Climate change and the Melbourne Diocese

[Pete Young]

It is was with some trepidation that I recently viewed the Diocese's Environment policy and "climate change starter kit", while looking to find what, if any, position the Diocese was taking on the matter.

It is perhaps disappointing, although not entirely surprising, that the Diocese has jumped well and truly onto the climate change bandwagon in a desperate attempt to appear relevant, dressing the justification of its response in neatly worded theology mixed with some feel-good pandering. Let me begin by identifying that which most would find difficult to disprove - the duty of care given to mankind by God in tending for His creation. Most Anglicans (and Christians) would concur that even a simple reading of Genesis 1-2 highlights this responsibility. Indeed, the theory of exercising careful and humble dominion over God's creation is as relevant as any other matter of personal holiness.


From there however, the Diocesan position becomes increasingly alarming. The following statements have all been taken from either the Diocese's Environmental policy or Climate Change starter kit. The time of discussion on this issue seems to have passed, the Diocese having made up its mind from unknown sources (perhaps Al Gore's conveniently erring documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" which helped galvanise most popular opinion on the matter) that we are in a time of "planetary environmental crisis". While there aren't too many people brave enough to disagree with this notion, one feels that perhaps the Diocese is taking things a little far when it says:


"Vote for and support a party or candidate who supports care of the environment."

Does anyone else have a problem with the Diocese suddenly becoming party-political on the issue of environment? Suppose you took this advice and ticked Greens on your ballot card, you may also end up with a party who's policy includes:

 - the legalisation of marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity
 - de facto relationships to have equal status in law and government policy regardless of sexuality and gender identity
 - legislate to remove discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Intersex (LGBTI) people in federal legislation
 - establish intersex as a gender recognised by the legal system
 - increase the availability of harm reduction programs, including needle and syringe exchanges and medically supervised injecting rooms for heroin


Unfortunately, politically aligning oneself with heightened environmental awareness will only lead to alignment on other issues as well. Perhaps it is no surprise that sections of the Diocese's website read remarkably similar to www.greens.org.au.

"ask the liturgy committee to produce and distribute resources for incorporating environmental issues and awareness of God’s creation into regular worship—and especially for use on World Environment Day each year (3 June)."
 
Coming to a service near you, revised Prayer Books with special Climate Change liturgies and eucharists. While I jest, the notion is perhaps not that unrealistic. On yet another issue, the church appears to be losing it's relevance incredibly quickly. The shape of things to come in the church can be witnessed in a recent seminar held at a Uniting Church entitled "Saying sorry to the Earth", where such questions as "What could 'Saying Sorry' to the earth mean?", "Would it do any good?" and "How might we need to change if we are truly sorry for the way we treat the planet?" were most likely asked and answered with little reference to scripture or common sense. The lurking danger here, seen so potently in such questions is that we begin to embrace the earth, the universe, the cosmos etc as another God, an alternative spirituality - by saying sorry to it, by "re-connecting" with it in a way that moves our focus away from God. If anything, this "planetary environmental crisis" should force us to turn our eyes heavenward - to praise God for his creation, to seek his forgiveness for the way in which we have used our dominion wrongly and to ask for His wisdom and guidance in the restoration of ourselves and creation. Will some liturgical changes really affect this kind of change, or just help us feel better about it?


The rest of the "climate change starter kit" generally involves issues of personal lifestyle, ones which overall have very little real effect on emissions, and simply echo much of the secular 'wisdom' on the topic. While it is easier to encourage people to piously wear more jumpers or walk to work, the most significant contributors to global emissions are outside an individual's sphere of influence. For instance, visit www.carma.org to see just how much pollution is being produced as a byproduct of China's ongoing emergence and development. Most of these plants are running on brown coal, a notoriously polluting and inefficent energy source. Yet China is opening a new coal power station at the average rate of one a week. Australia has a vested interest in these plants, exporting millions of tons of coal to China. Yet there is eerie silence on this issue. The effect of worldwide de-forestation is another enormous contributor to greenhouse emissions. While the jury is out on the actual percentage of total emissions it contributes, most estimates are between 25% and 40% of global emissions. Yet again, eerie silence.

