Global Warming

As reported by the BBC and others, the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has emphasised the need for government action on global warming in the light of latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Their fourth report (with helpful 23 page PDF summary for policymakers and various resources for press and others) is the ’synthesis report’ following earlier reports on the physical science basis (Feb 2007), impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (April 2007) and the mitigation of climate change (May 2007).

This is, thankfully, an area which is beginning to lead to action by Christians including serious theological analysis. Although I’ve yet to read them, there are two interesting looking volumes just published here in the UK -

Nick Spencer (who works for the important new think tank Theos) and Robert White have published Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living

Michael Northcott, Professor of Ethics at Edinburgh University has written the more heavyweight A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming (reviewed by Jo Rathbone of Eco-congregation at Ekklesia)

Michael Northcott’s work on the subject can be sampled online in

The Climate Narratives of Noah and Joseph

"As the Garden Withers, the Desert Grows"

To hear Nick Spencer and Bob Wright speak more about the subject you can watch these You Tube videos by the Jubilee Centre on

The Reality and Consequences of Global Warming (Professor Bob Wright)

Responding to Global Warming (Nick Spencer)

Why Christians Should Care for the Environment (Prof Bob Wright)

Sustainable Living (Nick Spencer)

Bob Wright also has the accessible Cambridge Paper - "A Burning Issues: Christian Care for the Environment" - while Christian Ecology Link has the helpful little leaflet - Climate Change: What Can Christians Do?

Petitions on human non-human hybrids

I have just got an email originating from a leading Christian bioethicist relating to petitions responding to the new proposed legislation that would permit scientists to create ‘true hybrids’ ie embryos that would have a human parent and a nonhuman parent.

Although these embryos - like human embryos - would have to be destroyed at 14 days I really find it hard to understand what kind of creatures we would have made and how the law and ethics should think of something that is, say, a half human half pig embryo

As the author of the email says:

I believe that we are in danger of following Dr Moreau in the novel by HG Wells, who says of his animal-human creations, ‘I went on with this research just the way it led me… I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter.’

The petitions can be signed at

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to prevent medical researchers from creating human animal hybrid embryos"

and

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ban experiments involving the creation of hybrid human/animal embryos"

TEC's Divisions

Over the last few weeks there have been major developments within TEC as it becomes clear that now dioceses and not just parishes are feeling unable to continue in their existing relationship with the national church.

We have seen a decision by the Diocese of Pittsburgh in the context of a strongly-worded letter from the Presiding Bishop and a short but illuminating reply from Bishop Bob Duncan (and a response from Bishop John Howe).

A similar exchange has now taken place between the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Jack Iker of Forth Worth (a diocese, unlike Pittsburgh, that is also strongly opposed to women’s ordination and whose convention meets this week-end).

Then, the wider Communion context of these moves has become clear with the decision of the province of the Southern Cone (Dave Walker has his humorous take on the province) to welcome into their provincial structures those bishops and dioceses that depart from TEC. The key part of the motion reads

WE the Provincial Synod of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America meeting in Valpariso, Chile, in November 2007 welcome into the membership of our province on an emergency and pastoral basis those dioceses of the Episcopal Church taking appropriate action to separate from that Church. We do this in order that such dioceses may continue in the mainstream of the Anglican Communion and be faithful to its Biblical and historic teaching and witness; and we pray for God’s grace and help to resolve the painful, critical situation in our beloved Anglican Communion.

They have already embraced Bishop Don Harvey, a retired Canadian bishop and leader of the Anglican Network in Canada where the situation looks like it will worsen rapidly given today’s decision by the Diocese of Niagara to bless same-sex marriages (following similar decisions in the dioceses of Ottawa and Montreal).

The next and most significant conflict is the Diocese of San Joaquin. Unlike Pittsburgh and Fort Worth, its diocesan convention has already taken the first step to free itself from the structures of TEC and so its forthcoming convention next month could make it the first diocese to achieve the necessary agreement of two consecutive synods. If it were to accept Southern Cone’s invitation this would, among other things, raise the question as to whether its Bishop, John-David Schofield, would have his invitation to Lambeth withdrawn and whether the Archbishop of Canterbury would recognise any TEC replacement bishop for the diocese. A sense of the situation in the diocese is gained by the important pastoral letter to be read in all churches of the diocese tomorrow and the following Sunday.

