Address to General Synod. Debate on the Environment |
Fellow Members of Synod
This is an unusual Synod debate in many ways. There are, for example, few debates whose message is reinforced with a free gift courtesy of Thames Water. I hope that members have already picked up their complimentary Save-a-flush, a user friendly cistern hog which entirely supersedes the old brick in the water routine.
This debate could also hardly be more timely. Yesterday the Kyoto protocol came into force. Scientific opinion believes that its provisions will not be adequate to deal with the problem of climate change but failure even to take the modest steps envisaged in the protocol, a failure which at one point looked likely, would certainly have put off the time when the rich nations of the world committed themselves to any meaningful action. There are of course voices which are sceptical either about the causes of climate change or about our ability at this stage to do much more than help humans to adapt to the consequences. There does seem to be a consensus however, described as “near universal” after an examination of 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 and reported in the current issue of New Scientist, that some measure of global warming is a reality.
At the beginning of this month as a result of the personal leadership of the Prime Minister an international conference was held in Exeter at the HQ of the Met Office. As is well known Mr Blair has identified the problem of global warming as one of the challenges to be tackled during the UK’s stint this year in the chair both of the G8 group of rich nations and of the European Union.
There is a very helpful summary of the surprising conclusions of the Exeter conference in the current issue of The Tablet in an article by the Environment Correspondent of The Independent, Michael McCarthy. The mass media find it easier to deal with events rather than processes and this sober article admits that in consequence those concerned to highlight ecological threats have sometimes over-dramatised particular situations to draw attention to general trends. The problem is that this gives also an opportunity to those who are keen to deny that anything serious is happening to discredit the prophets of doom and to continue relentlessly stirring up apathy and complacency.
The Exeter conference concluded that the average temperature of the surface of the earth was likely to rise between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees centigrade by the end of the century, “depending on how human societies controlled their emissions of CO2, the waste gas from industry and transport which is retaining more and more of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere.”
But there were also two unexpected disclosures. First the British Antarctic Survey reported that there was a real danger of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet breaking up. Were it to collapse into the sea it would raise global sea levels by about 16 feet. That puts Church House at risk. Only four years ago it was stated at the previous conference in the series that the ice sheet was safe for a thousand years. The scientific assessment now is that this judgement is unsafe.
The second warning concerned the acidification of the oceans. CO2 not only as an impact on climate but dissolved in water is causing chemical changes in the oceans detrimental to the small marine organisms at the bottom of the food chain on which life in the sea depends.
These are not computer generated scenarios but the fruit of actual observation in the real world. I urge you to read the whole article.
Prophecy is not strident talk about matters only dimly understood. It must be informed by the best possible science and history which is why the report before you starts where it does.
Is this debate then just a dull echo of a fashionable albeit serious contemporary concern? I hope that the report before you makes it clear that this is not the case. “Sharing God’s Planet” is a rather post-modern product of the Mission and Public Affairs Council which I can praise, not being a member and in particular draw attention to the outstanding contribution made to the Council’s thinking in this area by Claire Foster. The document is post-modern in that it seeks to be a stimulus rather than a summa, exploratory rather than exhaustive. Inevitably there are important environmental issues only lightly touched upon here. For example the plight of the beluga sturgeon [a matter of particular interest to me] is omitted. I hope however that the nature of this report will be understood as a tool for local use rather than as an addition to an already substantial literature on the library shelf.
“Sharing God’s Planet” begins as I have done with actual observation in the real world. Consideration of the facts however leads us rapidly to the conclusion that the challenges we face are bound up with our way of being in the world and the character of our awareness. Philosophical and social/spiritual changes have combined to widen the divorce between the human observer and the web of life in which we are, in reality, participants. Despite the efforts of Darwin to return human beings to the earth and to the kind of creaturely awareness enjoyed by Adam, the creature fashioned from the dust of the ground, we have increasingly come to view ourselves in the words of Rene Descartes as “masters and possessors of the earth” and therefore justified in treating the world as mere matter to be exploited. This kind of awareness leads to lethal consequences when it is accompanied by a largely uncritical acceptance of a project of growth without limit with no end in view beyond the process itself.
This state of consciousness is increasingly challenged by the ecological distresses to which it has given rise and does not reflect the Biblical picture of our relationships as human beings, - our relationship with God; nature; our neighbours and the dark continent within us. The report makes clear that “creation care” and not simply concern for the environment as a backcloth to human activity flows from our Christian faith.
Manichees despise matter.
Pagans worship matter.
Materialists ironically are indifferent to matter.
It is Christians in the light of the Word made flesh who reverence matter as a gift and a channel of communication with the Creator.
It is important to note that the Biblical tradition enrols human beings as co-creators with God which we assert every time we offer bread as fruit of the earth and work of human hands. The Bible does not imply a rejection of the idea of development. According to the Book of Genesis we are to “dress and keep” creation. This implies a balance between care and development.
What to do then? There is spiritual work and there is scrutiny of our own life together in our use of the gifts of creation. The Archbishop of Canterbury has several times pointed out that we have no right to appeal to our contemporaries on this issue if we have failed to put our own house in order. There are many allies from whom we can learn and resources are helpfully marshalled in this report.
So many commentators have looked with hope to the Church and her spiritual resources as a potential ally in the common struggle. One example given in the report is the urgent need for a Christian re-discovery of the Sabbath as the crown of creation and a festival of equilibrium and enoughness.
We have deep work to do but cannot operate at such a level of generality that our contribution to the debate is of very little use to our contemporaries in the decisions they have to take. Hence our motion also offers a welcome to the Government’s emphasis on the need to respond to climate change and commends in particular the “contraction and convergence approach” described on pages 35-6.
I believe that there is only one agenda for the Church of England and that is to re-connect with God for the sake of the people of England and to re-connect with the people of England for the sake of God. I regard this report as a small way of pursuing this agenda. I am looking forward to this debate and pray that it will only be the beginning of a groundswell of urgent prayer and fresh springs of action in the church. We have had our prophets in this field. I believe that we owe an especial debt of gratitude to Bishop Hugh Montefiore. But we must recognise also that our response to date has been lukewarm. Jonathan Porritt has said, “I can’t help but be astonished at the sheer lack of urgency among church leaders today; ours is a world crying out for leadership, for some kind of spiritual guidance. And yet as the winds of change whistle up their richly caparisoned copes where on earth are they? It seems to me so obvious that without some groundswell of spiritual concern, the transition to a more sustainable way of life remains utterly improbable.”