It seems that once again, the Anglican church has missed an opportunity to be truly relevant on an issue of great public awareness and interest. Who knows what's next, perhaps the Diocese will bring in the option of carbon-offsetting services for parishioners, banning candles to reduce emissions and covering the roof of St. Paul's with solar panels. Let us not be bullied into irrelevant acts of feel-good environmentalism, but rather be truly repentant men and women of action who honour God by showing careful dominion over his creation. In addition, let's see the Diocese and the wider Anglican church push for more significant worldwide action on the greater contributors to emissions.


I'll leave you with this most pertinent advice from the Diocese - "If you have a church tower, think about using it to create a habitat for bats..."

[Andrew Stagg]

"If you have a church tower, think about using it to create a habitat for bats..." - HA HA - I thought you had to be joking on this - but I'm sorry to say that I found this advice on the church's website and it does exist. It would be really quite funny of course if this nuttyness wasn't so real - Pete - you are quite right of course - the Anglican church has unthinkingly leapt on to a popular bandwagon, with little thought and even less discernment.

The main Anglican Church of Australia website has even more of this stuff. You'd think it was the most important issue in town. "the Christian faith is certainly about personal salvation. But it is more than that: Christianity is first a foremost a concern for the whole created order - biodiversity and business; politics and pollution; rivers, religion and rainforests. The coming of Jesus brought everything of God into the sphere of time and space, and everything of time and space into the sphere of God. All things meet together in him: Jesus is the point of reconciliation. Therefore, if Christians believe in Jesus they must recognise that concern for climate change is not an optional extra but a core matter of faith."

Stupid me - I thought that Gospel of Christ once and all delivered was a core matter of faith, sin, repentance, redemption through Christ, etc - but no I've now learnt that it was all about climate change all along. And it gets better, this quote is from none other than Rohan Williams "For the Church of the 21st century, good ecology is not an optional extra but a matter of justice. It is therefore central to what it means to be a Christian.".

Look, I'm concerned about the environment. Although I'm not 100% convinced yet, I'm concerned about global warming, but when I see this wholesale insanity going on, the Church leaping into the cult of global warming without thinking, popularist direction setting, scripture - being replaced by new age ramblings, I have to wonder if there is one huge deception going on here.

Our first commitment as Christians is to follow Christ. His words to us in Mathew 28 are worth rereading "All authority in Heaven and Earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Although we should be concerned about the state of the planet, although we shouldn't trash it, we still need to remember that Christ is in control - no matter what happens. He has promised that he has all authority, and he has promised that he is with us - always. We also need to realise that our core duty - with all due respect to the Anglican church of Australia - is not just to save the planet, that's important, but it's not our core responsibility. Our core responsibility as directed by Jesus - is to make disciples of others - to preach the Good News - and our core responsibility is to be faithful students and obeyers of Gods Word - until he comes back again.

[Andrew Bowles]

andrew stagg wrote:

"If you have a church tower, think about using it to create a habitat for bats..." - HA HA - I thought you had to be joking on this - but I'm sorry to say that I found this advice on the church's website and it does exist. It would be really quite funny of course if this nuttyness wasn't so real - Pete - you are quite right of course - the Anglican church has unthinkingly leapt on to a popular bandwagon, with little thought and even less discernment.

To be fair, though, I think the 'bat habitat' was meant to be a light-hearted suggestion ('bats in the belfry' as the proverb goes). And why not? We seldom ring the bells anymore in any case.

Anyway, the diocese is a bureaucratic organisation, and like all bureaucracies throws out large amounts of papers and projects of varying quality. I wouldn't exegete their intentions so critically.

[Valerie Ting]

I think there have been some good points made here. I do think climate change is an issue of justice as well as stewardship, given that the effects of it would be most felt by the people who have the least power to create alternative environments for themselves, i.e., the poor and materially oppressed of our world. And given that we know how much God cares for the materially poor (as well as the spiritually poor), combating climate change is a great way to be loving others, and to be being a blessing in this world.

