Here's the text of an email I recently sent to my bishop. Repro'd here in case anyone else wanted to do similarly.
Amidst all of the domestic and international news lately it is easy to forget that we are still in a climate emergency and that we have recognised that ‘doing our ecclesiastical bit’ means aims for net zero by 2030 remain part of our mental strife. Really we should have been taking this path about 20 years ago (and maybe that would’ve helped with some of the other things we’re now facing) so the sense of urgency should not be downgraded.
I’m mindful that the climate crisis won’t go away if we do
manage to achieve the net-zero target. Indeed some effects are ‘baked in’
already and we’re in mitigation territory rather than ‘heading off’.
What this means has huge implications for the churches’ mission into the rest of the 21st century. If we are to build a plausibility for our witness in the coming decades, we need now to be seen to be doing the right things to help now. Net zero is part of that. But so also is being aware that the refugee situations now being faced are a small beginning once desertification and further sea level rises become more evident and food precarity becomes a more existential threat even in the relatively affluent and ‘buffered’ West. Recent research from Bath University (see Tear fund report here: https://weare.tearfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Burning-Down-The-House-Youthscape-and-Tearfund.pdf), suggests that young people are, by a very significant majority, affected by climate anxiety. All of which is to say that we have a huge pastoral task ahead, starting now.
There is also a huge mission task . Although it was a late addition to what we now call ‘the five marks of mission’, the fifth mark (for short: “creation care”) is now understood to be vital and to crucially interact with the others. I’ve become convinced that in terms of the churches’ ability to proclaim the gospel in the coming decades, we have to strongly support 5th mark missionaries (as a recent letter in the Church Times put it) who will advocate for the flourishing of creation and work with those who are active in challenging climate-emergency denial whether in word or in/action. This would enable the churches to have not scored plausibility own-goals and it would enable us to be forming relationships which could carry good news and nurture the faith of those being drawn towards God in Christ. I would suggest that a suitable paradigm for understanding the enormity of the situation is the struggle against first the slave trade and then against slavery itself. The church’s strong witness via, eg, the Clapham Sect has been an asset in Christian witness since. (Fortunately people have largely forgotten the justifications for slavery that were offered at the time by some Christians).
It’s significant, I believe, that a number of Christians -including no small number of CofE clergy- have recently been appearing in court to answer charges relating to non-violent direct actions challenging the government and fossil hydrocarbon interests. Perhaps this is a move of the Spirit? For the most part they have been found not guilty because the defence that they are upholding international law and acting to prevent crime under international law has been accepted by judges, magistrates and juries. However, this has not always been the case -in some cases people have pleaded guilty and served jail time or been fined, for example.
This raises the question of Bishops’ licences and DBS checks. Presumably a bishop’s licence holder in a position such as just mentioned would find that a DBS check would show up a conviction. This may become more likely with the government’s recent draconian proposals relating to public protest -if they become law which, unhappily, seems likely.
So I’m writing to ask you to make it clear that Bishops licence holders who may acquire convictions for involvement in NVDA related to the climate emergency will not ordinarily (if you’ll forgive the irresistible pun) suffer detriment in terms of continuing to hold a licence or gaining a license for a new post. It would be good to supplement this with some explicit guidance from HR for bishop’s licence holders so that those who might consider becoming involved in such actions can weigh up the relevant considerations.
I ask this because while I know that bishops in various places have been informally somewhat supportive, this does not appear to be on a firm footing and seems to be a potentially fragile support. It would be good to make sure that people are reasonably certain about where they stand.
I think that a clarifying in this way would yield enhanced credibility for the church in coming decades, and so I would ask you also to encourage fellow bishops to make similar clarifications.
I had been thinking to make this the subject of a motion at synod, but in conversation it seemed that perhaps if you were able to do the above, it wouldn’t be necessary to go via a synodical motion.
While I’m on the topic, could I encourage you to look at the
following document which might help to indicate further things to be encouraging
and resourcing going forward further into climate emergency in order to
strengthen Christian witness.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pL5jLS_zsNDp4fT_XVCOA2SVZThIdieS/view
I would especially draw attention to the issues which could help address the currently nearly invisible issue about climate anxiety. As a pastoral challenge, this is likely to be significant.
