I love science, especially astronomy and cosmology, and read it daily. I was aware all of the information contained in the recent TV programme featuring Stephen Hawking “Did God create the universe?”

Initially he described the ways the church had opposed scientist such as Galileo. He then described how subatomic particles appear, disappear and reappear at random out of nothing. He went on to say that, similarly, the universe originally was very small – a singularity – hence it too could come into existence out of nothing without violating the known laws of physics. It was originally an infinitesimally small black hole which exploded in the Big Bang ultimately to form the universe as we know it. He asked whether God created the quantum laws governing this and commented that science has a more compelling explanation. His main thesis was that there was no time before the Big Bang so, said Hawking, it doesn’t have a cause. In fact there was no time in which a cause could exist. He concluded that the question “Did God create the universe?” was therefore a question that doesn’t make sense. Then he added that there is probably no heaven and no afterlife.

I was both surprised and disappointed that the programme, and Hawking’s thesis, was so superficial. In passing, let me say that yes, the church did maltreat scientists at one time. But he didn’t mention that Protestantism facilitated growth of science and that many scientists have been or are Christians. Nor did he mention that science has perpetrated some evils too. Take Eugenics which was popular in the early 20^th century and called for the sterilization of the mentally ill, the blind, the deaf, the disabled, etc., and led to enforced “racial hygiene.” Are we to write science off because of such disgraceful aberrations? Yet Hawking appeared to be implying religion should be written off because of the malpractice mentioned.

Hawking described creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), which Christians have always believed, then made a leap of faith to state that there is no divine being behind it. This is as much a statement of faith as saying God is behind it. What evidence does he have to prove there is no God? He said there was no time in which a cause of the Big Bang could exist, ignoring the concept that God is outside of time.

And yet theoretical physicists believe in dark matter, dark energy and dark flow without being able to prove they exist. They also hold that there could be many universes (the multiverse theory). These beliefs are purely theoretical because they work and fit in with the maths. I have no problem in principle in believing in these things. They appear to be required because of anomalies in the universe which cannot be explained by normal matter and energy. But they are statements of faith

By the same token, Christians argue that a divine creator is also required because that alone can answer the fundamental questions: Why is there anything at all? Granted everything came from nothing but why did that happen? Granted there was no time ‘before’ the Big Bang but why does that exclude an eternal creator?

Hawking might argue that there is no scientific evidence for a divine creator. But who ordained that scientific evidence is the only allowable evidence. Can science disprove my religious experience is actually of God. It is part of my evidence for believing in God. It is a quality of experience transcending any other. It is an experience of numinous. Rudolph Otto said the numinous experience has two aspects: mysterium tremendum, a tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinans, a tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. There is also a sense of being in communion with a wholly other, a sense of supernatural presence. It is a sublime, awe-inspiring experience which is beyond comprehension.

Some people have tried to separate the numinous from religion, for example Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc. It is clear that, for instance, some astronomers have a sense of awe as they contemplate the universe, and I share that. In so far as that is the same as my religious experience (and that can legitimately be debated) it is evidence that human beings are worshipping creatures. Some may ‘worship’ creation rather than a creator but the sense of worship/numinous is one evidence for God. The idea that such exalted experiences together with love, altruism, personality, art, music, poetry, etc., just emerged out of the Big Bang with no cause and no divine creator is not only a statement that cannot be verified but it stretches credulity. It is far more credible that they are evidences of a divine creator.

True, science may be able to describe physiological and psychological aspects of religious experience but how can it prove that those aspects are the only cause of religious experience?

Hawking seemed to be implying that religion was caused by human beings being unable in the past to explain fearful experiences such as eclipses. However it seems much more credible that since religion is universal, it caused religious reactions to phenomena like eclipses, rather than the other way round. Why should a religious reaction to some phenomena not be an evidence of the existence of a divine creator?  What evidence does Hawking have that, since seeing an eclipse as the wrath of God is mistaken, that means the concept of God is mistaken? That certainly does not follow.

Hawking is one of the many who see scientific proof as the only proof. But, as I asked above, who ordained that the world is only scientific or only scientific questions may be asked. This attitude is narrow-minded, arrogant, scientific fundamentalism.

We might add questions about Jesus who, on a careful reading of the NT, claimed to be God. As C S Lewis said: was he mad, bad or God? If Hawking and his atheistic colleagues believe Jesus was mad or bad they are really sticking their necks out (although Hawking did not mention Jesus in this programme).

Unfortunately, some scientists who are highly qualified in their field of expertise have a GCSE level of understanding of religion, yet feel qualified to pontificate about it.

