by Ian Paul, Psephizo
Sir Paul Marshall, the owner of GB News, has apparently committed the unforgivable sin. Instead of seeking to save the planet from global warming, he has contributed money to the seemingly lesser cause of actually seeing people saved by coming to faith in Jesus.
The co-owner of GB News, a British TV channel accused of broadcasting climate change denial, has donated £28m to influential Church of England institutions that support climate action.
This raises “serious questions”, say Christian leaders, given that Sir Paul Marshall’s views on the climate crisis and those frequently broadcast on the TV channel are “in direct opposition” to the Church of England, which believes that “responding to the climate crisis is an essential part of our responsibility to safeguard God’s creation and achieve a just world”.
Rev Dr Darrell Hannah (whom I happen to know from NT academics) is chair of Operation Noah, a ‘leading UK Christian climate charity.’ He commented:
Marshall’s views are in direct opposition to those of the Church of England. Given his outsized influence on our country – and in light of his problematic views on the most significant moral and practical challenge of our time – serious questions need to be asked about Sir Paul Marshall’s donations to faith groups, and specifically to the Church of England. This cannot go unchallenged.
There is quite a lot here which ‘cannot go unchallenged’—not least the projection of what Sir Paul actually believes. The same Guardian article actually cites his position.
Sir Paul generally agrees with Christian and Anglican teaching on the environment and climate change. Like many people, including many Christians, he just doesn’t subscribe to net zero by 2050 due to the serious negative impact on poor people, their communities and the economy. Instead, he prefers to allow human innovation to adapt to and to limit climate change. This is a perfectly reasonable position held by millions of people, including many Christians.
GB News (the other villain of the piece here) might well have challenged some of the dogmatic approaches to climate change; presenters have accepted that the climate is changing, but they have challenged claims about the rate of change and the costs of ‘net zero’—as have many others.
(I do love the naming of a climate charity ‘Operation Noah’, when the story of Noah in Genesis 8 to 10 was largely about God’s judgement on the evil of humanity, and his saving of the faithful remnant of Noah’s family…)