Morningside

In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit Amen.

First can I say how good it feels to be back at Christ Church and back with the many friends we made during our decade or so in this congregation. This church will always be a special place for me as it was here that I spent my time prior to Ordination and it was this congregation which supported me during that wonderful but testing period.

Today is the first Sunday in Lent and so the start of a period of reflection for each of us as individuals and as a Congregation. At the start of every Lent there are important issues to consider.

At the current time, if asked to name the three most important issues of the age I image that most people would include Global Climate Change. For me it would come in as number two just behind conflicts in values, especially between those with faith and the secular world, and just ahead of world water supply. Clearly all of my top three are related and all find their locus in relation to our care, or perhaps more properly absence of care, for Gods Creation.

I don’t know if this Lent is really significantly different from previous ones but I do believe that our attitude to the care of Gods Creation has never had the focus and the attention which it has had in previous months, in the period since the last Lent. In that period there seems to have been a sea change in public acceptance of the certainty of the impact of Global Climate change. Scientists in general have known of the change for decades but general agreement that such changes are real enough to require action are of very recent vintage. The award of the Oscar to Al Gore’s Film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, coupled with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize really said that what was once merely theory had become more widely accepted. So is that all there is to it? Unfortunately not. In the same week that Mr Gore’s Nobel Prize was announced the showing of that film in Schools was successfully challenged in the Courts. The difference between probability and certainty remains a major problem and when the acceptance of Probability will result in some major losers then there will be challenge. This is why the issue of the environment is an important issue for this Lent.

The Lectionaries choice of readings from the Hebrew Scriptures is helpful in pointing out part of the difficulty which we face in placing an environmental emphasis on our thinking this Lent.

In verse 15 of the second chapter of the Book of Genesis we read:

“The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till  it and to look after it.”

Within the garden the man was told that there were things that he might do and there were other things which would not be wise for him to do.

“ You may eat from any tree in the garden, he told the man, except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the day you eat from that, you are surely doomed to die.”

This latter sentence is most commonly used in discussions on original sin , but that is not where I want to go today. It could be argued that having eaten from the tree that mankind went and used the knowledge eventually ending in a situation where the activities of man could kill our planet and so mankind would die. However, that would be too literal an interpretation of the words of a single verse and generally just too simplistic. Reading Genesis as a whole it is clear that the concept of the garden, as the model of how we ought to manage our environment, was not one which was unanimously shared by the compilers of the Book of Genesis. The concept of environmental stewardship which we find in Genesis 2 is very different to that we find in Genesis 1. In verse 28 of Chapter 1 we read

“God blessed them and said to them, be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, have dominion over the fish in the sea, the birds of  the air, and every living thing which moves on the earth.”

That we find these two contrasting thoughts in adjacent chapters in the same book suggests that the compilers of the book could not identify an easy middle road nor were they able to make a choice between them and so they put the decision on hold and they included both. The position of the church over recent years and in respect of environmental issues has been similarly ambiguous.

The traditional position of the church can be summed up in the article on animals written by John Henry Newman, a former Anglican, for the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Cardinal Newman said “ We may use them, we may destroy them at our pleasure, for our own ends, for our own benefit or satisfaction”

It is not my purpose to argue with the rightness or other wise of past interpretations of scripture. What is clear is that over time society moved to thinking of man as being at the centre of creation. The actions of man, whether in caring and tilling or in filling and subduing can both be acceptable provided that they are recognition of Gods place in the centre of meaning and purpose. Seen in this way nurturing creation is a valid option but so is the use of the resources we have been gifted for the benefit of Gods creation.  It does not seem appropriate not to make use of the riches we have been given.

Motive is thus critical. One of the key things about Genesis is what it tells us of God's relationship with the world God created. This gives a very different perspective on an apparent choice between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as models upon which to base our management of our world. Both can be used as a basis for action, as long as God is at the heart of our intention. The licence given in Genesis 1 , verse 28 is modified by what went before in Verse 27 where we read

“God created human beings in his own image; in the image of God he created them.” In accepting a licence from God for action it was a condition that actions should be consistent with the relationship of God to the creation.

The section of Genesis we heard today is the more ancient, probably dating from around 950 BCE. The Genesis 1 was probably completed around 500 BCE. Why there was need to add this alternative view is unclear. During the period of the exile in Babylon authority may have been needed for focussed action.

It is thus clear that the church has had difficulties in dealing with environmental issues. There are many challenges. Perhaps the principle challenge for us is simply to act without being overly pious. Rigid environmentalism does not commend its self to most in society. If our aim is to bring about change then perhaps other approaches are needed. Fundamentalism all too easily leads to the impractical and the unrealistic. The environment is one of the most important challenges facing us at the current time, but it is not the only challenge facing us at this time. It can be argued that was it not that we had got other things wrong, such as our relationships and our values; we would not have environmental problems. In identifying our scope for action as church we can examine issues at local and national levels.