Hawking and his atheistic colleagues may think, in their rather puerile understanding of Christianity, that religion has had its day. But I have to respond that the demise of religion/spirituality is consistently behind schedule.

The C of E has just published (yet another) report. It publishes many of them. During my 14 years on the General Synod I think the authorities must have destroyed half a rain forest to produce all the paperwork we were given.

This one is called “Challenges for the New Quinquennium” which, you must admit, is a catchy title. It was written by the Bishops of Birmingham and Derby with others. The bishops have realised that the future of the church is under threat. One great need, they say, “is to be explicit about the need to counter attempts to marginalise Christianity and to treat religious faith more generally as a social problem. This is partly about taking on the ‘new atheism’.”  It goes on “about challenging public bodies to understand that the proper avoidance of religious discrimination does not mean being suspicious of or hostile towards churches and other faith groups.”

That is indeed a major challenge. I’m not naive enough to hanker for the (allegedly) “good old days” but it is amazing and disturbing to see the change in our own society over the last few decades. We have changed from a society where religion (mainly Christianity) was respected to where it is treated as, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, anti-social and even dangerous. We have changed from where the church’s position and influence in society was accepted to where there is an increasing desire to marginalise and exclude it.

Yes, we need to take on the “new atheism” which is what I have sought to do in this website (see http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/apologetics.html).  But we also need to take on the more subtle attacks through politicians and society leaders who have let political correctness undermine their common sense, and through the constant secularist propaganda emanating from news, documentaries and drama in the media.

However, I think the church itself is significantly to blame. I note that the report does not refer to the church’s failings. As I read it various serious weaknesses in the church came to mind.

1. The clergy are not trained to do evangelism

“Challenges for the New Quinquennium” calls on the church “to take forward the spiritual and numerical growth of the Church of England.”  It adds: “Giving priority to the gifts and practice of evangelism will be an urgent challenge for the Church of England in this quinquennium.”

This sounds good and I’m glad evangelism is getting a mention, but in my view it is just words, rather like the Decade of Evangelism some years ago had little practical effect. The problem is that many clergy simply don’t know how to do evangelism. They don’t know how to put the gospel over simply and convincingly so that people want to commit their lives to Christ. They don’t know how to lead a person to Christ.  As far as I can tell, there is very often no practical training in evangelism in ordination courses and colleges. That’s because many of the trainers (including of clergy) don’t know how to do it themselves. Whilst this remains the case there is no hope of extensive numerical growth in the C of E.

I thank God for my background and training which gave me practical help as to how to do evangelism, how to lead people to Christ. Such help is available – but not in the average C of E ordination (or Readership) training.

2. “A growing and sustainable Christian witness in every local community” is a pipe dream

The report calls on the church “to re-shape or reimagine the Church’s ministry for the century coming, so as to make sure that there is a growing and sustainable Christian witness in every local community.”

This is a laudable aim but it is a pipe dream as things stand at present, partly because of the lack of evangelism and partly because of a lack of radical thinking about the role of stipendiary clergy. The report notes that “40% of the Church of England’s stipendiary clergy are due to retire in the next decade.”  This means that the remaining stipendiary clergy will be spread very thinly across the country. Already clergy have 8, 9, 10 or more parishes under their care, especially in rural areas. In practice this breeds a filling station approach to the church. The vicar rushes around filling up the tiny, dwindling congregations with bread and wine, liturgy and sermons. Eventually the vicar will be rushing around taking funerals and then there will be no more need to rush around with bread and wine, liturgy and sermons.

It is essential that the church uses local people, living permanently in the parish, as the mainstay of the church’s ministry to that parish. But again, the church has paid lip service to developing every member ministry. Many clergy simply don’t know how to do it.  It requires:

a.       Encouraging spirituality through prayer, fellowship and the teaching of Scripture. Sunday services are not in themselves adequate for this but without this spiritual growth and openness to the Holy Spirit there is no foundation for every member ministry.

b.      There is a need for practical teaching about the different gifts and a practical way of finding the individual’s gift(s).

c.       Then there is a need for encouragement and training to use that gift.

Leadership is important but it won’t be able to rely on stipendiary clergy. The church is lamenting the imminent retirement of 40% of the stipendiary clergy and yet many of those clergy, when retired, will be willing to take a practical lead especially in the parish where they live. The church appears to be very haphazard, inadequate and wasteful in its approach to the use of retired clergy who are willing to be used.

