Response to the Diocese of Oxford's Fossil Fuels Divestment

Dear Rev. Hannah,

I have seen a news article that you proposed and Oxford Diocese passed a  motion to divest its investments from fossil fuels, which is part of the campaign led by Bill McKibben of 350.org.

Can I ask what is the Christian, moral and scientific basis for doing so?

What is the evidence for global warming when the satellite temperature record, arguably the most accurate, has not shown any rise for the last 18 years, when the globe’s ice mass balance is increasing, led by Antarctica, and all severe weather trends, including for floods, droughts, wildfires, tornados, etc., according to the observational data records are level or down and not up? There has also demonstrably been much tampering with some government ‘official’ temperature records by those in control of them and activist for the global warming ‘cause’ to lower past temperatures and increase recent ones, to exacerbate the apparent warming and maintain the rhetoric.

As Christians, we are supposed to be truthful and honest, but to propagate the politically and environmentalism motivated hypothesis that man’s CO2 (not carbon!) emissions are the sole driver of global temperatures despite the long record of evidence of CO2 being entirely divorced from temperatures, including through the last ice ages, is placing that Christian character into question by such a divestment action.

The scientific evidence from the empirical observational record (which does not, indeed, cannot, include the IPCC and other climate models, they are conjecture, not evidence) does not bear out or agree with the global warming hypothesis in any way or shape at all. Further, basic physics demonstrates that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is not a valid one, as a colder substance, the atmosphere, even though it has a temperature and does radiate, simply cannot make a warmer substance, the surface, any warmer; it is physically impossible; and a gas such as CO2 cannot trap heat but can only spontaneously absorb and emit it. There is a huge error of understanding too that an increase of water vapour adds to the warming. It does not, but actually aids cooling. Have you ever felt warmer when it’s misty, or when a cloud covers the sun? No. All water vapour does is slow heat transfer, down and up, due to its latent heat capacity.

Is a slightly warmer earth such a bad thing? Who decides? Doesn’t the earth experience vast swings of temperatures every day and season as part of God’s design? Doesn’t man live in all extremes of climate, from the frozen lands of Alaska to the heat of the Sahara and Middle East? Doesn’t man adapt to these environments using the skills and resources God has provided for just such a purpose? Doesn’t a warmer world open up new agricultural lands in the northern hemisphere, adding to the crop production capacity to feed the world’s population (which has been growing steadily over recent decades as agricultural technology and methods have developed and improved)?

You may cite consensus, but the notion of ‘consensus’ is not a scientific one, as a large number of major scientific advances have happened against a prevailing consensus. Have you ever asked why, if God designed the feedback loops in the climate system to be positive, why has there never ever been a runaway and catastrophic warming throughout earth’s history? The answer is because the feedback loops are fundamentally negative. Even past ice ages have recovered, and as we are still exiting the last mini ice age, we should expect some warming. For a critique of the physics involved in the GHE conjecture, please read the articles at climateofsophistry.com (excusing however the author’s sometimes ‘colourful’ language, which I do not desire). The physical evidence defies the consensus belief.

Consensus however is a political construct designed to further a belief. Even the 2 studies that purported to show a ‘97% consensus of scientists’ did no such thing, and have been repeatedly debunked, shown up for what they are, pseudo-scientific malfeasance from overtly biased sources. Even the IPCC, which claims to be ‘scientific’ is no such thing. It is a manifestly political organisation, hence its name “intergovernmental”. It is politicians and bureaucrats that debate the content of the summary report (behind closed doors) that politicians and other groups, e.g. churches see, and that (i) often contradicts the main technical reports, and (ii) doesn’t convey the scientific uncertainties, replacing them instead with statements of ‘confidence’. I ask you to read the book “…Delinquant Teenager…” by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise, which is a damming critical analysis of the IPCC (with every factual assertion referenced to the original material). It will open your eyes.

What is the moral case? Fossil fuels have brought us incredible wealth as a society, and I don’t mean for the few at the top, but right down to the bottom, to the very poorest and infirm. The availability of electricity to power our developed society is not to be scorned at as the move to divest from and so reject fossil fuels would have us do. What heats and cools our homes, cooks our food, transports us to work and our food, water, clothes and goods to us? What powers agriculture that feeds us, factories and offices that employ us, hospitals that treat us? Certainly not the erratic, unreliable and highly expensive renewable energies, wind and solar, which require enormous subsidies levied onto fuel bills that hit the poorest the most, and no, fossil fuels don’t receive subsidies in most western countries, but generate a large amount of tax revenue to pay for our social services, health, transport, police, etc. etc. Why do you despise this? What moral justification do you have to wanting to deprive us of this God given fuel set that lifts society out of poverty and oppression, brings relief, work, enjoyment and comfort? Didn’t God ask us to “comfort my people”? Rather than divestment being moral, it is an outward sign that shows an antipathy towards our neighbour, even a hatred, pointing the finger at man as a plague on the earth. Divestment is fundamentally immoral.

