LETTERS

Disinvestment debate

The Kirk is on the verge of losing our moral credibility on the defining issue of the century. With fires burning from the Amazon to Siberia and another summer of record temperatures, we are rightly asking congregations to lobby parliaments and governments, calling on them to do more to tackle the climate emergency.

But, despite years of ‘constructive engagement’ having unsurprisingly failed to persuade oil and gas companies to stop destroying the world, the Kirk is as yet unwilling to take the single most straightforward step we can to show the Church’s approach to saving creation amounts to more than just rhetoric. How can I persuade my fellow Parliamentarians that ours is a voice worth listening to when we cannot get our own house in order? How can we call on others to do more whilst holding on to millions of pounds of investments in the very industries which are quite literally killing our friends and neighbours around the planet? While some $10 trillion has been divested from fossil fuels by other organisations - without the calamitous effects some have warned of – the Church of Scotland has repeated the same debate year after year, failing to take action. If we strive to be a leader in the fight against the climate crisis and to be a voice worth listening to in Scottish society, we simply must finish this debate and divest from fossil fuels at next year’s Assembly.

Ross Greer MSP, Scottish Green Party, West of Scotland

If we take Brian Duffin’s argument in favour of continued investment in oil and gas companies seriously, then the church should also invest in gambling companies so that it can ‘engage’ with them to reduce gambling, and perhaps invest in tobacco companies so that we can ‘engage’ with them to reduce smoking!

The climate emergency, assisted by the fossil fuel companies and our personal consumptive lifestyles, will destroy the lives of many more people than either gambling or smoking. It is time to act with integrity and reinvest the church’s money in renewable energy and companies which are working towards “a just transition”.

David Bethune, Selkirk

Having winced at the grim likelihood of the scene portrayed in the cartoon on page 10 of the September edition of Life and Work, I would encourage any supporters of the ‘we must sell any oil and gas company shares’ argument to read Brian Duffin’s informative and balanced article ‘The disinvestment debate’ on pages 36/37.

I have had a career in the oil and gas industry and know how corporately conscious the likes of Shell and BP are of global warming and the need to develop alternative energy sources. I also believe that more influence can be exerted on these organisations ‘from within’ (eg by forming alliances with other like-minded shareholders) than by undertaking a high profile divestment action that creates a big one-time news media headline but that will most likely be forgotten all too quickly.

Donald Muir, Peterculter, Aberdeen

Prayer thoughts

I am sad and upset that you allowed the Rev Dr John Cameron’s article “Lord’s Prayer” to be printed in the September issue of Life and Work on page 10 under “Letters”. Dr Cameron – hopefully not on purpose – generalises when he talks about people of other nationality, culture and language. In this case here he does not say “some Germans” but constantly “Germans” maintain this and that and claim this and that as if every German would think so and do so.

Dr Cameron seems to clearly favour French people, language and culture. That’s his personal opinion but he should not be allowed to say in an article of Life and Work that he finds “Teutonic explanations unhelpful”.

In these days of Brexit and the rise of Nationalism and Neonazism all over Europe and the USA it is not helpful if one – particularly as a Christian and minister of Word and Sacrament – states clearly that he favours one people and nation (the French) over another people and nation (the Germans) including their language.

It is high time for us as Christians to speak out loudly again against anything that may willingly or unwillingly encourage any form of superiority and racism and not the other way around.

As a Church of Scotland German minister of Word and Sacrament I feel quite offended by Dr John Cameron and his remarks about me and my fellow countrymen and countrywomen, especially when he indicates that apparently all “Germans maintain any change is ‘streng verboten’”.

Markus Auffermann (Rev), Woodside Parish Church, Aberdeen

Politics and the Church

In Life and Work’s September issue there was news that representatives of seven denominations signing an open letter calling on the Prime Minister not to leave the EU without a deal and also letters asking the Church to be more involved in politics.

My view is unless there is a clear moral issue involved ministers should not preach politics though they are entitled to their own political viewpoints. We are a broad church with a wide spectrum of political ideas. On the specific question of Brexit it is not a moral issue but political/societal issue of how we as a nation identify ourselves. The problem of poverty and inequality is deep rooted in society and won’t change whatever happens with Brexit.

Jamie Knight, London

Ripple effect

The Very Rev Dr Chalmers’ article on ‘Profound wisdom or hate speech’ (October Life and Work) deserves wider exposure. Any who have been the object of extreme offensive attacks, made without any substantial basis in truth, know how damaging a rumour/ ‘lie’ can be. Like the French priests sack of white feathers – distributed then challenged to collect, the ripple effect is as devastating as a tsunami.

For their own sakes at the Day of Judgement, it is to be hoped that people remember what is to come and look inward rather than spreading their message far and wide. Recipients of these ‘perceived words of wisdom’ might reflect on St Augustine’s wise words before compounding the effect of that initial ‘pebble in the pool’.

James Watson, Dunbar, East Lothian

Tithing

Jackie Macadam’s article ‘God and Taxes’ in the September issue had a section on tithing to which I take exception. Tithing was a great idea up to the eighteenth century because of the Church’s role in managing Parish Poor Funds. A good portion of the tithe provided welfare for the poor. What’s more, most of the tithe fell on the large landowners, which suited everyone else!

Today it is all so different. Now welfare is provided by the state through our taxes, not by the church. Now there are a multitude of other charities in such fields as overseas aid, the environment, cancer care and much, much more. Surely any Christian will wish to contribute to a variety of such causes as well as the Church, whether or not their total giving equates to a tithe?

As a former church treasurer I have experience of the great generosity of church members. My problem as treasurer was not unwilling givers but a crippling shortage of new members.

Michael Braithwaite, Hawick

Survey Comment

The article in the October issue of Life and Work headed ‘Buildings survey deadline approaching’ seems to me to be deeply worrying. It refers to the survey being undertaken for the General Assembly by the General Trustees in connection with the reform of the Church’s administration.

It is the phrases ‘the need for well-equipped spaces in the right places’ and ‘We need to get this right’ that are particularly concerning. My worry is that the central Church’s view of what constitute ‘well-equipped’, ‘spaces’ and ‘right places’ could seriously erode the position of the national Church.

Underlying the problems in the use of the terms ‘well-equipped’ and ‘right places’ is reference to church buildings and their environs simply as ‘spaces’. It is common nowadays to say that ‘Churches are people, not buildings’. In reality buildings are vital to people’s (and not only church members’) engagement with God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and with each other. Buildings really matter spiritually as well as practically, have deep layers of meaning, and deserve much more respect than being described as ‘spaces’.

The term ‘well-equipped’ implies that modern notions of a well-equipped building should be applied to all the church buildings that will be taken into the future – things like up-to-date AV systems, café spaces and soft-play areas, which may be desirable, but are not essential. All that a church building really needs to be is a recognisable, sheltering place for public worship.

The terms ‘right places’ and ‘We need to get this right’ suggest that there are places that are ‘not right’ and that the central administration will be the arbiters of ‘rightness’. Practical experience leads one inevitably to the conclusion that rightness in the choice of geographical location is not lastingly possible.

The phrasing of the survey remit seems to suggest concentrating resources on modern churches in centres of population, rather than making church buildings available to people all over Scotland. This would be disastrous.

John R Hume, Glasgow

Life and Work welcomes letters from readers of not more than 350 words which can be sent by post to

Life and Work,121 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4YN or by email to magazine@lifeandwork.org

For verification purposes letters must be accompanied by the writer’s name, address and daytime telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be published. In exceptional circumstances the Editor will consider publishing a letter withholding the details of the writer, provided verification can be made. The Editor reserves the right to edit letters for space and legal reasons.