Given the rather hectic pace of life as I move into my first Honours year at the University of Glasgow, I have found it very difficult to record my thoughts and feelings about the debates which will take place at NYA2008, starting in less than 24 hours now! However, I am glad to be able to bring you these uncharacteristically short ramblings on the first listed issue, Sustainable Living, before the event begins. I will add my views on the other sections over the coming days, taking some time out at night to reflect on my views. I look forward to hearing other perspectives on these issues and to seeing how my own views and opinions change over the course of the weekend.
The respected theologian Karl Barth once said that there were two ways in which to view scripture. You must either view it as the 100% unadulterated word of God and follow it in its entirely, or you must decide to read it in order to make sure that it is the word of God before acting as it instructs.
I feel it important to point out right at the very start that I feel privileged enough to base both my faith and practice very firmly on the belief in the existence, omnipotence and omnipresence of a loving, caring God who acts directly in the lives of each of his own created beings, guiding and strengthening us on the great journey of life. Consequently, I tend to take the latter model when it comes to biblical interpretation. Note that I by NO MEANS believe that the Bible is worthless. Far from it. However, I do believe that we must be careful in our application of biblical texts to our own, personal situations, always bearing in mind that contextual and chronological issues can bear great significance on the meaning and purpose of a text. We must, of course, accept that the term, “climate change” is not used in scripture, directly as a result of these contextual differences.
However I do believe that each text included (and those that were excluded) from scripture were obviously written, regardless of their authorship, by people who believed that God was revealing something of his nature and being to them, and, as we examine each of the texts, we begin to see patterns and accounts of God’s love for his creation, the part humanity must play in the protection of creation and God’s role in sustaining and protecting creation. Quite a lot of these patterns were revealed to those who attended FURY Forum 2007, an event for young people connected and associated with the United Reformed Church, entitled, "Our World: God's World" in a session on the “Bible and Climate Change." I have little time to speak about each of the scriptural references given, but you are more than welcome to read my report from this event which I will be taking with me to NYA2008 in both paper and electronic format. Just leave me a comment or come and see me!
What is absolutely certain is that God created our planet and all within it for a specific purpose. He has sustained this planet, amongst other methods, through placing it firmly in our control. We owe it to Him, then, to do everything in our power to protect the wellbeing of this planet as well as the rest of God’s creation. This principle should, therefore, be reflected in all that we believe and do as Christians.
It would be naïve, of course, to suggest that it is possible to take the best ecological option in every practical aspect of our lives. There are times when it is literally impossible to avoid flying, and, at some point in our lives, it is also very likely that we will be forced to use the East Cost Mainline, alleged to emit more carbon than a flight travelling the same distance.
What matters, then, is our justification for taking such action. I admit to flying from Glasgow to London at least twice a year for Church related Committee meetings. However, I only do this as meetings usually occur on weekdays and Saturdays, making it very difficult to use any other method of transport. If I travelled down and up by train or bus, this could turn a day trip into three days, very inconvenient for a student who will miss out on vital lectures in such an absence. One solution could be to avoid appointing me and those in my situation to Committees, however this would hinder not only ability of students to contribute to the life and work of the church, it would also, in the case of the URC, stop those residing within the National Synod of Scotland from having their say, as flying is often the best option for anyone travelling to or from Scotland for URC events and meetings.
I fail to understand, then, why it is that both our respective denominations do not request a reason for selecting a particular method of transport in their Expenses procedures. It would be practically impossible to examine and award each application on these grounds, however, it would only take a small proportion of our Finance Committee’s and Ethical Investment Group’s agenda, considering their wider work, to examine a cross section of applications made over the past few weeks or months since their last meeting in order to ascertain whether or not justifications were accurate. If they were not, recommendations could then be made to improve future travel arrangements. If this proved to be too large a task for these respective groups, I see no harm in setting up a separate board to meet and discuss a cross-section of applications. It would be a very useful and effective method of identifying and dealing with possible improvements to transport arrangements within the church.
Looking to the wider issue of dealing with the every growing concern over energy resources, having visited the Sellafield Nuclear Site in Northern England a few months ago, I witnessed a fascinating exhibit on creating sustainable energy for you and your family. While it would be literally impossible for my grandmother, for example, with her postage-stamp-sized lawn at the back of her house, to keep pigs, cattle and grow her own vegetables, it would not be too much to ask for each household to bear a small windmill and solar panels on their roofs. It is said that, with sensible use, it is possible to power every house in our country, independently of all external power supply if everyone was willing to make their own power (remembering that we don’t actually have to physically do anything to produce it!) and used it correctly. This would mean, of course, some inconvenience, such as turning off lights when you leave a room and not leaving the TV on standby, etc… however, considering that these seem only small sacrifices at the moment, think how much smaller they would be if you did so knowing that you were actually going to make a blind bit of difference!
There is also the argument that, if the government were to make such a move compulsory, fund the installation and maintenance of these “Mini Power Stations,” not only would there be no need for the use of fossil fuels or nuclear reactions in the powering of homes, but, if anyone failed to take appropriate measures to use the equipment properly, they would personally have to suffer the consequences of having no power. The two major problems here, of course, are firstly that the government’s record of success in offering such services is, shall we say, not up to an appropriate standard and also, the inevitable fact that there will be some richer households who will b able to buy their own additional stations to make more power while some only possess the bear minimum. Yet more problems to deal with!
In any case, we have a God-given duty to protect this earth and must strive to do so in any way that we can. This will, without doubt, involve sacrifice and suffering for all concerned. This is the nature of Christianity itself, that God will guide us, we will succeed in some things and fail in others, but God will always be there to rescue us. However we must never use this as an excuse not to try, as this will lead only to destruction and death.
We are here to sustain life, not destroy it!