What is the Christian case? What do you think God thinks of those who throw the creation He called “good” back in his face, calling it “evil”? Yes, God created fossil fuels as part of the wonderful tapestry of the physical earth He created, and He did call it “good”. We should not even dare to question that judgement, lest we call His judgement on us. What do you think God thinks of those who do not show love to his neighbour by wanting the major fuel set that He’s provided to be prevented from being used to provide the comfort we now know? We are indeed called to care for God’s created earth, but that cannot mean to deny people access to the resources He created and gave to us to use. How can we hope to enable poorer countries to lift themselves out of poverty so each person can get a job and receive a fair day’s pay for a day’s work, a true biblical principle, when we deny them the fuel to create the industry and jobs that would pay them that, but force upon them the highly expensive renewable energy that cuts into businesses’ baseline cost and destroys jobs and the ability to create jobs? That is not Christian love. That is not caring for our neighbour. Why would we deny these nations the reliable and affordable energy/electricity to power their hospitals and schools that are so important to health, welfare and basic survival? Why would we deny our own poorer parishioners that too?

The Pope recently commented that God forgives, but the earth does not. I find that an incredible statement! To even suggest that God’s creation could ‘forgive’ betrays a deep lack of understanding of why Jesus came to this earth and the relationship between God and His creation. It also displays a deep misunderstanding in the belief that man could decide earth’s destiny. We are clearly told that God is in control of this earth’s future, and there is nothing whatsoever that man can do to change the nature or timescale of God’s future plan. We do not know when Christ’s second coming and the end of the current age and this earth as we know it will happen, but we can be sure that God has it planned. In the meantime, our task is to bring people to faith in Christ, not to impose a political, pseudo-scientific, anti-Christian and anti-human world view based on the primacy of ‘gaia’.

The whole global warming movement, started by unaccountable uber-organisations (e.g. Club of Rome and UNFCCC), and taken up by so many in the environmental movement, governments and now churches, has become a religion in itself, a ‘green god’, and is fundamentally anti-Christian. I implore you to recognise this, and to turn away from it. It is evil, repressive and destructive. No good will come of it.

In Christ’s love

It's very hard.

It's very hard to know what to think, do and say when your neighbour has a serious accident that leaves him in a coma, and others ask about him. The easy thing is to just to relay the headline medical news, and leave it at that. The difficult thing is to express the hope that we have, not the hope that is reliant on medical science (our understanding of the human brain is still extraordinarily primitive), but the hope that is in our Lord Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, and the promise of eternal presence with him in the Kingdom of heaven.

My neighbour and his family are believing Christians, and I can only imagine the distress and grief his wife is now going through (they are still abroad where the accident happened, a mountain walking fall, so thankfully the hospital is well equipped in handling such injuries), but the following thought struck me.

My neighbour is in a bad way, still unconscious after many days in hospital, but how does Jesus look at him. We can be sure that his view of him is very different to ours. One view is that here is a man that has accepted Jesus' offer of forgiveness and received His grace and His future promise. That alone is the greatest thing a person can do and receive, barring none. Beyond that, Jesus would, I think, look at him, and be pleased that all 4 of his children have also accepted Him and received that same forgiveness and grace, and are already stepping out into Christian service. His bringing them up in a Christian home and providing Christian encouragement and love, has equipped these 4 children for not just life, but eternity, providing a joy that surpasses the deep deep sadness of seeing their father lie there motionless and unresponsive. There are many evangelists that have preached the Word of God to thousands and thousands, and guided huge numbers to accept Jesus Christ as Lord, but numbers are immaterial. Here we have a devoted and hard-working father, who with his wife have steered four children towards and into adulthood, along the narrow and difficult path of the Christian life and service, and I am sure Jesus himself is as pleased with my neighbour as he is with Billy Graham.

So, how do we talk to people when asked about a Christian friend with serious injury. My neighbour has spoken the answer, "I have a complete and sure hope in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my inherent sin, and in Jesus' promise of my place in his eternal kingdom; and my children also know that for themselves, so I have no fear. You too can receive that forgiveness and hope.".