Having said that, I think Pete makes a good point about the dangers of doing the little 'tick the box' minor personal lifestyle changes thing, and then feeling like we've been let off the hook for acting on a more global scale through the more difficult and energy-consuming things like putting pressure on our government to reduce industrial carbon emissions, and to use their international leverage to put pressure on other countries to become more sustainable. Whoops, long sentence. But there is also merit in giving people something that the majority of people can do - like turning off the lights when not in the room, etc. - knowing that not everyone is going to care enough to put effort into social and environmental activism on a larger scale.

And hey, if a powerful grassroots, transnational movement starts, and everyone in the world has 'sustainable living' on his/her mind, surely that would impact the way we (globally) run businesses as well - especially if the church around the world then channelled this energy into broader socio-political initiatives. Thus recognising the interconnected-ness (not a word, I know) of all aspects of holistic Christian living in this world while continuing to major on the majors and minor on the minors as far as the gospel is concerned, of course!

[Pete Young]

Andrew B -  Im intrigued as to why you think the Anglican Church is above reproach for issuing substandard material like the Climate Change Starter Kit. I don't think the church can be tarred by the same brush as all bureaucracy, for surely its foundations and motives for its actions are more meaningful. Hence, all the more reason to measure the church's response to an issue with much public attention in a critical light.

On a wholly unconnected issue, I think your use of the word exegete also leaves a little to be desired.

Andrew Bowles wrote:

I wouldn't exegete their intentions so critically.

 I think it's probably handy to use our Christian theological jargon wisely and in proper context - let's call biblical interpration exegesis, and the discussion of Diocesan diatribe exactly that.


Andrew S

Thanks for your response. I hadn't wandered over to the Australian site yet (Melbourne provided plenty of stimuli for the original article) but it is interesting to note that the same kind of weak and strangely worded statements veiled in scripture appear elsewhere too.

Val

Spot on about those least able to create alternative environments for themselves. Although I think predictions of Bangladesh being under water in 10 years are slightly incredulous, there are going to be plenty of ways this 'situation' pans out negatively for those in poorer countries. One point I wanted to make originally was the current Green hype surrounding grain-produced biofuels. Grain-produced biofuels are being heralded as some kind of silver bullet, except that they require large, in fact, enormous amounts of crop space to create biofuel volumes even approaching those required for useable fuel consumption. As richer countries will feel less inclined to give up their own crop space (due to food production and cost pressures), there are fears that many will outsource production of crops like maize and sugar cane to cheaper areas such as Africa and middle Asia. In the process of trying to produce a "sustainable" (and I use that word very very loosely in regards to biofuels) fuel, they may actually reduce available capacity for food production and worsen situations in these areas.

I think we would all be of one accord in making sure that people are fed before quasi-environmental alternative fuel sources are produced.


Pete

[Justin Denholm]

Pete,

You're right, of course, we are all quick to jump onto the latest bandwagon!

Having said that, environmental issues should be high on the priority list of a church that takes the Bible seriously. The question is how to do so in a faithful way, one that avoids unthinking adopting inappropriate underlying values and presuppositions. Christianity has been guilty of this in the past by an overemphasis on the legitimacy of exploitation of the natural world, and there will equally be a danger of overshooting the mark in the other direction now.

We need to take a properly Christian stance, based on the teaching of the Bible. What does this look like? Without extended discussion here, I think that would leave us with a quite counter-cultural response. Humanity does have a call to care for the God's creation and value the Earth as a wonderful gift from him. We also have a call to proper dominion, which I think means that it is ok for us to use the resources God has given us and not feel guilty. We also want to see our relationship with the world in a properly balanced light - the world is a wonderful place and we should celebrate that, but not stray into overly spiritualising or worshiping the creation.

Playing out these kinds of positions probably means that we would come into conflict with both polluting industry and government as we seek to care for the world, but also with many environmental groups as we try to balance that with an appropriate 'exploitation' of the world and its resources.

