Letters (March 2009)
Public Forum on Women Bishops
Dear Editor,
The debate concerning women bishops has been in the news again, of interest to me as I recently attended a public forum at St Andrew’s in Newcastle where Bishop Martin addressed the special provisions proposed to accompany any legislation enabling the ordination of women as bishops.
Of the 150 or more persons there, I doubt whether more than a dozen were wholeheartedly in favour of the idea of women bishops. It was good that turnout was so big, a clear sign of lots of interest, but at the same time, sadly I felt, a clear sign of lots of opposition to the move.
One speaker from the floor prefaced his remarks by suggesting that we were just re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. “Good,” I thought, a realisation surely that without our ceasing the foolish and medieval opposition to this rightful step forwards, the Church was doomed. However, what the speaker actually seemed to be saying was that we are doomed unless we say no once and for all to any idea of women bishops. Oh well!
I respect that there are many who have “theological convictions” against accepting women bishops, women priests even. I accept, therefore, that there should be measures to allow such persons to be ministered to sacramentally only by male priests, if they must. However,” theological convictions” are taught and learnt, we are not born with them. Mostly, it is from our religious teachers that we receive them . In my opinion persons should not, must not, be ordained in future unless they accept that men and women deserve to be treated fully equally. Thus, in time, religious teaching will all tend towards acceptance of the creation of women priests , women bishops and therefore, in time, a woman archbishop or two.
I count myself very fortunate that I have worshipped for over 35 years at a church where, throughout this time , the Masters, and most visitors, have always been persons who preached strongly against prejudice of any kind, against the Gay, against the Black and not least against the Female. Indeed we were proud, back in the early 80’s, to host and take communion from the American woman priest Alison Palmer, even though at the time it was illegal so to do.
Talking of the law, how can the Church, an institution famous for telling those in its pews that they must uphold the law, (“render unto Caesar “ and all that ) now allow us to fly so grossly in the face of legislation designed to achieve equal opportunities and outlaw sex discrimination in every other walk of life? A fine example we set our children.
Have your special provisions if you must, but not “in perpetuity”. Surely we can have a cut-off, 50 years perhaps, by when all of those born in (and some still seemingly living in) the early to mid 20th Century are no more ? Otherwise we are faced with the prospect that a newly confirmed child of today, of 13 say, who has been fed “theological convictions” against women priests or bishops can demand special measures for another 80 years or so. Quite long enough to have seen off any popular support for the Church altogether, perhaps ?.
The speaker who most moved me by his good sense spoke not for one side or the other, but rather tried to draw our attention to the sufferings of the Palestinians in Gaza. Here, he seemed to say, by comparison, was a REAL issue for Christian concern.
John Pearson, St Thomas’ Church, Haymarket
Back to menu
Climate Change: We need to act whatever we think
Dr John Ferguson argues in the February Link that mankind's effect on climate change is unproven, and that attempts to counter this imaginary issue will be ruinously expensive. I don't agree, and I believe action is urgently needed, but there is scope for agreement on actions even when we don't all agree on the causes.
Firstly, I think it's right to acknowledge that Al Gore's film is a piece of polemic, using a 'showbusiness' approach to make a powerful case for a change in public attitudes and government policies. I can easily believe that it contained inaccuracies, but I still accept that the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that (a) climate change is happening, and (b) it is highly probable that human activity is a major contributor. Nonetheless, it's only responsible to admit that there are uncertainties in the extent of the influence and, ultimately, in its existence.
However, suppose it could be shown that we were only 50% confident that our activities were making climate change significantly worse (I believe our confidence is actually much higher than that!). Should we then wait for certainty? I would argue not, as the wait would be too long and the price is too high if the effects were proved but too late to act. We should act now whilst seeking to increase our understanding and confidence, as the chance could be lost.