Then there are NSMs (non-stipendiary ministers) and OLM’s (Ordained Local Ministers) who can be helpful, although it appears that their training leaves a lot to be desired. Sometimes NSM’s and OLMs are attached to parishes well served by stipendiary clergy and that can be unhelpful. I had two OLMs in one parish alongside a stipendiary curate, two Readers and myself as Rector. A lot of the effort I put into planning worship was working out how to use the whole team adequately and fairly. We were overstaffed, yet other local parishes were understaffed. We need NSMs and OLMs in parishes where stipendiary clergy are not constantly available. We can also use Readers to take the lead in the local church. I’m not denying this happens in some situations but the C of E still seems too wed to the idea of the stipendiary cleric in every parish. And it won’t work.

3. There is a lack of corporate prayer

Here we are, facing perhaps the greatest challenge to the future of the church and you won’t find the word “prayer” anywhere in this official General Synod report. I heard a bishop say once: “When the church gets stuck it appoints a committee.”

Maybe the Lord won’t take our concern for the future of the church seriously until we all get down on our knees to ask him to do something about it. Oh yes, we pray in church – for a few minutes. But we follow someone who, despite a very busy timetable, spent nights of prayer and often withdrew to prayer.

The church which prays together will grow. Some traditions are not used to prayer meetings. Even amongst Evangelicals there seems a widespread lack of interest in them. No wonder the future looks bleak, the church is declining and in many communities will die of old age.

The real challenges for new quinquennium are:

1.      For clergy to learn how to do evangelism, to teach others to do evangelism and to engage in it.

2.      For churches to encourage spirituality through prayer, fellowship and the teaching of Scripture, to teach about and practically find the gifts of churchmembers and to use them.

3.      For the church to be more creative as to how it uses retired clergy, NSMs, OLMs and Readers to lead local congregations.

For the church to get down on its knees for extensive, regular prayer about the future and its challenges.

David Cameron has certainly stirred things up with his Munich speech against multiculturalism. He defined it as a policy which, in trying to respect all cultures and religious views equally, has led to segregation and even ghettos in our society. He sees this division as fostering extremism and violence. He spoke against groups which do not support universal human rights including for women and said the state should not fund such groups.

It is, of course, easy to be misunderstood on such a sensitive issue. Cameron could easily be construed as opposed to the good side of multiculturalism – tolerance and opposition to bigotry and racism.

In fact he invited misunderstanding by linking this speech with security against terrorism (the subject of the conference at which he spoke) and majoring on Islam. It is true that he made a clear distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism. It is also true that much of the terrorism around the world is perpetrated by Muslim extremists. But the Muslim community is sensitive to Islamophobia and tends to interpret criticism as personal attack. As I know from experience in the Middle East, Muslims tend to remember the Crusades like Jewish people remember the Holocaust. For the average westerner these events can seem like ancient history. But Muslims and Jews have long memories and the scars of those events make them sensitive, especially when Islamophobia or anti-Semitism are still alive and well in our society.

It makes it worse that the speech took place just before a major demonstration by the extreme right-wing English Defence League in Luton and Cameron didn’t mention it. What were his advisers doing? Predictably, both the EDL and the British National Party claimed the speech justified their views.

Sadly, the speech will be mis-used to encourage Islamophobia. It linked multiculturalism and ethnic minorities with terrorism, which can give the impression that ethnic minorities are a threat, even though Cameron didn’t mean that.

Some critics have made the fair criticism that it isn’t just ethnic and religious segregation which threaten our society it is also social segregation. The current political elite in England has more than its fair share of Old Etonians. Religious schools are criticised but what about private and fee-paying schools? They too are divisive. If religious school should be banned (and that is at least debateable) then private and fee-paying schools should be banned as well. Oops – an own goal Mr Cameron!

However there is another serious issue about the speech. David Cameron said: “At stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life,…. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.”

What exactly is “our way of life” and what are “our values”? British values are rooted and grounded in our Christian heritage. That is a historical fact. Some secularists are so short-sighted that they cannot see how much “our values” are based on Christian principles. Yet that Christian heritage is being whittled away by our politicians. We are well aware that the Labour government facilitated this process but I am not confident that the coalition government will improve matters. There is some lip service to Christian tradition but the dominant culture, including in political circles, is secularism.

We are living on capital. The traditional values of British culture have been based on Christianity – admittedly imperfectly. We are trying to keep some of those values without the Christian belief and theological undergirding which they require. The values will gradually be undermined.

So I don’t believe our political leaders, including David Cameron, are properly supporting “our way of life” and “our values.” They are instead espousing secularism. God forbid that the church should dominate as it used to do or that we should repeat some of the errors the church fell into. But our leaders should realise that they are not really upholding British culture, as it is historically defined, against what they see as the failings of multiculturalism.

Simply to tolerate and respect different cultures and faith groups (important though that is) whilst strongly encouraging integration will not preserve British culture. We’ve actually turned away from British culture. David Cameron is not diagnosing the problem properly so he won’t come up with an adequate cure.