To drag one of my own hobbyhorses into the discussion, I think one of the problems here is a general lack of equipping Christians and churches to think faithfully about ethical issues. If we as Christians are not preparing ourselves to evaluate new ethical questions faithfully in light of the Bible, of course we are going to fall into the approaches and answers that the world around us comes to.

[Jereth]

Duplicated post - edited out to remove confusion

[Jereth]

I think the problem here is one of "A plus B does not equal C."

A - Christianity is concerned about the whole created order [true]
B - Climate is part of the created order [true]
C - Climate is "a core matter of [Christian] faith" [false!]

A - Good ecology is a matter of justice [true]
B - Christianity teaches us about justice [true]
C - Ecology is "central to what it means to be a Christian" [false!]

The underlying assumption required here is that if Christianity has something to say about some issue, then that issue is a core/central matter of faith. Which is obviously nonsense.

[Stephen Brown]

HI everyone,

I'm very interested in all your comments on this subject, I actually preached on this very topic two weeks ago at my church.  The sermon title was "Is God Green or is Green God?"  I think Justin is dead right about teaching and preaching about ethical subjects in God's Church.  The Bible speaks about all the issues we face today and when we are forced to ask God what he thinks about Global Warming we (well I did) find some really amazing answers.  I'll share a few from the Bible so we can begin to formulate a Biblical understanding of Creation, Environmentalism, and Stewardship.  Most importantly God's intentions for us and his world.

First, we must always remember that it was God who cursed the creation.  Genesis 3:17 "Cursed is the ground because of you..."  We didn't curse it, but it was because of Adam's action (should we say inaction to lead his wife away from sin) that God cursed it.  Furthermore, this is supported in Romans 8:18-23 when we see the Creation waiting eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.  Why does it await eagerly for that, because at that point the creation will share in our redemption.  As yet, the creation doesn't share it.  We have new birth but the creation awaits!  Why does it have to wait, I think the answer is in the passage.  Verse 20-21, "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the one (That's God) who subjected it, in hope that the creation  itself will be liberated..."  The amazing thing about this is that God subjects or curses the creation not to punish man but to cause him to hope in God's redemption.  That's why Adam names his wife Eve (Mother of the Living, not Mother of the Dead).  Adam understands that God must have a plan to redeem humanity and creation and when he works the tough ground he will share in its frustration and HOPE in God's deliverance.  What does this all mean?  Well this, God uses Creation himself to remind you and me to HOPE in him for deliverance.  When we look at the curse on nature (Global Warming might be one) then we are to hope in God and God is pleased with that.  Don't worry, God will also redeem the creation on the final day!  But now he uses it for our benefit, a BIG reminder that we are cursed by sin and need his Son to lift that curse.  HOPE in Jesus when we see the creation groan and struggle, that's our moral imperative!

Another amazing passage is Colossians 1:15-20, but look at 16b-17 "...all things were created by him (Jesus) and for him.  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."  This is a statement of Jesus' supreme Providential Sovereignty in our world right now.  You and I live and breath because Jesus wills it.  I believe the Church has lost this vital doctrine and therefore is in one major flap about US SAVING THE WORLD.  Ummm...I think that's Jesus' job.  A bit arrogant of us to assume he doesn't control all things and hold them together and then assume that role ourselves.  Please, don't assume I'm saying we ought not care for creation as we clearly were given that mandate by God.  But it doesn't mean we become God in this world, in fact that's the very problem and reason why creation now groans.

Finally, check this passage out, it blew me away when I preached the other week.  Revelation 22:1-3, "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal (no pollution there), flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (cleansing of nature comes from God's throne) down the middle of the great street of the city.  On each side of the river stood the tree of life (The other tree that stood in the Garden and will reverse the damage when we eat of it), bearing twelve crops of fruit (perfect), yielding its fruit every month (not for a season but always).  And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. NO LONGER WILL THERE BE ANY CURSE."

Praise God!!!
I hope that's helpful for us as we try to understand God's intentions for his world, his environment, and his people.

Steve

[Pete Young]

Thanks Steve. Very refreshing to see how this issue can be turned to an evangelistic focus.

Jereth: I think you're pretty spot on there, however it follows in my mind that there are now two streams in this discussion.

