Christian Climate Action’s theology
From the Revd Dr Ian Duffield
Madam, — I wonder how many readers noticed the crucial inverted commas in the main headline, “C of E warned of earth’s ‘crucifixion’” (News, 5 September). This was theologically astute, because to proclaim that the planet is being crucified is theologically dubious high-flown rhetoric. No such subtlety may be found in Christian Climate Action’s (CCA’s) vision document, Stop Crucifying Creation, with no inverted commas in sight.
Although CCA’s concerns may be regarded as legitimate, their recital of what they call “The Climate and Nature Crisis”, which they think is due to greed, with an attack on the fossil-fuel industry, remains open to question. This attack is ironic, given that most of us would not be alive if it were not for fossil fuels — which creation itself has provided — and that have enabled vast improvements in living conditions for many people and lifted humans out of that subsistence farming that was the hard lot of their forebears.
Does the CCA think that humanity (in the abstract) or the fossil-fuel industry (in the concrete) is literally crucifying the planet? There is a double hubris at work here: that humans have the power both to destroy the planet and to save it. From what Olympian viewpoint can humans, let alone Christians, make such claims? Theologically and spiritually, as Christians, we need to trust that Creation is in God’s hands, not ours — not as an excuse to do nothing, but to avoid the sin of trespassing on the Creator’s territory.
Nevertheless, many of CCA’s proposals are worth exploring for Christians, without adopting its language of crisis and “crucifixion”. Of course, CCA is entitled to promote its cause with strong rhetoric, but, as a Christian body, does it need to exercise more care in its use of emotional Christian language, even if it is implicitly metaphorical? Also, Christians are entitled to be activist individually or in groups and associations, such as CCA, but it is a category mistake to encourage the C of E to become activist, since this is inappropriate for a national institution.
IAN K. DUFFIELD
15 Springwell Avenue
Sheffield S20 1XD
Uncertain future of the Islington bishopric
From Prebendary Andy Rider
Madam, — Given the fast-approaching departure of the present Bishop of Islington to serve as Archbishop of Melbourne, we must ask ourselves what comes next. The see of Islington was brought back into use ten years ago by the previous Bishop of London, who appointed Bishop Ric Thorpe to lead on church growth and planting across London and increasingly across the nation.
Your pages have yet to report on the future of this post, now clearly a national one. It falls to the national Church to decide whether church growth matters. As millions are being spent on strategic initiatives, it would seem as though it did. Therefore, to appoint a second modern-day Bishop of Islington would say to the Church across the nation that intentional, innovative mission and growth matter. Not to do so would say something else!
ANDY RIDER
13 Eaton Terrace
Aberavon Road
London E3 5AJ
Safeguarding: training, PTO, and perceptions
From Mary J. Watson
Madam, — I was amazed to read the letter (22 August) from a retired priest, the Revd Colin Noyce, wondering how he could circumvent or reduce the safeguarding process, because his domestic situation made it difficult for him to give the time to the course, which is a requirement in order to obtain permission to officiate (PTO).
In the past few years, possibly encouraged because of negative publicity, the Church has given more attention to implementing safeguarding training for all who work in it, and that includes retired clergy who wish to take services.
How anyone can think that there could be some loophole, whereby they can slip through and just “be trusted” is staggering on two counts. First, is not this yet another insult to those who have been victims of supposedly “trustworthy” members of the Church in the past?
Second, in the light of all the publicity and inevitable resignations, would any senior member of the clergy, if they valued their position, ever permit anyone to reduce a safeguarding course?
I am married to a retired priest, whose last service was taken before lockdown, when he was about 87. As soon as safeguarding courses became mandatory for him, he always fulfilled them. My work is in education, where safeguarding has been considered essential for much longer. I have had many discussions with my husband about the lack of accountability in the Church.
I am pleased that your correspondent’s bishop was quite clear that there could be no exceptions to the safeguarding training. After all, it was the belief that some people could be less accountable than others which has led to many unresolved problems in the Church today.
The answer to your correspondent’s final question, “Is there no other way to decide whether we can be trusted to do this?”, should be a resounding No, if the Church hopes to retain any credibility.
MARY J. WATSON
Address supplied
From Andrea Chance
Madam, — The Revd Colin Noyce is not alone on the ministerial scrapheap. His story is tragically common. This “One size fits all” approach to granting permission to officiate is depriving our beloved Church of the valuable ministry of many mature and experienced priests, at a time when stipendiary clergy are hard-pressed and in need of all the help that their “retired” colleagues so generously offer. Once a priest, always a priest, was their ordination commission; but many now find themselves denied an altar by the very Church that they have served.
Is it time that those in management woke up to see the treasure they are spurning?