It is also becoming clear from the law-suits in the Dicoese of Virginia (relating to parishes that voted to join CANA, the Nigerian missionary convocation under Bishop Martyn Minns) that the Presiding Bishop is determined to take a strong line of resistance to parishes leaving for other provinces (blog reports from BabyBlue). What is particularly interesting is that she prevented the diocese reaching an amicable agreement with the parishes in relation to their buildings and the crucial problem for her was apparently that they would be used by another part of the Communion. If they had gone to another denomination or even to a secular organisation it appears there would not have been such a problem. A similar emphasis was clear in the conditions laid down as part of the proposed Episcopal Visitors scheme - parishes seeking it and bishops involved in it must reject all attempts of churches to move into another province (such as was done, with the bishop’s agreement, by Christ Church, Plano which, under David Roseberry, moved from TEC to AmiA under Rwanda).

It appears that the powers-that-be in TEC are determined to prevent any existing parish or diocese claiming to be part of the Anglican Communion unless it remains within TEC. The theological and ecclesiological argument that is being put forward is that of the tradition of only one episcopal jurisdiction within a territory. This is clearly incredible - it only makes sense when there is a commitment to shared common counsel and shared understanding of the faith and the point is that for those parishes and dioceses and for the provinces taking them into their polity this no longer exists with the structures of TEC. Furthermore, the willingness to allow other denominations to take over property does not fit with this understanding.

In trying to understand the real rationale behind this I was reminded of part of the biography of Gene Robinson (Going to Heaven) which I read recently. At one point (p209), his predecessor as Bishop of New Hampshire - Bishop Doug Theuner - is reported recalling part of his early training as a bishop

He told an amusing story from his early days as a bishop, when a group of bishops were invited to spend time with the American Management Association in New York over a period of several months. The AMA had never worked with a group of religious leaders before, and the man in charge finally told them, "We’ve tried to tailor a program specifically for you, and we’ve tried to match it up with our normal experience in the business world, and we’ve determined that the category you come closest to, in terms of what we’ve done before, is "regional managers of a small corporation"

This business and management model gives, I think, the best explanation of what is going on. In the American religious market place, TEC’s niche has been that in being Anglican/Episcopalian it offers a mix of historic church tradition (liturgy, bishops, vestments, historic buildings etc) and wider international bonds through the Communion. That, particularly in recent decades, has been combined with a particular "inclusive" stance on key social and ethical issues. In offering this profile it is only now "a small corporation" but one of its claims is that it is - in this understanding - also the sole recognised national branch of a genuine and large multi-national. Its "market share" and "franchise" will, therefore, be greatly threatened if parishes (and now dioceses) escape the legal and constitutional structures of TEC and are able to continue to offer the Anglican combination of historic church tradition (not just in terms of ecclesiological order but also catholic faith and morals) and being part of an international communion within the church catholic. That is why the central offices of the "small corporation" at "815" are doing all they can to prevent their "regional managers" either departing (as in Pittsburgh etc) or allowing their parishes to depart amicably with their property (as in Virginia etc).

I’ve just started reading Miranda Hassett’s recently published study, Anglican Communion in Crisis, which seems to be arguing that it was precisely such a recognition of the importance of the wider Communion that marked the major shift in the strategies of conservative Episcopalians since the late 1990s and (although I remain to be convinced by some of her analysis - may blog when I’ve finished) it appears that the success of this alongside TEC’s fractured relationships with so much of the Communion has left TEC’s structures with no option but to seek to maintain its "monopoly" by using all its internal legal and other provincial powers against those who, out of commitment to the Communion’s teaching on sexuality, distance themselves from TEC.

This perspective also explains the extraordinary shift in the wording of forms from TEC’s lawyers in relation to pensions where, as Richard Kew, has pointed out

no longer does the bishop put his signature to the document saying that this new ministry constitutes "an extension of his or her ministry under my ecclesiastical authority." Now it continues, "advance the mission, and do not violate the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church."