This is the second church member recently to have suffered serious injury, including head injury. The previous chap has made a brilliant recovery, much faster than was expected, which can only be put down to God answering fervent prayer. We continue to pray fervently for my neighbour, and await God's answer. We have no idea what that answer will be, but know God has him in his arms and will provide the perfect answer, with a Godly joy that surpasses human joy and sorrow.

Bums on Seats

As the church are in the planning process for a new heating system, the question was posed to us that following the removal of all the church furniture, i.e. the pews, would we be putting them back again? The thought hadn't struck me before, and suddently the relevance of the church fabric to the outward mission of the church became clear. They are directly linked.

Ah, I hear you say, "when two or three are gathered in my name..." doesn't mention anything about a church building, well maybe not, but the NT is littered with references to meetings, whether in the temple, in one onothers' houses, or other places. The church has to meet and base its operations somewhere.

Consider this though, would you want to hold an outreach rally on your village green in the middle of winter in the cold and pouring rain (as it has been today - as evidenced by the repeated re-appearance of 2 soggy cats!), or would you want to have such meetings in a warm, non-stereotypical and comfortable building?

I've been sounding out opinion of various church members, and asked one after this evening's service what he thought the non-church-goer villagers might think, and his very meaningful reply was "they probably won't see it for a year".

But back to the link of fabric and mission. It's true to say that as a church, when we plan future mission and outreach activities, not individually, but as a whole strategy, determining what you can do is partly determined by the building and its capabilities. I am therefore now making a stronger case for the removal of the pews, to be replaced by loose, comfortable and flexible seating as one of the pillars of the church's Mission Action Plan.

You could say that it's one of those things that if we don't do it now, we never will, and I'd hate to be saying that about our outreach work.

World 1 : Christians 0 ??

Just reading around a number of articles and news items this last week, and also my own church's PCC notes, one could be forgiven for thinking that Christianity was being slowly and systematically killed off, both from without and within.

There are the continuing anecdotes that the church is shrinking, with attendancies declining. There are stories of further erosions of the country's christian traditions and heritage (and no doubt more will come in the run up to Christmas, sorry, Winter Festival), and there is the continuing saga of the liberal sections of the international CofE undermining and pushing out the conservative wing.

As mentioned, even my own church's PCC meeting notes reveals differences in desire between parish and diocesan treasurers for how the Parish Share should be calculated. Should it for instance depend solely on the population number that it serves; should it be based solely on the number of clergy (or part, as would be for a benefice)? Should it take account of the 'health & wealth' of the parish; and should it subsidise other parishes who can't/don't/won't pay their way? Further, should overpayment by a parish that can, be used to simply subsidise another parish in the denary, or should the cross-funding be based on specific gospel aims, or 'partnership'?

I read of a diocese in Latin America that is suffering as liberals (I subjectively define as supporting the revisionist topics of ofty and women bishops) are trying to remove their conservative traditions by removing their legal status to exist.

There are no doubt many more examples of attacks on the Christian faith as understood by those who share a gospel tradition of biblical authority as set out by sure-footed and sure-minded theologians and academics throughout the ages, but one thing strikes me; should we, as conservative anglicans fight against this inslaught, nationally and internationally, using the instruments society has developed, i.e. publicity, freedom of speech and the courts, or should we just get on with the task of making disciples, at the local level?

I don't know the answer!

How do we 'do' Evangelism?

My church had a session on evangelism last weekend, with a speaker from outside talking from Acts 28 where Paul has arrived in Rome, and boldly preached the Kingdom of God, unhindered. What a challenge!

The interesting thing to note about the passage, is not that he raised a church, trained elders and leaders, instigated an evangelism committee and planned a 1-week mission with many varied events to interest different groups of people, but simply stayed in his own rented house, for two years, welcoming all who came, and told them of God's Kingdom, i.e. the Gospel. Neither did he analyse what target groups he would address, adjusting the message to suit his audience, or get permission from whatever authorities that might be a stumbling block. He just got on with it.

The famous film, Life of Brian, which I have to admit is a great favourite of mine, saw the capture of Brian by the Romans, and Judith taking the news back to the People's Front of Judea, where they, very committee-like, drafted and proposed a motion of support for the sacrifice that Brian was making for the cause. We laugh at that, as it lampoons a very British local committee organisational mentality, but if we look at ourselves and our churches, that is exactly us, isn't it?