Firstly - the frankly misguided way the Anglican church is responding, and
Secondly - the heretical notion that our salvation is somehow linked to our care for the earth.

Although these two streams now appear separate, the increasing weight behind this issue may eventually see the two blend in ways I'm not sure I'm keen to imagine.

Abp Freier in this month's TMA says of the ordination of women:

"While I with the majority of the Diocese am personally delighted that we will have women in the Episcopate, I feel the pain of those who do not believe in the ordination of women... ...I will endeavour to ensure that there is proper provision for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women."

While not wanting to harp on the women's ordination issue (there's enough webspace on MASG catering for that already), this strikes me as something that might be said in a few years about those who, by conscience cannot accept environmental point-scoring and irrelevancy.

"While I with the majority of the Diocese am personally delighted that we have incorporated environmental action into our statement of faith and confirmation services, I feel the pain of those who do not believe in such measures."




Val

Just by way of further response to your reply - I'm not denying that lots of little things added up can make a difference, but sometimes one has to question the reasons behind taking such actions. I think a lot of the secular "reduce your footprint" style activities actually just serve to help people feel better about themselves for a short while. In fact, I think it actually serves to make people even more complacent by resting on small, token initiatives.

[Jereth]

Pete Young wrote:

While not wanting to harp on the women's ordination issue (there's enough webspace on MASG catering for that already), this strikes me as something that might be said in a few years about those who, by conscience cannot accept environmental point-scoring and irrelevancy.

Something this discussion about Climate Change highlights for me is the way that the Church seems determined to follow the World when in fact it should be leading the world. We've seen this happen on scores of issues:

- Feminism
- Divorce
- Abortion
- Environmentalism
- LGBT rights

The Bible is full of rich truths about the dignity of men and women, the place of marriage and family, the value of human life, responsible stewardship of the environment, etc. As a Church we could be presenting a life-giving message to the world about these issues which is grounded in healthy biblical theology and the Gospel of the Lord Jesus. (As Steve Brown has done in his recent sermons, and JustinD craves.)

However, the "poisonous liberalism" (as J.I Packer recently put it) of our day has so frequently elevated the world's wisdom above Scripture as our authority in moral and ethical matters. So now the mainline Churches are largely preaching a brand of feminism, environmentalism and pragmatist ethics that can hardly be distinguished from what the Melbourne University academics, ABC journalists and Fairfax media are preaching. Many Christians jump on board because these causes can bear an apparent resemblance to Christian principles (eg. the language of "concern", "compassion", "justice", "equity", "inclusion" etc. that is thrown around). But the foundations are more often than not thoroughly pagan, and this is why we keep seeing biblical truth and morality compromised.

Just by way of further response to your reply - I'm not denying that lots of little things added up can make a difference, but sometimes one has to question the reasons behind taking such actions. I think a lot of the secular "reduce your footprint" style activities actually just serve to help people feel better about themselves for a short while. In fact, I think it actually serves to make people even more complacent by resting on small, token initiatives.

Reminds me of the "Carbon neutral" Academy awards, and Al Gore's "carbon neutral" million dollar mansion. Hollywood celebrities can exhibit gross excess and decadence, burning gigawatts of electricity in the process, and then soothe their consciences by purchasing enough "carbon credits" to make up for it. I once heard a (secular) commentator compare this to mediaeval Catholicism and its sales of Indulgences: Commit all the sin you want, then purchase an Indulgence/Carbon credit and -- hey presto -- you're absolved. Hooray!

[Andrew Bowles]

Pete Young wrote:

Andrew B -  Im intrigued as to why you think the Anglican Church is above reproach for issuing substandard material like the Climate Change Starter Kit. I don't think the church can be tarred by the same brush as all bureaucracy, for surely its foundations and motives for its actions are more meaningful. Hence, all the more reason to measure the church's response to an issue with much public attention in a critical light.

On a wholly unconnected issue, I think your use of the word exegete also leaves a little to be desired.

Pete

Hi Pete.

