everyone who contacts us or comes to church, even if we might disagree over matters such as cohabitation. I am also aware of the pain people suffer when they get divorced. This paper simply deals with the advantages of marriage compared with cohabitation. See “Thinking of Marriage”on www.churchinthewoottons.net   for details of getting married in the Woottons]. 

The number of weddings in the

UK has dropped by 30,000 between 2004 and 2005 to 244,000. The marriage rate for men is 24.2 per 1000 (27.8 in 2004) and for women 21.6 per 1000 (24.6 in 2004). This is the lowest marriage rate since records began in 1862. Does this matter? 

It is well-known that the church stands firmly in favour of marriage. But is this just a quaint, narrow-minded traditionalism based on some outdated teaching in the Bible? Why does the church uphold marriage as a life-long exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which is sanctioned and regulated by society?  True, it is partly because of the teaching of the Bible and many years of tradition. But it is also because “Cohabitation is bad for you!”  Dr Jeffry H. Larson, who is Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy writes: 

“In the final analysis, thirty years of research show that for the benefit of men, women, and their children, marriage is superior to cohabitation. Cohabitation cannot provide or compete with the rewards and benefits of a strong, committed marriage. Cohabitation is not an effective “trial marriage,” if such a thing exists. It does not provide divorce insurance. Couples will be better off on life’s measures of success and happiness (e.g., emotional health, physical health, and personal wealth) if they are married rather than living together. Cohabitation has more costs than rewards but, unfortunately, continues to be popular, especially among young adults, even though cohabitors fail to receive the benefits or avoid the risks they think they will. People need to know that cohabitation fails to bring couples the happiness and stability they desire in a close personal relationship.”The following is a summary of the more detailed paper which follows giving hard evidence to back up the points made here.  

Obviously, there are exceptions, but extensive research clearly indicates that when couples cohabit, rather than marry: 

1.                   They are likely to be less committed to each other than married couples, and more individually independent, so feeling insecure compared with married couples.  

2.                   Their relationship is likely to break up, especially if there are children (and the break up is very painful). 

3.                   They are less healthy and happy than married couples. Depression and anxiety are more prevalent. 

4.                   Their children are less happy, secure and successful than those whose parents are married. There is a higher incidence of child abuse by male partners. 

5.                   They are more likely to experience violence towards the woman in the home than married couples. 

6.                   They are not as satisfied sexually as married couples. 

7.                   They are less likely to be happy and faithful if they later marry than married couples who have not cohabited. 

8.                   They are more likely to divorce if they later marry, than married couples who have not cohabited. 

For the full documented paper see Cohabitation and Marriage and What is Marriage? On www.churchinthewoottons.net  

I have decided that the dialogue between John R (below) which was originally a response to my piece “Does God regularly intervene in the world?” is worthy of higher profile in a section of its own. So I am putting John’s contributions here and adding my comments. 

IN HIS FIRST PIECE JOHN WROTE: 

You could write volumes and volumes puzzling about what a god might or might not do in the world but the best answer, the one which is most consistent with observable reality, is that there simply is no god. 

I RESPONDED TO JOHN: 

Thank you for taking the trouble to write, John, I appreciate it. Have you seen my three papers on the main website www.churchinthewoottons.net on “Does God exist?”  They will explain why I think belief in God is reasonable and supported by the evidence. Feel free to respond to that material, I’d be interested to discuss it with you.  I’d also recommend you read “The Language of God” subtitled “a Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster,

London) by Francis Collins who is head of the Human Genome Project who produced the first draft of the human genome.  He was an atheist but came to Christian faith.  I also recommend “There is a God” subtitled “How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind, by Antony Flew (Harper Collins,

London).  You probably know that Flew was one of the world’s leading atheist philosophers but he has recently come to believe in God. 

I do not know your background, John, but I’m sure you would agree that one has to research a subject before one can reasonably reject it. I am very interested in philosophical debate and in the relationships between science and religion. But may people have found that a different approach to matters of faith has been helpful, even life-changing. I’d recommend you find a local group doing the Alpha Course. 8 million people have done this introduction to Christianity. It normally takes the form of DVDs (which I think are very good) and discussion and lasts for a number of weeks. It is relaxed and fun, and people without faith or who have difficulties over Christianity are most welcome.  We run an Alpha Course but I don’t know where you come from.  You could find a local course at Alpha.org. 