The speaker last weekend reached back to Paul's message, that evangelism is something that should be our personal activity, not just a (church) corporate activity. He didn't stop there however, but moved that same rationale up into the local church, challenging that evangelism should be as much a regular part of our corporate church life as it is our personal one. This means that evangelism becomes top priority, and EVERYTHING else flows from that. Even within the corporate evangelistic organisation, he was adamant that individuals who had the idea for an event should just go ahead and do it.

The final encouragement, which in some ways was odd when I first heard him say it, but now I understand, is that we shouldn't worry if some of these events fail. Jesus and the Apostles made it very clear that not all who heard the message of salvation would accept, but be hard of heart. In fact just last night, at our own church prayer meeting, the host of our next evangelistic event said that none of the several people he had invited had responded. He looked saddened, but think of the parable that Jesus told of the invitation to the banquet, the original invitees declined, so the servant was told to go into the streets and bring people in from there. I can only imagine what a joyous banquet that must have then been.

So, I am challenged, and, as noted in an earlier post, need to think of what I can do, starting with myself in my own home, just as Paul did. I need to think of all the ways I can demonstrate and tell of the life of Christ in my everyday interaction with people, at work, at home, amongst my neighbours, in the village, etc. I should not view the church as being the body responsible for evangelism, or any high-profile person, or any notable event. No, the buck stops here.

How do we 'do' evangelism? Let me re-phrase that, and you'll see the answer... How can I be an evangelist?

It's Still All Quiet

Well, a week has gone by, and it's still as quiet as last week! Most people at work are on holiday, or else like me, are assuming everyone else is, so not going into the office.

The countdown is on though to my own holiday - 2 weeks in sunny Cornwall, so long as we get the car back from the garage. Did I say "sunny"? There's the optimist in me, especially after last night's absolutely torrential downpour, accompanied with lightening and thunder.

What I do wonder though, is how many christians put their faith on holiday whilst on holiday themselves. I hold my hand up to that one, not having attended church whilst on holiday for several years. A leader on my eldest son's christian camp said that doing this was his holiday, and was going straight to another one, and another the week after that. I haven't even volunteered for helping with the childrens' activities at my local this year either, although I do have other 'duties', whether doing sound, or prayers, etc.

So do I send my faith on holiday when I go away, or do I use the time to sharpen it up with some meaningful reading? Do I use the time to rest and relax with the family, or do I give up some time that I wouldn't normally do to refresh my relationship with God?

As they say, "a change is as good as a rest", but in this case, I should make certain it's better.

It's Very Quiet

It's at this time of the year when people are on holiday that things tend to be very quiet. The Lambeth Conference has just finished with nothing of value really helping the plight of the traditionalist, so all quiet there; my eldest son is at church camp, so it's all quiet at home; and both work offices I use are also very thin on the ground.

It should be at a time like this that my brain provides some space to do a bit more thinking, but that too seems to have gone on holiday.

On the BBC's breakfast news either this morning or yesterday, there was an article on a church youth group going abroad to Europe's 2nd poorest country (can't remember the details - told you my brain is on holiday) to help improve the environment and give box gifts to the people. That to me is real Christian love in action, and an outworking of God's Spirit. A meeting of a few, including the rector, at my local parish church recently discussed how we could improve the mens' ministry, but this youth group's action makes our discussion pale into insignificance, except for the one fact that whoever we givethe Gospel to, that is following Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations. So an outreach breakfast at my place for a few in the local neighbourhood is of value, I just really admire those who did that missionary trip though.

My prayer is for more Spirit inspired, challenging and potentially difficult outreach like that, and may I not be too cowardly to venture beyond my own breakfast table. Amen.

The Start

Not having blogged before, but been a man of many, if varied (ok, random unconnected) thoughts, it's probably time for me to jump into the fire.

I don't expect to post every day, and the subjects may be many and varied, but hopefully thought provoking.

I have in the past been called a fundamentalist christian, a term which has many understandings and reactions. It's most definitely not in the American camp, heaven forbid, but simply that I fundamentally believe the Bible to be God's word - full and complete - to man.

I was once in a discussion group looking at the other 'isms', and to the question "Why Christianity?", I have the basic reply, "because only it makes sense of this world - and is completely logical."

Now I guess Jesus or the apostles didn't want those who hear God's Word to use logic to come to faith, but having a science (ok, technology) oriented background, if I am to believe in something, it has to make sense, and that for my meagre brain, means being logical, the loose ends have to tie up.

I do have a christian background, my grandfather was a Methodist minister, and have hopped over to the CofE, not because of some tennet of belief or dogma, but because of the simple practicality of having an ex-uni friend from the CU being at the local parish church where I moved to after leaving Uni for my first job. Told you I use logic :)