My point is that I don't think it helps anything to apply such a hermeneutic of suspicion to the leaders of the diocese and to make broad claims about their theological positions based on this document. All it does is ensure that they will never listen - would you take advice from someone who accused you of being an apostate? If we really want the Anglican church to have a thoughtful environmental policy and a more robust theology of mission, perhaps we should season our conversation about and towards them with grace (Col 4:5-6).

[Andrew Stagg]

One point I wanted to make originally was the current Green hype surrounding grain-produced biofuels. Grain-produced biofuels are being heralded as some kind of silver bullet, except that they require large, in fact, enormous amounts of crop space to create biofuel volumes even approaching those required for useable fuel consumption. As richer countries will feel less inclined to give up their own crop space (due to food production and cost pressures), there are fears that many will outsource production of crops like maize and sugar cane to cheaper areas such as Africa and middle Asia. In the process of trying to produce a "sustainable" (and I use that word very very loosely in regards to biofuels) fuel, they may actually reduce available capacity for food production and worsen situations in these areas.

I think we would all be of one accord in making sure that people are fed before quasi-environmental alternative fuel sources are produced.


Spot on Pete, Thanks for raising this issue. Its actually an important one – and which until recently has largely slipped the attention of the general public (and therefore presumably our church)

The issues you raise with maize are a serious one. Although I forget the exact numbers, and my knowledge is sketchy, something like a third of the US maize crop is now being turned into ethanol. Whilst this is as much due to a government mandate to reduce dependence on gulf state oil, as it is to do with climate change, the effects are still very real. World maize prices have skyrocketed. This affects US agricultural industries (such as feedlots – for poultry, pork and cattle) which have struggled to pay the huge price increases – and have been forced to pass these costs on.  Even worse this has hammered overseas exports – for a number of third world countries which have relied on US maize as a cheap food source for their people. The people in these places simply have no capacity to pay such substantial price rises. This is particularly insidious because it sets up a competition between those who have limited finances and who need to buy maize for food, and those who have some extra capacity to pay to maintain transport.

As maize prices have increased, other US food crops such as wheat and corn have been abandoned in in order to grow the new money crop maize – putting further pressure on food prices. And again this has worldwide implications.

Carbon offset credits are another feel good product that needs just a tad more careful investigation. Here in Australia carbon funds are awash with funds and 'large Sydney investment banks' are busy putting all this money to work. How? By buying up rural farmland to return to trees – which sounds great, except that it isn’t. Rural anecdote would suggest that land that they are buying is often - close to infrastructure - has good water supplies - is highly fertile – in other words its our very best farming land!! This land is a our national asset – it should be used for food production. The money that the tree funds have at there disposal is substantial – cash rich, land poor, bolstered by generous tax breaks – other rural users simply cannot compete in the open market in the purchase of these farms. And they are being lost forever.

'Returning' arable farmland to tree production has a number of effects. It diminishes rural communities as farming families leave, they are not replaced by new families. It degrades cultivated land that has been nurtured and improved (contrary to popular city opinion) for the last century. New trees strip nutrients out of the soil and degrade the land. The land becomes a harbor for wild dogs, other pest animals and noxious weeds. And worst of all new growing trees consume an enormous amount of water, runoff water that will no longer reach rivers and streams because it will be consumed by the trees. Given that in Australia using water for food crops has now become quite unfashionable – this is a stunning but little known result.

Water is another area raises many passions. All too frequently we hear that farmers are use too much of it. Yet the food they produce doesn’t just feed us – it helps feed the world. In light of this I find it very odd that no-one outside of Northern Victoria has much to say on the Murray– Melbourne Pipeline. Yet every litre of water that flows south (and it’s hard to imagine it ever flowing north again) is a litre that won’t help the Murray, or a litre that won’t grow food anymore.

The big issue in Australia – as in the US and Canada – is that what we do with the gifts that God has given us. Our awesome food bowls are a gift. Diminishing these resources affects not just ourselves. It affects the world. You’d think that sensible church environmental policy (and I reiterate that environmentalism is not our primary gospel concern), you'd think that sensible church environmental policy would at least unearth some of these issues.

