In defence of Christian Climate Action’s theology
From Sister Joanna Ruth SSC
Madam, — The Revd Dr Ian Duffield (Letter, 12 September) accuses Christian Climate Action (CCA) of “theologically dubious rhetoric” in their recognition that humanity is “crucifying” Creation. I agree with Dr Duffield that the theology of crucifixion must be investigated here, but find CCA’s use of it entirely accurate.
The Cross stands at the epicentre of all human life and history; in it, God gathers in all sin and suffering. To see the climate crisis as a “crucifying” act is to recognise our potential to participate in God’s action in the world, which all flows from and to the Cross. We are not authors of our own salvation, but participants in God’s creative action. In recognising Christ present within Creation, and the suffering of Creation as cruciform, we have a chance to encounter Christ and to take on the responsibility inherent in being part of his body on earth.
Dr Duffield concludes that it is inappropriate for the C of E to become activist, as it is a national institution. The theology of the crucifixion is too rich to be condensed to one sentence, but one inescapable part is that Jesus was crucified in solidarity with the suffering of the world — by a “national institution”.
JOANNA RUTH
Society of the Sacred Cross
Tymawr Convent
Monmouth NP25 4RN
From Mr Drew James
Madam, — Is CCA’s campaign “Stop Crucifying Creation” theologically dubious? Perhaps, but the language of CCA’s vision document cannot be dismissed as rhetoric. Dr Duffield dances to the tune of the oil and gas majors by his use of inverted commas when referring to the climate and nature crisis.
It is not only scientists who warn of the looming catastrophe. My roofer says that the storms we have nowadays are dumping much larger volumes of water. Across Europe, we learn that farmers are struggling to grow crops, owing to the intensity of heat and rainfall.
Dr Duffield omits to mention that companies such as Shell, BP, and Exxon Mobil knew decades ago that burning fossil fuels would cause climate warming, and that during the past 50 years there has been an exponential growth in extraction. Was that increase motivated by compassion, and targeted to improve the human condition in the modern era? I guess not. More probably, those companies had an eye to the fiduciary duty owed to their billionaire shareholders, to the fund managers, and to the bond markets. That growth in extraction has helped drive a widening gap between obscene wealth and those scratching out an existence in places worst affected by drought and flooding, while here in the UK many struggle with the cost of living.
Fossil fuel did indeed provide the energy, fertilisers, and pesticides for the green revolution of the 1970s, and it increased food production in what used to be called the Third World. The legacy, however, is depleted soil, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and migration by workers displaced by intensive farming.
By far the largest emitters of greenhouse gases are those industries that extract and burn coal, oil, and gas, and it is this human interference that leads the attack on Nature, and eventually to mass extinction.
So, which is the greater sin? To “trespass on the Creator’s territory”, or to disobey Christ’s injunction to love God and to love our neighbour? Surely, the sin is to do nothing. We are compelled to act in love, both individually and corporately. Our C of E has a responsibility to be a guiding hand in times of crisis, but at present its contribution to the national conversation is trifling. We cry out for a Church that acts with prophetic imagination; without this we remain a navel-gazing irrelevance and a national embarrassment.
DREW JAMES
6 Southwood Road
Liverpool L17 7BQ
From Suzanne Fletcher
Madam, — You publish a link to the radical and bold agenda of Christian Climate Action (News, 5 September). Their agenda and suggestions, even demands, for action are what is needed, and should be started, but are not going to be implemented overnight, and some PCCs may quake.
One action not mentioned, however, is church organisations’ pledging to use Fairtrade, and the impact that this can have on tackling the climate crisis. While many churches (including mine) are Fairtrade churches, this needs to be spread to all dioceses, church events, church schools, and users of church facilities. As well as the usual refreshments, there are other items available as Fairtrade, including communion wine, footballs, and gold wedding rings.
Why? Involvement in Fairtrade is an expression of how we follow our faith, as we make intentional choices about how we make our purchases. By being a Fairtrade organisation, we are playing our part in enabling farmers and workers to bring about change today in their own lives and communities, besides sending out a signal for justice in wider international trade. There are plenty of biblical references, such as: “What does the Lord require of us: to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6.8).
So where does the impact of climate change come in? Many of the world’s lowest-earning farmers and workers understand the climate crisis all too well: it is making their lives harder every day. But unfair trade means that they cannot even earn enough for basics, let alone the money to invest in adapting to climate change and sustainable farming techniques. The wealthiest ten per cent of people produce 50 per cent of emissions. But those on the lowest incomes face the consequences: more frequent natural disasters, extreme unpredictable weather and rampant plant diseases.
That includes farmers and workers who grow crops such as tea, coffee, sugar, and cocoa: our luxuries in life.
Choosing Fairtrade products means more power and more money in the hands of farmers and workers, meaning that they have more resources to take on the climate crisis. Environmental protection is ingrained in Fairtrade standards. The costs of addressing the climate crisis must not be unfairly placed on those of us who did the least to cause it.
So. while many of us feel helpless in what we can actually do to combat the devastation of people’s land and livelihoodd, making a Christian commitment to Fairtrade it is going to be part of making a difference.
SUZANNE FLETCHER
3 Hoylake Way, Eaglescliffe
Stockton on Tees TS16 9EU
Purpose of Jenny Taylor’s Saving Journalism
From the Revd Professor Charles Elliott
Madam, — I was appalled by the unpleasant tone of Andrew Brown’s review of Jenny Taylor’s book Saving Journalism (Books, 12 September). Mr Brown does not seem to have grasped its profundity.