What a terrible thing it was that Joanne Yeates, the young landscape architect, was brutally strangled just before Christmas 2010. Our hearts surely went out to the grieving parents when they were on television. We must pray that the murderer will soon be found and punished.

However, I was upset by something else that happened in this case. I am well aware that the police have to do their job and need to follow up any leads. Also I know that not infrequently the murderer is someone close to the victim.

However, I remember watching the news when her landlord had been taken into custody. It was yet another case of trial by media. I said on more than one occasion as I watched: “A person is innocent until proved guilty.”  But in the modern news-entertainment media some people are guilty until proved innocent. And that was the case over this suspect. Yes, he perhaps looked a little wild – I think he was an ex-professor!

The more I watched, the more uncomfortable I became. In one sense it made no difference whether he was actually innocent or guilty. He was being convicted anyway. Covering themselves legally with words like “alleged” the media were able to “entertain” the viewers by implying he was a “horrible fiend.”

In the old days it would just have been local people who might have assumed his guilt. That’s bad enough. But nowadays the whole country is likely to conclude he was guilty without trial. How devastating it must have been for him. I wonder how he is now. He’s dropped out of the news-entertainment spotlight because he was released without charge. Will he ever get over it?

I hate to think of people’s lives being ruined by false accusation and by conviction without trial. I’ve seen too much of it over the years.

Little wonder, therefore, Jesus and the apostles are clear about how we should respond to allegations or suspicions. According to the teaching of Jesus:

• We should not jump to conclusions about a person’s guilt, i.e. be judgmental. We should carefully suspend judgment and refuse to “convict” them without trial, even in conversation.
• We should directly approach someone who appears to have done wrong to hear their defence or explanation and to assess the truth.

This is the Christian approach and it means we avoid becoming slanderers. The Bible is quite blunt about slanderers. It says a slanderer is a fool (Proverbs 10:18) who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10) and who should be avoided (1 Corinthians 5:11).

Quite!

Surely not!  He is so loving, kind and forgiving. Surely if I can’t forgive someone God, who is love, will still forgive me.

Well … actually, no! Listen to what he says: “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matthew 6:14-15).

He says this immediately after teaching his disciples the Lord’s Prayer which, in the version we say in every service, states: “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.”

In other words, if I say the Lord’s Prayer, whilst still not having forgiven someone or done all I reasonably can to be reconciled with them, those words are irrelevant. I won’t be forgiven.

It follows that when I say the confession I’m not forgiven, whatever the Minister says.  This is serious.

So if I go to God with unforgiveness in my heart and ask him to forgive me, he will say: Go and forgive the person you haven’t forgiven. Then, but only then, I will forgive you.”

What does forgiving someone mean?

It doesn’t mean:

• We suddenly approve of what they (genuinely) said or did to upset us. We might still strongly disapprove.
• We necessarily have to like the person or become close friends.

It means that:

• We pray regularly for God’s blessing on them. Jesus said “Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6: 28). That will help us to deal with temptations to be resentful or even hateful.
• We let the other person know we are willing to forgive and be reconciled. Of course, they have to be willing too, otherwise reconciliation is impossible. However, even then, we must maintain a forgiving attitude and readiness to be reconciled.
• We apologise if there is something to apologise for.
• We act for their benefit, if an opportunity arises.
• At the very least we seek to draw a line, establish a truce, and seek to relate positively to one another.

Many people, including some church-attenders know about Christ and believe things about him but they don’t actually know him.

However, the New Testament makes it clear that salvation and eternal life depends on knowing Christ. For example, Jesus said: “This is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3). Paul speaks of “of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ” (Php 3:8-10) and urges Christians to “know him better” (Eph 1:17).

Peter wants Christians to grow in knowledge of Christ (2 Peter 3:18).

Christianity is a heart knowledge of Christ, not simply a head knowledge.

However, what does it mean in practice to “know” Christ? It is helpful to think of what it means to know any other person then to apply it as far as relevant to knowing Christ. The following points should help.

To know Christ is:

To know he lived, died for you, rose again and is alive for ever.

To know he’s there, very close by

To know he accepts you (if you have repented of sin and put your trust in him.

To know you belong to him and have a close connection with him

To know he’s all-loving

To know he’s listening

To know he’s watching.

To know he’s caring

To know he’s wonderful, to take delight in him and to adore him, telling him how wonderful he is.

To love him and to express that love to him. To know Christ is to know him in our hearts – to love him.

How to know Christ better

Start to talk to him

Find a quiet place

Ask him to reveal himself to you

Ask him to forgive you

Ask him to form that close relationship with you

Read about him in The New Testament.