It's a sin to fly, says church

The Sunday Times (UK) ^ | 7/23/2006 | Jonathan Leake

[1066AD]

The Sunday Times July 23, 2006

It's a sin to fly, says church

THE Bishop of London has declared it sinful for people to contribute to climate change by flying on holiday, driving a “gas-guzzling” car or failing to use energy-saving measures in the home, writes Jonathan Leake.

Richard Chartres will encourage vicars to preach more green sermons and warn congregations that it is now a moral obligation for Christians to lead eco-friendly lifestyles.

Chartres, who chairs the bishops’ panel on the environment, said: “There is now an overriding imperative to walk more lightly upon the earth and we need to make our lifestyle decisions in that light.

“Making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin. Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes. It is living a life turned in on itself where people ignore the consequences of their actions.”

Chartres, the third most senior bishop in the Church of England, has declared his views as it prepares to publish Treasures on Earth, a booklet on environmental matters to be sent to every diocese for distribution.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “We stand before God’s judgment on these matters. In life we have to make moral choices over our sex life and over our domestic and financial affairs. We make choices of moral significance and our relation to the environment is no exception.”

The booklet will say that scientific research supporting predictions that the earth faces serious climate change is “overwhelming”. It will also detail practical ways for Christians to cut their carbon emissions, at church and at home, including trying to walk or cycle to communion.

The church’s advisers on the environment say that offsetting your carbon dioxide emissions against “green” actions such as planting trees is a first step towards becoming sustainable but is not a long-term answer.

Under Chartres, the church has commissioned briefings on climate change, plus examples of green sermons, available on the internet, to help vicars master the facts when writing their homilies.

As dean of the chapels royal, Chartres also oversees churches used by the royal family and so is in regular contact with the Queen, the head of the church, and the Prince of Wales. A church spokesman confirmed both had supported Chartres’ initiative.

The church is taking steps to improve its own environmental record and has asked vicars to carry out an energy audit so they can reduce their “carbon footprint”. It owns some of the largest and draughtiest buildings in Britain, including medieval cathedrals, gothic churches and ageing parsonages.

“We have no right to appeal to our contemporaries on this issue if we have failed to put our own house in order,” said Chartres.

Lambeth Palace, Williams’ residence, has been audited — and was criticised for using inefficient light bulbs rather than the low-energy alternatives.

Claire Foster, the church’s environment policy director, said: “Indiscriminate use of the earth’s resources must be seen as profoundly wrong, just as we now see slavery as wrong.”

[HungarianGypsy]

Here we go again. Let's just go back to horse and buggy. These people will then complain about the smell.

[foreverfree]

bump

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

He looks like he's a couple of cans short of a 12-pack.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's certainly not a flattering picture.

( . . . I didn't go out of my way to find one . . .)

Seriously, in his "official" photographs he seems to put on a sort of "game face". Maybe because he knows his face in repose looks rather silly.

[Dallas59]

Except for Islam.

[Schwaber]

Why is it a sin to be an environmentalist?

[editor-surveyor]

Because the very premise of environmentalism denies all that we are told in God's word about the Earth, and the power and sovereignty of God.

God has a plan for us, and the Earth is provided for that plan, and no other reason. He says that he will destroy the Earth, and all the rest of the physical universe when that plan is accomplished. Environmentalism stands in defiance of God's stated plan.

[Schwaber]

Thank you for your prompt reply... I'm still a tad confused, though. For example a lot of the damage that is occuring (And I'm not talking about unproven theories like Global warming etc) affects the poor in countries that can't provide a solution, like the current oil spill in the Philippines... Besides this, what about the biblical mandate in Genesis, to be stewards of the earth. Please take this in the intended way. I'm not trying to be bolshy (That shows I'm a brit!) but to understand... Would you then say there is a difference between environmentalism, which is arguably a fear reaction, and ultimately selfish, and Creation care which is about love for the God who created this earth and the people affected by pollution?

[editor-surveyor]

I won't attempt to deny that people make messes, but the assumption that those messes cause permanent 'damage' to the planet is in my opinion, unsupportable. If people were to leave the site for a few decades, evidence of that damage would likely be unobservable.

"Would you then say there is a difference between environmentalism, which is arguably a fear reaction, and ultimately selfish, and Creation care which is about love for the God who created this earth and the people affected by pollution?"

There is no connection between the two. Enviornmentalists hate God, and seek to use baseless fear to establish socialist tyranny on a global scale, solely to erradicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Schwaber]

Hello again, and thanks for your reply. I appreciate being able to discuss this sensibly despite our differences, and being able to learn.

It was perhaps unfortunate that I received it two days before the Chernobyl anniversary, so there are now reminders in our media that the area is still contaminated and still covered in radioactive dust, and that a new containment unit has to be built around the destroyed core… Mind you I’ll agree with you that there were political reasons that it happened, related to communism. Germany is committed to shutting down its last reactor in 2012.

I think I’m correct in understanding that you have no problem with Christians involved in creation care, as opposed to environmentalists. Is that correct?

Have you background information to suggest that Environmentalists want to bring in Socialism? I appreciate that some are distinctly anti-Christian, but the main anti-socialist forces in East Germany, which spearheaded the protests against the socialist government there, were the church and the environmental movement. Both consisted of people willing to die for their freedom, and faced terrific persecution. However, new information is always welcome.

Schwaber