This whole mind-set is of course simply further evidence of what many saw expressed in the actions of GC 2003 and the decision of the Presiding Bishop to proceed with the consecration of Gene Robinson after signing the Primates’ Statement at Lambeth in 2003 - the schismatic tearing of the fabric of the Communion to make TEC into an American denomination among the many thousands of others. There is no recognition that TEC’s identity comes from it being part of the universal church and that historic Anglicanism recognises the presence of that church not simply in provincial structures that enforce their own constitution and canons and have historic ties with other provinces but in and through dioceses headed by bishops who profess and defend the catholic faith and seek to be in communion with all those who do likewise. Archbishop Rowan Williams’ important recent letter to Bishop John Howe (a Windsor bishop faced with parishes in his diocese seeking to break away from him not because of his actions but because of the actions of the province) emphasised the importance of the diocese and diocesan bishop in Anglican ecclesiology

I would repeat what I’ve said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor. Action that fragments their Dioceses will not help the consolidation of that all-important critical mass of ordinary faithful Anglicans in The Episcopal Church for whose nurture I am so much concerned.

Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision.

While the concerns about ’taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions’ also has some force when applied to dioceses, the ecclesiology here makes clear that ultimately ’the provincial structure’ is not primary but the diocese and so presumably dioceses are free - if in conscience they believe they must - to detach themselves from one legal provincial structure in order to affiliate to another.

The tragedy is that TEC’s refusal to respond adequately to The Windsor Report and its rejection of the Pastoral Scheme proposed by all the Primates at Dar means that we are now entering what Archbishop Rowan Williams described (in August 2006, before Dar) as his nightmare scenario:

What will happen to the six or more dioceses in America that have asked for alternative primatial oversight? I don’t know yet. We are working intensively on what this might mean. I don’t want to make up church law on the back of an envelope, because in fact it’s a very complicated situation.

It would constitute a split in the American church. Indeed, and quite a serious one. And I have great concern for the vast majority of Episcopal Christians in the US who don’t wish to move away from the Communion at all, but who don’t particularly want to join a separatist part of their Church either. I want to give them time to find what the best way is.

But these dioceses and the group around them won’t hold out in ECUSA for too long. No, and it is perhaps a rather larger group than some have presented it as being. I know too that if Canterbury doesn’t help, there will be other provinces that are very ready to help. And I don’t especially want to see the Anglican Church becoming like the Orthodox Church, where in some American cities you see the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church. I don’t want to see in the cities of America the American Anglican Church, the Nigerian Anglican Church, the Egyptian Anglican Church and the English Anglican Church in the same street.

It would have reverberations in the Church of England too. Clergy and congregations would have to decide where there loyalties lie. Indeed, and my nightmare is that action is now going forward that will tie us all up in law courts in ten years, in disputes about property. That would take so much energy from what we’re meant to be doing.

Stem Cell Breakthrough?

The Daily Telegraph today reports on its front page (and now being picked up by various others) that Professor Ian Wilmut, the scientist behind Dolly, the cloned sheep, has abandoned the cloning method (nuclear transfer) which he developed to explore an alternative approach pioneered recently in Japan by Professor Shinya Yamanaka and apparently replicated in the US. The crucial ethical issue here is that this alternative does not require the creation and destruction of embryos as pluripotent stem cells are gained from manipulation of adult stem cells.

The Telegraph reports

Prof Wilmut is backing direct reprogramming or "de-differentiation", the embryo free route pursued by Prof Yamanaka, which he finds "100 times more interesting."

"The odds are that by the time we make nuclear transfer work in humans, direct reprogramming will work too.

I am anticipating that before too long we will be able to use the Yamanaka approach to achieve the same, without making human embryos. I have no doubt that in the long term, direct reprogramming will be more productive, though we can’t be sure exactly when, next year or five years into the future."

Prof Yamanaka’s work suggests the dream of converting adult cells into those that can grow into many different types can be realised remarkably easily.

While there must always be caution about these claims (other approaches not using human embryos have been heralded in the past) and the Yamanaka alternative may well raise ethical dilemmas of its own, this looks a most exciting development.