ANDREA CHANCE
4 Kingfisher Drive
Barnstaple EX32 8QW
From the Revd Dr Philip Goggin
Madam, — Your report “New proposal to bolster safeguarding system” (News, 15 August) quotes Mr Lewis, one of the proposers, as saying that part of the ongoing problem is the “perception in the community that it (safeguarding) is rubbish”.
If such a perception prevails, it is a serious drag factor on all safeguarding work. So, what might be the aspects of safeguarding which need attention? Here are some possibilities:
The belief that safeguarding is as much about safeguarding church reputation as safeguarding people, and that sadly the reputation that is now being achieved is for heavy handed action.
The appearance that safeguarding restrictions (e.g., requiring officers of the Church to stand down from their responsibilities) are sometimes applied to individuals who pose no risk of causing future harm.
The belief that it is unfair to judge harshly someone’s past failure to report or act on a concern by modern standards (in the same way as we now usually think it unfair not to make some allowance for past actions that are now regarded as sexist, or racist, etc.).
Concern that the recruitment of church volunteers (not forgetting retired clergy) is hampered by onerous safeguarding requirements.
Concern that safeguarding costs (to which parish share contributes) are huge, without clear evidence that safeguarding actually works to reduce harm.
PHILIP GOGGIN
4 Valley Road, Wistaston
Crewe CW2 8JU
Vance and compassion; Farage and immigration
From Professor Fraser Watts
Madam, — I very much appreciated the Rt Revd Dr John Inge’s excellent analysis of the theological debate about a hierarchical approach to compassion (Comment, 5 September). There is a parallel debate in psychology, best set out in Paul Bloom’s Against Empathy: The case for rational compassion. His central point is that, if compassion is based on empathy, it is always selective, because empathy is selective.
This is a really important issue at the present time, when nationalistic instincts and identity politics are running so strongly. It is tempting for those with liberal, universalist instincts to assume too easily that they are in the right. If you look carefully, however, the arguments are more finely balanced.
In the process of sanctification, there may be a hard-won movement towards a more universal compassion. Also, as Mark Pack has shown, opinion polling indicates a gradual movement towards more liberal positions. Nevertheless, a Church that assumes that every Christian has to be liberal and universalist from the outset is cutting itself off from many in our current society.
FRASER WATTS
2B Gregory Avenue
Coventry CV3 6DN
From Mr Richard Gunning
Madam, — In your leader comment, “Outside forces” (8 August), on the subject of migrant hotels and anti-migrant protesters and this country’s Christian foundations being under threat, you closed with a verse from the Bible as follows: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall do him no wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself. . .”
Are you sure this was a wise choice of Bible verse in support of your case? To “sojourn” means to stay for a day — at the most, a temporary stay — and, were that to be happening, I expect the appeal of Nigel Farage would soon wane, and the rioters would return home happy.
RICHARD GUNNING
38 Sprucedale Gardens
Wallington
Surrey SM6 9LB
Choral evensong and midweek attendance figures
From Dr Ken Eames
Madam, — I warmly echo Timothy Noon’s appreciation of cathedral musicians (Letters, 5 September). As one of the authors of the 2024 Cathedral Statistics report — and an enthusiastic singer of evensong whenever the opportunity arises — I am especially glad to see that numbers of choristers and choirs are now above pre-pandemic levels. It is heartening news for cathedral communities and the wider Church, and a testament to the dedication of Mr Noon and his colleagues.
To clarify, the midweek attendance figures mentioned in the report include choral evensong, eucharists, morning and evening prayer, and other regular services — all of which matter, of course, whether spoken or sung. While we don’t currently break down attendance by service type, it is, indeed, likely that evensong accounts for a large share in many places.
Church music continues to be a vital part of our worshipping life. The gifts of skilled and committed musicians bring worship to life and help congregations across the country to rejoice and to sing praise to God — something for which we can be deeply thankful.
KEN EAMES
Senior Statistical Researcher, Church of England Data Services team
Church House
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3AZ
Marriage vows — preferred and imagined
From the Revd Stephen Collier
Madam, — I read with interest your correspondence concerning marriage vows (22 August, 5 September). My own favourite version of the vows is to be found in the Alternative Service Book 1980. Here, in Option B on page 291, the bride promises to “love, cherish, and obey”, while the bridegroom promises to “love, cherish, and worship”. We obey and worship someone who has authority over us. This is what marriage is: the mutual submission to the authority of the other. I have found that many couples choose this option to reflect the foundation of their union.
Sadly, this choice is no longer available in Common Worship.
STEPHEN COLLIER
9 Drew Gardens
Greenford UB6 7QF
From Canon Martin Snellgrove
Madam, — If our marriage vows reflected what actually happens it wouldn’t be ‘love, honour, and obey’ but “love, honour, and negotiate with”! Obedience comes into it in that we undertake to do what has been agreed.
MARTIN SNELLGROVE
9 Meadow Gardens
Llandudno LL30 1UW
The Editor reserves the right to edit letters