IN HIS SECOND PIECE JOHN WROTE: 

Hi Tony. 

The one question which seems to come naturally to almost every child when they are first exposed to religion is:  “Well, if God made the universe, who made God?”.  In my view, this has always been a valid question and it is still one to which no theist has ever given a satisfactory answer. 

I think we have an innate sense that if we seek to account for the existence of the universe by invoking something more powerful, more amazing, more intelligent than the universe as its creator, then that creator must surely be even more in need of something to account for its existence than the universe itself.  And yet, the believer will say that there is no explanation - That it’s something our puny brains are incapable of understanding and therefore we shouldn’t ask, or that God has simply always existed (but that is just an assertion, not an explanation) or that God neither has nor needs an explanation.  None of these answers are intellectually satisfactory. 

So, it seems to me that this way can only lead to a dead-end:  Either a logical impossibility, such as an infinite regression of ever greater creators, or an answer that has no explanatory value - something which is surely even more in need of an explanation than the universe itself, but which remains forever unexplained. 

What, then, is the alternative?  Look at the history of our growing understanding of the universe, and you will see a common theme, a thread which runs through all the discoveries that science has made:  We seek to account for the complex in terms of the simple. 

For example, there are countless thousands of different chemical compounds in the world around us, but they are composed of just a few dozen elements which can be combined in an essentially infinite number of different ways to produce all that variety of different materials.  Each element in turn is composed of just three sub-atomic particles - neutrons, protons and electrons.  When you think about it, this is a fantastic result which we had no particular right to expect - that we can, in principle at least, understand all of normal matter in terms of just three particles and their properties. 

Similarly with physical forces and laws:  All of the infinite variety of actions and events we see occurring in the world can be reduced to simple laws which we can understand and represent in the language of mathematics.  The universe is not capricious (not at the macroscopic level, at least).  Apples do not fall upwards for no good reason.  Spacecraft are launched across the solar system in the confident expectation that they will arrive where and when they are supposed to, according to the laws of orbital mechanics. 

So, when we come to try to answer the most fundamental question we can ask about reality - how and why does the universe exist? - why should we think it justified to invoke something infinitely more complex, and infinitely harder to account for than the universe itself?  To me it makes far more sense to keep going down the same route we always have - towards the simple answer, the one which explains the most whilst being the least in need of an explanation itself… and what, by definition, stands in need of no explanation at all?  Complete randomness and acausality.  By definition, something that is genuinely random is not caused by anything else, and does not rely on anything else.  By definition, something that is uncaused is not caused by anything else, and does not rely on anything else.  If the underlying nature of reality is random and acausal then there is no further explanation to look for. 

Which makes more sense - the random, uncaused existence of the simplest possible particle of matter, or the unexplained existence of the most complex thing that it’s possible to imagine - an intelligent entity?  I think it has to be the former.  It’s interesting that quantum physics says exactly this - it says that particles come into existence (or decay into other particles) entirely at random and uncaused, and physicists have actually confirmed this in experiments. 

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the only thing that we all agree is genuinely intelligent - the human brain - is also the most complex thing in the known universe.  Intelligence requires complexity, and complexity requires an explanation.  It is the least probable thing that could exist uncaused, without anything to account for its existence.  That’s why the notion of an intelligent creator of the universe simply flies in the face of reason. 

I will try to respond to your “Does God Exist?” articles in future submissions. 

All the best,John. 

I RESPOND TO JOHN: 

Thank you for your comment, John.  

Let me respond, firstly, to your view that if God existed there must be a cause for his existence or a series of ever greater creators before him.  

1.       Theists state that everything which BEGINS TO EXIST requires a cause. 

2.       The idea that EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS (INCLUDING GOD, if he exists) requires a present cause outside of itself is unreasonable.  