Secondly, we are using up resources and increasing waste and pollution at an increasing rate, often hidden as much of the despoilation is elsewhere, such as our exporting of toxic wastes to dumps in countries with lax controls. Twenty years ago, before global warming was much talked about, I came to realise that the Earth couldn't afford a car for every adult, which is the logical limit of our preferences coupled with equality. A scientific colleague of mine said, about three years ago, that the actions needed to deal with the issue of resources are much the same as those proposed to combat climate change, so we should act in concert whilst continuing to discuss it all.
Last, but not least, there are potential gains to our human wellbeing from considering new approaches, in place of the headlong rush for increased convenience and comfort of the past few decades. The recent economic crisis has shown that the developed world hasn't got all the answers in promoting health and happiness, and some of the simpler and more sustainable patterns long lost here,but still practised elsewhere in the world, can be good for us too.
I welcome debate, and challenges to weak points in arguments, but science is not democratic, and free speech doesn't mean always giving equal weight to all views. On climate change, there is an increasing consensus on the need for urgent action, and some of the benefits of such action may be apparent even to those who doubt that mankind has created this problem or made it much worse.
John Appleby, Battle Hill.
Back to menu
Why wait until it may be too late?
Dr Ferguson’s piece “Inconvenient truth or alarmist exaggeration?” (Link, Feb 2009) questions the theory that human activity contributes to global warming – known as Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW. Though I’m not a scientist, I’ve taken a keen interest in the subject, and so I followed up some of the points he made.
First, I read the High Court judgement which Dr Ferguson quotes, concerning the government’s distribution of the film “An Inconvenient Truth” to schools in England and Wales (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html)
The judge, Mr Justice Burton, had no problem with the film being shown in schools, or with its general accuracy. He said “It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used … to make a political statement and to support a political programme.” He also accepted that:
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
- global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
- climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
- climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
- there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
Mr Burton only addressed nine of the alleged errors in the film, because only these were “sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of [the] argument”. Some of these were clear errors, others were unproven claims. He ruled that, in the light of these errors and the political programme which the film advocates, briefing notes should accompany the film to make it clear the government isn’t promoting partisan views.
I then looked up the impressive-sounding “Science and Public Policy Institute” which Dr Ferguson quotes and discovered that, far from being an impartial body, it exists for the purpose of refuting the theory of global warming. Likewise the “International Climate Science Coalition” which organised the Manhattan Declaration.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on the other hand, operates by reviewing, as far as possible, all research in the field – both that which agrees with climate change theories, and that which does not – and establishing a consensus. Its publications, like the “Summary for Policymakers 2007”, make it clear where there is agreement and where there is not.
Of course there are many who don’t believe in human causation for global warming – but as far as I can see, Minority Senate Reports notwithstanding, the balance of scientific opinion is firmly against them. This isn’t just deciding “on a show of hands”, but trusting the judgement of the great majority of experts.
I’m all in favour of debating the issue. It’s worth looking at the Minority Senate Report and the debate at the 33rd International Geology Conference which Dr Ferguson refers to – as well as the online discussion about the conference at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/are-geologists-different/#comment-96140. We can bear in mind the petition of 31,000 scientists as well – but we should also look at their level of qualification and their specialist fields http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html, and ask ourselves how competent they are to judge the evidence.
Personally, I was more convinced by the Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761, and the John Ray Initiative http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=182&Itemid=1 which gives a specifically Christian scientific perspective.
Dr Ferguson also questions carbon offsets. Of course they won’t solve the problem of global warming; and no doubt, as he suggests, some people will used them as an excuse ‘to carry on as usual with a clear conscience’. But as a way of reducing our impact on the planet while we work to reduce our carbon emissions, they seem to me to have some value. If nothing else, they help to make us aware of the cost to the planet of the damage we are doing.
Of course the debate needs to continue. But given what is at stake, surely it is better to act now on the precautionary principle, rather than wait until it may be too late. And isn’t it just good basic Christian stewardship of the environment to minimise our pollution?
It’s important to be objective when we weigh up the arguments, as Dr Ferguson points out – but once we’ve weighed up the arguments, it’s equally important that we come to a conclusion, and act on it.
Mark Nash-Williams, Stamfordham
Back to menu