search

Dear Editor,

Paul Mills’ article on climate change was well-informed, and I do not doubt his sincerity. However I found his main argument logically inconsistent.

Dear Editor,

Christians differ in their response to the ‘climate emergency’. Some, like David Golding that the (February en), accept ‘evidence is irrefutable’ that emissions from fossil fuels are endangering billions of people as the Earth heats up. Over recent years, reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have become more specific in attributing global warming to the release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

Dear Editor,

Having written about creation care myself and doing my best to bring the need for creation care to a largely materialistic Christian Church, I was confused by the article ‘Is creation care a gospel issue?’ by John Samuel and Richard Buggs in the January edition of en.

Dear Editor,

In response to Simon Marsh’s piece ‘Hot, hot and hotter still’ in September’s en, it is disturbing to see another article in the Christian press about a coming climate disaster. This seems to be a prevailing view today, but it is not universally held despite claims to the contrary. It is important for the sake of journalistic balance that different opinions are presented.

Dear Editor,

In making the case for the creation of the first new deep-mined coal mine in 30 years, in Cumbria, Roland Morris criticised those who have ‘the least understanding of’ the principles underlying climate science. Unhappily, he himself obviously doesn’t understand that the ‘Case for Cumbrian mine [is] undermined by doubt over UK market for coking coal. Sulphur content of the coal could mean British companies are unable to use it’ (Emma Gatten, The Daily Telegraph, 1 March 2021). As a result the Telegraph concluded (8 December 2022), that ‘The case for the Woodhouse Colliery to be allowed to start production isn’t just flimsy, it’s non-existent’. The Conservative peer, Lord Deben, Chair of the government’s own Climate Change Committee, has described the proposal as ‘absolutely indefensible’.

Dear Editor,

I was rather disappointed by the ‘Earth Watch’ article in the February edition of en. The whole question of climate change involves complex scientific principles. And sadly those who make the most noise in the media have the least understanding of these principles. The result is that money is wasted on projects which have minimal effect on the planet as a whole.

Dear Editor,

I was grateful to read the provocation from John Stevens (Comment, May en) about what the blind spot of our day might be. He mentioned two possibilities in particular: abortion and global warming. It will come as no surprise to those who are aware of our ministry that I will be placing my vote with the former, but allow me to offer four objective reasons – nothing to do with my ‘passion’ or ‘calling’ – as to why, if we were to pick one (and I am not saying there is only one), it would have to be abortion, hands down.

Dear Editor,

How to respond to David Robertson’s ‘Letter from Australia’? (en August 2022)

Dear Editor,

‘How should we respond to the world’s poorest?’, asked Justin Hall (en September). We should ‘give and continue to give’ was his answer, and he has a point, since, as Jim Wallace, put it in relation to Matthew 25.31-46: ‘People will be stunned to discover they will be judged, not on the basis of right doctrine, personal piety or sexual ethics, but on how they treat the poor.’ But unhappily, as I stated when Tearfund took me to Tanzania and Zambia in 2011: ‘We have these great injustices, that are grinding down entire generations, across whole continents. The idea that we can rectify [extreme poverty, etc.] without getting major ‘structural’ changes, is delusion.’

Dear Editor,

In the recent past, scientific discoveries have overturned several widely-held notions that each in their way denied what the Bible teaches. For example, the Bible states or strongly implies:–

Dear Editor,

I’ll admit that I was not inclined to lend a sympathetic ear to William Philip’s article, entitled ‘The fanatical arrogance of men of science’ (en June), given his insensitive stance on climate change during COP26 in Glasgow (see http://ne-calltoaction.org.uk/?m=202207). Indeed, it really upset me to see all the good people I’ve worked with over the years maligned in this way and I hate to think of the damage such teaching could do to young people. The article fosters an attitude of fear and antagonism towards the whole scientific community and this is undeserved. ‘Men (and women) of science’ are not generally ‘fanatically arrogant’, any more than are men of politics, lawyers, school teachers – or ‘men of the church’.

Dear Editor,

Just to say how pleased I am to see the interview with Sir John Houghton in the centre-page spread in the April issue of Evangelicals Now. Many thanks.

Dear Editor,

Thank you for publishing the helpful article, ‘Caring for God’s earth’ by Simon Marsh (en, January 2021). He referred to the injustice of our consumption of more than our fair share of the world’s resources, but we should also remember the terrible damage being done to the lives of the poor by climate change, right now, as a result of our combustion of fossil fuels. As Greta Thunberg put it, at the UN in September 2019: ‘People are suffering, people are dying. how dare you?’