The local is nicely exemplified by an instance recounted to me by one of my current colleagues in Aberdeen. A while ago a beach clean up was organised. The churches were among those who responded. In one section of the beach one of the main sources of rubbish were polystyrene cups. Their presence was easily explained. This section of the beach was adjacent to a vending outlet which sold drinks in polystyrene cups. After finishing with a cup the easiest action was to throw the cup onto the beach in the hope that the sea would take it away, as it did, although in most cases to return it at the next tide. Of course those who bought drinks should have retained their cups. However a cup can be a nuisance if you are on a beach walk. Why didn’t the vendor provide a bin? If the vendor had then there would have been a cost associated with the disposal of the waste. Optimising costs dictated that this cost should be externalised by encouraging it to be passed directly to the environment. Not to do this would have added avoidable costs to the vending business so reducing its profitability. Milton Friedman, the international business guru, said that the only ethical requirement for business was to maximise share holder return. The example is thus both real and trivial. It exemplifies a real problem and the difficulty of finding a solution. There is much we can do as individuals but people may need to be helped to do the right thing.

At a much higher national level we encounter the issue of the use of nuclear power for the generation of Electricity. Last year I was a member of a Church of Scotland Working Group which looked at issues related to energy generation. Electricity though a smaller source of green house gasses than transport or heating is a significant. Electricity is used in the home to provide light, heat for cooking and as a main heat source for many, especially older people, and the means of powering the new technologies. The need for energy is growing both in developed economies like our own and in the developing economies. Using fossil fuels in the production of electricity releases green house gases. Technical fixes such as carbon recapture power stations are technically feasible but require considerable carbon inputs leaving a foot print greater than that of the nuclear option. The use of renewable energy is attractive. In Scotland we have a long history of using renewables such as hydroelectric. There are many others wind, wave, biomass. All of these do have a carbon foot print.

We can of course apparently help to reduce this by carbon trading.  I can’t resist a brief aside. We can offset our carbon footprint by setting it along side an environmental project in the developing world with the aim of achieving overall carbon neutrality. I would not want to undermine this approach. It has potential to stimulate environmental projects which other wise would not happen. However the approach reminds me of an earlier church practice, the purchase of pardons. This allowed someone to sin and then to make reparation by purchasing a pardon from the church. It is interesting to see pardoning return in a modern form.

However to return to electricity generation if we measure impact solely in respect of carbon footprint then the current winner is Nuclear. However nuclear power produces waste which will require storage for centuries to come. It represents a burden for the generations who will follow us. Of course using fossil fuels at current rates also reduces their options. At the same time it changes the environment in ways that will cost future generations to mitigate. There is no such thing as a free lunch. My CofS group were unable to decide on a way a head. In this they reflected society as a whole.

An important question which became more prominent as the debate went on was why do we need all this power? Are there not ways of reducing our demand for power and for electricity?  Would this not be a more appropriate direction of travel? Certainly better insulation and building design would reduce the consumption which is used to produce heat. Putting insulation into existing properties is not easy. Like the polystyrene cups regarding environmental costs as externalities has seemed easier. If we regarded electric as something really precious we can ask should we waste it by leaving equipment switched on unnecessarily or use it for frivolous purposes such as modern entertainment, or am I in danger of becoming over pious. Would it be wrong to regard the inappropriate or unnecessary use of a precious resource as sinful? There are therefore some very real choices for us as individuals and as a church community. Lent is a time of penance and a time for decisions which result in change. Before coming to a conclusion I would like to look very briefly at our Gospel reading. If we look at verses 3&4 of our Gospel reading we hear.

“The tempter approached him and said; if you are the son of God tell these stones to become bread. Jesus answered, scripture say’s man is not to live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

The temptations were experienced by our saviour. He successfully rebutted all with which he was faced. We are also tempted, individually and as a society. We seem not to have been very successful at rebutting any of the temptations.  As a society as a whole we have tried to live on bread alone. We have emphasised things needed for physical life.  We have minimised our spiritual lives. We have seen God’s gift of the world principally as a source of resources. God has ceased for most in our society to be part of the picture. God is nowhere in the picture which our society gains from reading Hello or OK magazine or similar life style publications. We have not sufficiently focussed on the things which make Christianity distinct from other faiths or from having no faith.   

One of the major problems we currently face is Global Climate Change, but the solution is not just to be found in technology. The core problem is in our relationship with God. Until we put that right we will continue to have problems of this type.

So what as Christians can we do? This is something we will discuss after the service in more detail but in summary we can both do things and we can try to influence others.

The eco congregation programme is principally about the first of these. There are many things we can do. It begins with assessing our own carbon foot prints and devising ways of making choices. This includes things as mundane as the running of our heating system and the timing of church services so as to minimise the need for heating and as substantial as life style changes. As a Christian community we must do these things.

However we can attempt to influence others. Here Christ Church has an enviable record. A decade ago you ran “The Source of Life Exhibition”. This drew out the importance of water, air and other elements of the creation and emphasised their spiritual rather than their practical significance. It was a clear statement that man can not live by bread alone. I would suggest that this is an approach which is important for the church to take and that it is one which distinguishes us from those who are merely concerned with the preservation of the environment for its own sake.  In entering this Lenten period Christ church has much it can build on. I leave you with these thought as the start of this years Lenten reflection on this subject.

I close in the words of a traditional Hebridean prayer:

God, kindle thou in my heart within a flame of love to my neighbour from the lowest thing that liveth to the name that is highest of all. Amen

David Atkinson

Text Placement