Some of his criticisms are just wrong: e.g. on the trivial issue, with which he sees fit to open his review, of rats or husks. Taylor has been there, seen it, and talked to the people: he has not. Yes, there is a mistake about Hamilton — regrettable but human. To sneer at Taylor because, as your reviewer falsely claims, she thinks God carved the Ten Commandments is cheap and distasteful.
The nadir comes at the end, where Brown argues that global events (disasters) are of no interest because there’s nothing we can do about them. The very root of the book is that Taylor, through prayer and encouragement, became able “to do something” about the war in Northern Uganda. We can — and should — all be praying about the ghastliness of Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and so on, that the Lord can inspire others to “go and do likewise.”
CHARLES ELLIOTT
Address supplied
Scandals show mission needs theological roots
From Rowena Lewis
Madam, — Canon Angela Tilby’s perceptive reflection on the Nine O’Clock Service (Comment, 29 August) was helpful in accentuating the sense of entitlement which is a common denominator in situations of abuse in the Church: not only in Sheffield in the 1990s, but more recently. Linked to this has been the reckless lack of discernment and scrutiny that triggered the fast-tracking of individuals who might deliver results and allow some respite from the trajectory of decline.
It will not have gone unnoticed that reports of the conviction of Christopher Brain (News, 22 August) have been accompanied by news of the disciplining of the Revd Ryan Forey for ecclesial and financial misconduct at a resource church in Cardiff (News, 29 August) after his ordination to the priesthood was fast-tracked by the former Bishop of Llandaff.
As a worshipper at Bangor Cathedral, I am keenly aware of the reputational damage, not to say the hurt and anger that is a burden to so many others, after the mishandling and manipulation of finances, as well as the abuse to which people were subjected (News, 27 February). This was a consequence of the fast-tracking of Canon Siôn Rhys Evans to the de facto work of Dean soon after his ordination to the priesthood.
This seems to highlight a deeply rooted institutional insecurity informing quick-fix approaches to mission and growth. Canon Tilby has reminded us in previous reflections how such projects are bound to end in scandal and disaster (Comment,14 March and 4 July). We would do well to heed such wisdom and remember that creative and sustainable mission arises from well-grounded and patiently discerned theological roots. Not the other way around.
ROWENA LEWIS
Troedfryn, Ffordd Penbryn
Caernarfon, Gwynnedd LL54 6SD
Ramifications of the murder of Charlie Kirk
From Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss
Madam, — You report (Online News, 12 September) that faith leaders across the United States have condemned political violence and access to guns in the US in the wake of the assassination of the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Your report also mentions that Mr Kirk has been “hailed by the Christian right as a martyr”.
Among the Episcopalian bishops whose comments are quoted is Bishop Taylor of Los Angeles, who has said that some of Mr Kirk’s views had “hurt and even endangered people I love”. This risk has been echoed by others. It is understandable that people who feel that their lives are in danger and others sensitive to their fears may be guarded in their response to Kirk’s death. They will feel even more isolated by those, including some members of the European Parliament, who wanted to observe a minute’s silence in his memory. Vigils have taken place in the US and at the Montgomery statue in Whitehall. President Trump has said that Kirk will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously.
Surely we need to reflect on, and pray for, the vulnerable people who may suffer even more as a consequence of this murder. Perhaps, the Church of England should prepare a response for use in case similar situations occur in future.
VASANTHA GNANADOSS
242 Links Road
London SW17 9ER
Father and misleading statement by the son
From Dr Douglas Wertheimer
Madam, — In your review of Philip Henry Gosse: A biography, for which I am grateful (Books, 5 September), Dr Michael Wheeler includes a description of Gosse’s Omphalos first developed by his son, Edmund Gosse, nearly 120 years ago.
That explanation of why the book was written, what it was meant to achieve, and how contemporaries viewed it has been repeated without dissent since then. Yet repeating a claim with certainty is irrelevant to the certainty of the claim.
Edmund Gosse, for example, maintained that Victorians “laughed” at Omphalos “and threw it away”. But that is not what happened, as my examination of the Victorian periodical press and the scientific community demonstrates. I devote a section of more than 30 pages to this subject and show, for the first time, that on every one of these points — why, what, and how – Edmund Gosse was incorrect.
I believe that the new image that emerges sets the record straight about P. H. Gosse, his thought, and his religious outlook, and allows a proper appreciation of him in his times.
DOUGLAS WERTHEIMER
Address supplied (Skokie, Illinois, USA)
Meaning of Hebrew word translated as ‘sojourner’
From the Revd James Richards
Madam, — Richard Gunning (Letter, 12 September) makes two errors in his comment on your “Outside forces” leader comment (8 August).
The first error is the etymological fallacy that equates a word’s etymology with its present meaning. “Sojourner” no longer means a short stay (although temporary is implied).
The second error is in assuming that “sojourn” is the only translation in contemporary English for the Hebrew gûr. Other translations use “reside”, “live”, or “dwell”. Mainly the Bible uses gûr for those living temporarily in a land not their own, who may be guests or foreigners without full citizenship rights. It doesn’t necessarily imply a brief stay or a temporary one.
JAMES RICHARDS
The Rectory, Longlands Road
Bowness-on-Windermere
Windermere, Cumbria LA23 3AS
The Editor reserves the right to edit letters