For those wanting a short (133pp), accessible and inexpensive (£3.99) introduction to the whole debate a good recent guide is Ted Peters’ The Stem Cell Debate

It is a guide to the debate by a Christian theologian who has been very involved with scientists working in this area. He is a strong defender of human embryonic stem cell research due to the benefits it is likely to bring in terms of relieving suffering. The book provides a really helpful guide to the science and then sketches three different frameworks for ethical responses - embryo protection, nature protection and medical benefits - which he argues are incompatible and which explain why the public debate leads to so much conflict. A fourth framework sets research standards (eg protection of embryo after 14 days). The final chapters spell out more of his theology of humanity (to explain why he does not see the early embryo as an inviolable human person). I’m not convinced by his treating the frameworks as incompatible nor by his positive assessment of embryonic stem cell research based on his preference for the ’medical benefits’ framework. In addition, if I understand the Telegraph report correctly, his crucial and negative discussion (pp38-9) of ’could adult stem cells provide pluripotency?’ may be being overtaken by latest research. Despite these significant weaknesses, this is a helpful guide to the debate and the issues.

Three 'inclusive' contributions to the sexuality debate

I have recently found three interesting contributions to the debates about homosexuality from an ’inclusive’ perspective and three different areas of academic expertise.

Most recent is the newly published submission from the Royal College of Psychiatrists which is available as PDF or HTML.

I also discovered the draft text of a lecture by Ian Markham, Professor of Theology and Ethics and Dean of Hartford Seminary - "Open Orthodoxy and Same-Sex Marriage: Where Should Christians Stand?", one of the Lebel Lectures on Christian Ethics at Calgary University, Canada. A MS Word document which asks not to be quoted offers - through a contrast with polyamory and engagement with VA Demant and biblical teaching in favour of monogamy - a defence of ’gay marriage’ as a distinctive form of Christian witness in contemporary society. This apparently draws on material in his recent book Do Morals Matter?

There is also the text of the lecture in May of this year by New Testament scholar, Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College, London entitled Being Biblical? - Slavery, Sexuality, and the Inclusive Community which gives a foretaste of his eagerly-awaited and soon-to-be-published, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics.

Abortion - Doctor's rights and patients' rights

I have just discovered an alarming news report in last Sunday’s Observer about a Christian doctor I know who is under investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) for how she responds to patients seeking an abortion and being criticised by my own MP here in Oxford. Tamie Downes apparently gave an interview to the Daily Mail earlier this year in which she spoke of patients who decided to continue with their pregnancy rather than proceed with termination after her consultation with them. She is also one of the organisers of a petition to the British Medical Association (BMA) about the current abortion law and its briefing paper on the subject of early abortions.

While one must be cautious about basing too much simply on one news reports it would appear that Dr Downes is being targetted because other doctors - including Evan Harris MP - are unhappy that after conversation with her some patients decide not to have an abortion and that Dr Downes has spoken to the media about this fact. There is - in the report - no evidence that she has broken the GMC guidelines which do not prevent those doctors conscientiously opposed to abortion speaking to patients seeking termination but simply and sensibly state they must respect patients and their views and

You must not unfairly discriminate against them by allowing your personal views to affect adversely your relationship with them or the treatment you provide or arrange. If carrying out a particular procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with your religious or moral beliefs, and this conflict might affect the treatment or advice you provide, you must explain this to a patient and tell them that they have the right to see another doctor

As the Chair of the BMA’s medical ethic committee is quoted as saying at the end of the report

’In discussions with patients [about abortion] GPs may want to investigate a woman’s individual circumstances for requesting abortion to ensure their patients are confident about the decisions they make - this is good clinical practice. However, doctors who force their own personal views about abortion on their patients are acting against BMA and GMC guidelines and are not behaving in their patients’ best interest.’