You refer to the argument used by atheists that an uncaused God cannot exist because everything that exists requires a present cause outside of itself. However this means that, in the absence of a God, these external causes would themselves require an external cause, and so on ad infinitum which seems unreasonable. The alternative is that beyond everything there can only be nothing, which means everything is caused by nothing. You seem to be arguing for the latter, which I think is illogical. From nothing, nothing comes. Your argument seems inconsistent in that you are prepared to believe in an uncaused “foundation particle” in the universe, yet you say the idea of an uncaused God is indefensible. I’ll return to this point below. 

3.       The idea that there could be an infinite series of “gods” creating each other is unnecessary and unreasonable. None of them would in fact be divine because being divine means being uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless and immaterial.  

You state: “To me it makes far more sense to keep going down the same route we always have - towards the simple answer, the one which explains the most whilst being the least in need of an explanation itself… and what, by definition, stands in need of no explanation at all?  Complete randomness and acausality.  By definition, something that is genuinely random is not caused by anything else, and does not rely on anything else.  By definition, something that is uncaused is not caused by anything else, and does not rely on anything else.  If the underlying nature of reality is random and acausal then there is no further explanation to look for.” 

I think there are problems with this view: 

a.       I think your statement: “If the underlying nature of reality is random and acausal then there is no further explanation to look for” sounds remarkably like a statement of faith. If I were to make a similar statement, namely: “If the underlying nature of reality is divine causation then there is no further explanation to look for” I think I know how you would respond! 

b.       If something can come into being uncaused then why doesn’t everything come into being uncaused? It cannot be that only things of a particular nature come into being uncaused because, prior to their existence, they would have no nature which could influence their coming into being. Similarly, the laws of physics could not influence their coming into being because, prior to existence of these things, the laws of physics did not exist. Besides the laws of physics are descriptive and abstract and cannot cause anything. So why should only space-time come into being uncaused? If conditions for the emergence of space-time existed then it is not true that it was created without cause. 

c.       On the other hand, if everything were caused by an eternal impersonal cause, why would the effect not be eternal too, rather than coming into being at the Big Bang? 

You go on to say: “Which makes more sense - the random, uncaused existence of the simplest possible particle of matter, or the unexplained existence of the most complex thing that it’s possible to imagine - an intelligent entity?  I think it has to be the former.  It’s interesting that quantum physics says exactly this - it says that particles come into existence (or decay into other particles) entirely at random and uncaused, and physicists have actually confirmed this in experiments.” 

However, I believe you are mistaken about particle pair production in quantum physics. Actually it is not creation ex nihilo but rather conversion between pre-existing energy and matter. A quantum vacuum consists of continually forming and dissolving particles which take energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. 

Finally, Professor Richard Swinburne states that there are two types of causal explanation, scientific explanations: laws and initial conditions and personal explanations: agents and their volitional action. Since nothing existed before the Big Bang there cannot be any scientific explanation for it.  Therefore it requires a personal explanation.   

It seems to me that the existence of a non-eternal universe requires an uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless and immaterial cause otherwise it would be capable of non-existence, which is self-contradictory. 

The universe began to exist and so does not have necessary existence, which would require it to be eternal. 

IN HIS THIRD PIECE JOHN WROTE (in response to my “Does God exist” Part 1 on the main website www.churchinthewoottons.net): 

Hi Tony.  In your article you write: 

“It is surely a self-evident truth, supported by logic and experience, that something cannot come from absolutely nothing.  According to science, before the Big Bang happened some 13-15 billion years ago, there was absolutely nothing.” 

I don’t recall *any* cosmologist asserting that ‘before’ the big bang there was ‘absolutely nothing’.  In the second part of this article you quote Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist from the University of Adelaide.  Here’s what he has to say about the big bang: 

“The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.” 

(http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html) 

Here’s another quote, this time from astronomer Phil Plait: 

“It’s been thought for some time that there may have been some previous Universe that existed “before” ours. This is a difficult idea, because in the Big Bang model, space and time were created in that initial moment. But if Bojowald’s solutions are correct, it leads the way to understanding this previous Universe. It was out there, everywhere, and it contracted. Eventually it became an ultradense, ultrahot little ball of space and time. At some point, it got so small and so dense that bizarre quantum laws took effect — things like the Uncertainty Principle, which states that the more you know about one characteristic of an object (say, its position) the less you know about another (its velocity). There are several such laws, and they make it hard — impossible, really — to know everything about the universe at that moment. 