[Stephen Brown]

Hi Pete,

I agree with everything you've said and Andrew and Jereth.  All good TRUE stuff I reckon.  BUT...and it's an important BUT...

I also hear Andrew's comment as saying that we may need to think about our Communication on this issue.  I think we can get so stuck in the political and philosophical thrust and parry of the debate that even though you sound logical to me the danger is that you loose other people along the way.

For example...if we give people a sound biblical argument (augmented with some obvious everyday outcomes of the issue like bio-fuels) then we cause our opponents to interact with God's teaching and that makes them think through their position using the bible...which we believe reveals truth and sets people free from what...lies and deception.  Second and I believe most important we help those who are perplexed and wondering what is really going on in our world and church.  These people are everyday people who love Jesus, go to Church, but feel guilty every time they need to put the heater on or turn on a light (talk about lies causing us to fear and be bound).

After the sermon I preached many people said they thought I'd been fair on Environmentalism (whilst I did highlight it's propensity to diminish the importance of mankind when it was fused with Atheism, all idolatry does that anyway) but also helped them to not fear the future and see that Jesus had his world in the palms of his hands.  They were relieved because they feared the world would end (Al Gore is winsome indeed) or that their children's children would drown at the foot of the Dandenongs.  You know what I mean?  Now they had hope and assurance!  We need to help people understand God's Providence so that they don't think and act like God has left the building.  That's a very scary and cold world.  You see, my last post wasn't just evangelistic, it was designed to push us to think Biblically and help Christians think Rightly.

Let's not just rage against the machine (sorry, another cliche), I agree that the Diocese is rather dull and simply swallowing the world's line on this issue (and many others).  But it's because they don't trust that the Bible will provide them with a brilliant and robust environmental theology which it does.  So they just adopt the world's ecology which usurps their weakened understanding of the Gospel.  They are not very robust leaders willing to trust that the Scripture can give the Church the best answers to our problems today.  So they just end up sounding like the world all the time, they have nothing different to say.  So let's help them think biblically, I reckon when they hear those types of responses then they'll adopt them ASAP, because they'll be Biblical, Truthful, and OBVIOUS and full of HOPE to the Christian person (or Bishop).

Indeed, Jesus Saves.  He will save his world.  But he'll let it groan until the sons of God are revealed. Until the full number of God's elect are brought into the sheep pen.  Let's comfort each other and edify the church with these words.

Steve

[Cat Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

However, the "poisonous liberalism" (as J.I Packer recently put it) of our day has so frequently elevated the world's wisdom above Scripture as our authority in moral and ethical matters. So now the mainline Churches are largely preaching a brand of feminism, environmentalism and pragmatist ethics that can hardly be distinguished from what the Melbourne University academics, ABC journalists and Fairfax media are preaching. Many Christians jump on board because these causes can bear an apparent resemblance to Christian principles (eg. the language of "concern", "compassion", "justice", "equity", "inclusion" etc. that is thrown around). But the foundations are more often than not thoroughly pagan, and this is why we keep seeing biblical truth and morality compromised.

This may be another thread, although I think Andrew B has already made this point in this thread...

I guess there's two ways of looking at an imperfect Diocese. You can look at the ideal which it should be, and then see all the negatives and ways that it is failing (described above in Jereth's post). Or you can look at the great and faithful things which are happening in it, and give thanks. The two need to be held in tension, and if you feel passionately one way (or your personality is just disposed to seeing things one way), it's easy to neglect the other. I think the teachers who I respect the most are those who seem to do both in balance.

I react badly and feeling quite uncomfortable when I hear something being criticised in a way that seems less charitable and gracious than it could be. I'm all for thinking critically - I think not doing so leads people into all kinds of problems. But it's so easy to over-shoot and lack charity. Opinions which are strongly critical (but slightly lacking in the grace department) might win approval from those who already agree, but they're unlikely to win people over - which surely needs to be our aim.

I think this is the point others have made here, but I thought I'd express it in my own words as well!

[Pete Young]

The grace issue is quite a separate one, and I think it should probably bound every discussion on this website. As a MASG founder once noted "The diocese read this stuff". I agree with AndrewB on this at least, that MASG shouldn't descend into a moshpit of rabid evangelical criticism.