This whole debate raises a host of important ethical questions. It would appear that (uniquely?) in relation to this medical "treatment" some people think that the doctor is simply there to do whatever the patient demands with no right to ask questions: agreeing to termination is the only professional medical response to someone who is pregnant and unhappy enough about being so to go to the doctor to enquire about abortion. Any doctor who thinks otherwise should, it appears, be banned from treating a patient in this condition and force them to see someone who will simply sign the necessary form. If they do not - and especially if they dare to tell people that actually quite a significant number of women, after talking, decide to continue with their pregnancy - then they must be reported to the GMC and investigated by the government. The irony is that Dr Downes is quoted in the article as saying, "It has to be the mother’s choice. I have no right to make that choice for them". It is the allegedly ’pro-choice’ movement that is here opposing attempts to ensure that women (many of whom are, unquestionably, wrestling with big moral questions and perhaps in some emotional turmoil) are truly giving informed consent. The basis for this appears to be the claim that doctors giving facts or allowing space to make this momentous decision are giving partisan and religiously biased advice whereas simply giving medical approval without necessarily engaging seriously with the patient as a hurting human person is somehow a ’neutral’ response and so the only legitimate one.

Homosexuality - A First Order Issue? (II)

In thinking through this question the first challenge is what is meant by the general reference to ’homosexuality’. After all, this is the issue which is being claimed as ’first order’ and ’communion-breaking’.

The problem can be seen if the relatively uncontentious claim is made that ’Christology’ falls into this category. What exactly is being claimed? One can think of a whole range of claims that could be made about Jesus - he was unmarried, he was Jewish, he was Israel’s Messiah, he was a prophet, he is God, he is the eternal Word of God made flesh, he had two wills (divine and human). Are all of these of the same order? Are all of them issues we would consider communion-breaking? Here there have been centuries of careful theological reflection and debate. Here presumably most Christians would agree we are close to the heart of Christian faith such that some claims about Jesus are not just wrong but strictly incompatible with genuine Christian faith and being part of the catholic church. Nevertheless, we need much greater care and precision than the general label of ’Christology’. How much more must that be the case when the category is ’homosexuality’?

What then is the focus in this claim about homosexuality? Again one could think of a whole range of claims. To take two extreme examples. Someone might claim that same-sex love was the highest form of human love or, alternatively, someone might claim that all homosexual attraction was demonic and thus never experienced by a true Christian believer. These are both claims a Christian might make about ’homosexuality’. Is the acceptance or denial of them a first-order matter of Christian faith? Should we break communion with those who hold these views?

Presumably the short-hand of ’homosexuality’ or ’the gay issue’ is used by most people to refer to some of the central claims of Lambeth I.10 e.g. that homosexual practice is contrary to Scripture, that same-sex unions should not be blessed by the church and that those in such unions should not be ordained. There does, though, need to be greater clarity about what exactly must be affirmed or cannot be denied about homosexuality (and what can and cannot be done in response to homosexual love) if one is going to define it as ’first order’ or ’communion breaking’. It is only by such sharper definition that one could weigh such claims about the significance of this subject and see how the issue at stake may be related to other important issues of Christian faith and practice.

The further complication with ’homosexuality’ in contrast to say ’Christology’ or ’Trinity’ or ’atonement’ is that it relates to a widespread human phenomenon and not to an element of divine revelation. That phenomenon encompasses human desires (what we often call orientation), human actions (practice), human relationships and, in the contemporary context, often human identity. Greater clarity is needed about in which of these four areas we are being told it is vital for Christians to treat interpretation and moral evaluation of this phenomenon as a ’first order’ issue with tight constraints on what classes as a Christian stance.

Finally, when it comes to saying that ’homosexuality’ is ’communion-breaking’ there are even more difficult questions relating to what one must say or do in relation to homosexuality for the issue to become a cause of impairment or breaking of Christian fellowship. Is it a matter of someone’s personal belief? Some of the reactions to Rowan Williams’ appointment suggest it is for some. Or is it a matter of their public formal teaching and ’campaigning’? Or is it only a matter of their own personal sexuality and sexual conduct? In that case Gene Robinson would be a problem for church unity but not his supporters who do not follow his way of life. Or is it that there are a variety of personal or corporate responses to Christian same-sex couples that require an end to life in communion with those who makes these responses?

I will try to return to some of these questions after some further posts trying to understand a little more what might be meant by the other key terms of the question - ’first order’ and ’communion-breaking’.