What Bojowald’s work does, as I understand it (the paper as I write this is not out yet, so I am going by my limited knowledge of LQG and other theories like it) is simplify the math enough to be able to trace some properties of the Universe backwards, right down to T=0, which he calls the Big Bounce. The previous Universe collapsed down, and “bounced” outward again, forming our Universe. No doubt the physical aspects of this previous Universe were somewhat different; the quantum uncertainties at the moment of bounce would ensure that. It may have been much like ours, or it may have been quite alien. In his equations, it’s the volume of that previous Universe that cannot be determined. How big was it? It may literally be impossible to ever know. 

In a sense, this uncertainty wipes the slate clean after a Universe crunches back down.” 

(http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/) 

So this is another possibility - it certainly might be wrong, just as other ideas about branes and the multiverse and so on might be wrong.  You can find countless other articles on the net about this question, but the point is that, contrary to your statement above, science does not in fact say that “…before the Big Bang happened some 13-15 billion years ago, there was absolutely nothing”.  In fact, one of the things science says is that ‘absolutely nothing’ is a state that cannot actually exist in reality - it’s a human concept, part of the way our minds model the world, but not real, in the same way that ‘2′ is not a thing that can exist in itself, but a concept which exists only in our minds.  Here’s another quote - sorry for being so verbose but this is interesting stuff!  :-)   

“According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, one of the pillars of this paradoxical world, empty space can never be considered really empty; subatomic particles can flit in and out of existence on energy borrowed from energy fields. Crazy as it sounds, the effects of these quantum fluctuations have been observed in atoms, and similar fluctuations during the inflation are thought to have produced the seeds around which today’s galaxies were formed. 

Could the whole universe likewise be the result of a quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial or eternal nothingness? Perhaps, as Dr. Turner put it, “Nothing is unstable.” “ 

(http://www.tomcoyner.com/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm) 

One final point:  If, as you say, “something cannot come from absolutely nothing” then how could a creator himself have accomplished this feat?  What would he have made the universe from?  Surely even a god cannot do something which you say is impossible? 

Next, you write: 

“However, for anything to exist, it must either be self-sufficient/self-existent i.e. have always existed, or it must be the product or effect of something else that has always existed.” 

Again, quantum physics stands in contradiction to this assertion.  Particles do indeed begin to exist at random and without cause, and don’t need to have always existed.  We can observe this happening in experiments. 

It’s interesting that you quote a professor of *philosophy*, not cosmology, saying that “…an atheist, must believe that … the universe came from nothing and by nothing”.  I think I’ve shown that this is not the case. 

Next, you say: 

“On the other hand, to say that there is an eternal, self-existent Divine Being who brought the universe into being is a perfectly coherent and meaningful concept.” 

I disagree, for the reason I wrote about in my previous post.  It is not rational to propose that the most complex thing we can possibly imagine - an intelligent entity - is the one thing that can exist uncaused, unexplained, from nothing, having no origin of any kind.  If there is anything at all that requires a cause or mechanism to account for its existence, then intelligence is surely it. 

“a.      Could the universe have always existed? “ 

I agree with you that the universe as we know it had a beginning in the big bang, so the idea that this universe is eternal seems to be ruled out. 

“b.      Could there not be an impersonal cause of the universe?” 

No-one seriously believes that a deity is constantly juggling with the universe to keep it going.  Even the theist accepts that only natural forces are needed to keep molecules bound together, or planets in orbit around their suns.  If everything *in* the universe can be accounted for with natural explanations, then on the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to reject the universe itself having a natural explanation as well.   

You say: 

“Such a cause would have to be self-existent and eternal.” 

I don’t think this assertion is justified.  Since we know that particles in this universe do indeed exist uncaused and for a finite time, why not the universe itself? 