I'm all for being gracious to the Diocese, the Abp and the Episcopate and the rest of the 'bureacracy' as AndrewB puts it - after all we are all sinners, but I can't remember when this issue or policy was really ever up for discussion amongst laity, for I surely would have jumped at the chance.

Cat, I agree that being a little more hardline only attracts people who hold the same views as yourself, but that was a great deal of what I wanted to ascertain by this thread - is there anyone else who thinks this is going down a bad track? Thankfully the answer to this question is yes.

In terms of making the Diocese listen - a nice concept, but I think that's all it will remain. Feelgood tidbits make nicer reading policy documents than counter-cultural arguments interspersed with Bible verses.

Still, having said all that, I think it'd be great to perhaps take some of this material and collate it in a succint form, a kind of alternative statement of Christian/Anglican environmental philosophy to counteract the current thinking.

[Pete Young]

andrew stagg wrote:

You’d think that sensible church environmental policy (and I reiterate that environmentalism is not our primary gospel concern), you'd think that sensible church environmental policy would at least unearth some of these issues.

Well, someone better tell George Browning, the Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn who said this at a conference in February 2007:

"Those of us who belong to communities of faith, especially the Christian faith, must grow in our awareness that this (such as speaking out on environmental issues) is our core business."

Hold up. Our core business is not, has never been and will never be to speak out on issues. Our core business is winning souls for Christ. Period.

Someone please show me how we are supposed to be graceful when this sort of thing gets said?

[Jereth]

Hi Cat, I hear and appreciate your reminder that we should not be all criticism and no praise. There are certainly lots of good things happening in Anglicanism for which we should be thankful. Up until fairly recently in fact my predominant attitude towards our denomination has been quite a positive one, and I am still fully behind my local church (which is also your church of course!)

My previous post was not intended to deny the good that exists. It was dealing principally with the moral liberalism that has infected the mainline denominations in the Western world, and which does affect us here too. It is truly dangerous and, in my opinion, deserving of a severe critique. Here in Melbourne we are part of a church which sanctions the abhorrent and immoral practice of abortion and argues for the moral relativity ("gradualism") of human life. Rampant compromise on sexual ethics is proceeding in North American churches and probably not too far off in our own nation. (We Christians must give thanks for Kevin Rudd holding the line on this one.) These sorts of compromises drive us to look at what is underneath, and what I see there is fundamentally a disregard for the authority of God's unerring Word and a sell out to secular wisdom in our moral/ethical thinking (evident also in less problematic issues like the environment). It would be irresponsible of us not to oppose this with force.

On the question of Grace. Yes we must be gracious in all things. My view is that when moral compromise has reached such malignant degrees as it has, the gracious thing to do is to declare this plainly so that people will hear and react, and with the help of God's Spirit return to obedience. Jude 22-23 are helpful verses I think. Personally I do not think the lukewarm response that generally characterises the evangelical church these days is what God would require of us in times of grave error, nor is it as effective as we might think in precipitating repentance -- after all it is the Spirit who gives repentance.

Incidentally, I am currently reading Jeremiah. In 21 chapters (that's where I'm up to) he's had virtually nothing positive or affirmative to say about Israel although no doubt there was some faithfulness going on. Such was the overwhelming urgency of sin that whenever the prophet opened his mouth he had bad news (20:8). Now I'm not comparing us "conservatives" directly to Jeremiah, or Anglicanism to sinful Israel, but it might be worth reflecting more generally in relation to this issue of the heaviness of people's criticism -- especially those individuals who are particularly "sensitised" to moral error. Now, the other thing to note from the Israelite prophets is that, while they did criticise false doctrine, the bulk of their condemnation relates to moral error and what that reveals about the condition of peoples' hearts. Modern Western evangelicalism seems to be the reverse -- we'll (rightly) get upset when people attack bodily resurrection or substitutionary atonement, yet when the church gives ground on moral issues (eg. abortion or divorce) we tend to let that through to the keeper. Why is this?