“But if it were impersonal then the cause could never exist without the effect. This would be simply automatic: an impersonal adequate cause must immediately produce its effect. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator.” 

I’m a bit unclear on what you mean here - if we accept that something “…causes an effect without any prior determining conditions.” then this sounds very much like quantum physics - why does this have to be a ‘personal agent’?  Why not just a genuinely uncaused natural event?   

Incidentally, on the subject of “a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time” I have some views about free will that you might be interested to hear about at a later date   

Next you write: 

“Dr Stephen Meyer (a geophysicist with a Cambridge doctorate in origin-of-life biology): “If it’s true there’s a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. … To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause.” 

Wikipedia says: 

“Stephen C. Meyer is an American theologian. Meyer, along with Bruce Chapman and George Gilder, is a founder of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, which advocates the controversial concept of intelligent design, and a leading proponent and lobbyist in the intelligent design movement.” 

I’m tempted to just respond with “‘Nuff said!”  :-)  Suffice it to say that what Mr. Meyers thinks biology points to is a complete non sequitur on his part.  I would be happy to discuss at a later date what we might mean by ‘biological information’ and its significance in this kind of discussion. 

Your final comment in Part 1 of this article is: 

“So, my first argument is that only an eternal, personal God could have brought the universe into being.” 

I think, and hope, that I have at least called this into question. 

All the best,John. 

I RESPOND TO JOHN: 

Thank you for your detailed comments, John, which I welcome. For the benefit of some folks who may read our dialogue, I shall try to clarify technical terms and to give other useful information, which you will doubtless already be aware of.  I am not a scientist so I hope my probably over-simplified definitions won’t be too misleading.  However I include some brief detail of these very complex, even mind-boggling theories so that other readers are aware of just how “way out” they seem to us ordinary mortals! 

You write: “I don’t recall any cosmologist asserting that ‘before’ the big bang there was ‘absolutely nothing’.” Obviously, I am aware that since time began at the Big Bang it is not strictly logical to ask what happened before it. I think such a question really means does the Big Bang have a cause outside of itself. However, as I understand them, some cosmologists do say that there was nothing before the Big Bang and some of them seem to mean absolutely nothing. I am aware of those who refer to there being nothing before the Big Bang but they mean a “nothing” which can experience “quantum fluctuations.” It is debatable whether this can really be termed “nothing.” 

You write: “If, as you say, “something cannot come from absolutely nothing” then how could a creator himself have accomplished this feat?  What would he have made the universe from?  Surely even a god cannot do something which you say is impossible?”  I answered this in my response to your previous contribution to the blog site so I won’t repeat it here. 

You mention Hartle-Hawking, Bojowald and LQG, the Big Bounce, branes and the multiverse. I am aware of these and various current cosmological theories such as: 

1.       That there has been a sequence of Big Bangs of which the one we all talk about (13.7 billion years ago) is the latest as far as we are concerned (Eternal & Chaotic Inflation, Andre Linde).  

2.       That there are many universes and that, in fact, all possible universes actually exist. We just happen to inhabit one that suits us. 

3.       That the universe is composed of tiny strings vibrating in 10 or more dimensions and making up all matter, light, energy, everything. The Big Bang here is not a beginning but a transformation from one state to another. Similarly, as you mention, Martin Bojwald says his Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) Theory means the Big Bang could be a transition or bounce, not the beginning of the universe. 

4.       That our universe is a three-dimensional brane (cf membrane) floating in five-dimensional space, and there may be other branes (universes) floating nearby which can interact in terms of gravitation and when they collide produce huge energy, a Big Bang.  So there is an endless sequence of big ‘crunches’ and big bangs and the universe may be infinitely old. 

5.       That the universe has no boundary and so is self-contained with neither a beginning nor an end (Stephen Hawking) 

However, it is important to remember that these theories are controversial. They are also very speculative. I’m tempted to say it is easier to believe in a divine creator, but instead I’ll quote some scholars! 

According to Professor Paul Davies (theoretical physicist and professor of natural philosophy at the University of Adelaide), Andre Linde says of the Branes theory: “It’s a very bad ide