This post is prompted by a number
of things that have left me pondering how as Christians we are to bring about change
in our churches. When we strongly
believe in an issue of justice and yet find that opposed. It is one thing to
fight for justice against a government or institution, but what if the struggle
is within your own institution? Indeed among the very people who share the
faith that inspires our desire to see change? When those we oppose are our
brothers and sisters in that faith?
The Church of England, which I am
a part of, has just allowed women to be bishops. This is follows efforts to
bring around an acceptance of women as ministers and bishop that has spanned
several decades. At various points through our synod system in which three
houses of lay people, priests and Bishops must all support any change by a
2/3rds majority the move was almost made and then lost by only one group note
voting in favour by a big enough margin. In reality for years a minority
stopped the change that most desired. And yet now we have finally got there.
Are there still those opposed? Yes, and not without controversy most have
stayed in the church but with provision made for them whilst acknowledging that
women are now bishops to largely avoid their ministry. It is still too early to
know how this compromise will work, but for now it is working. Those who
strongly disagree are finding some way forward together, if it is yet still a
fragile path.
The issue of equal recognition
for those in same sex relationships and equal marriage is much further back.
There is a strong growing voice seeking change but at present in the church
structures this is a minority voice. Amid strong feelings on both sides the
church is trying to facilitate what it is calling ‘good disagreement’. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10600411/Church-of-England-bishops-we-agree-on-one-thing-that-we-cant-agree-on-homosexuality.html
The hope is that those on differing sides of the discussion can listen to each
other and find some place of understanding those and acknowledging the faith of
those whom they disagree with. I have recently been part of an informal online
discussion seeking to put this into practice.
It has not been easy! On the one hand are many who have been
marginalised, rejected and deeply wounded because of their belief that they are
called to be Christians in same sex relationships. Many of these are angry and
don’t want to hear anymore the words and attitudes they have faced. On the
other people who believe that the acceptance of same sex relationships is a
fundamental abandonment of morality. With
such a backdrop it was perhaps no surprise if some of the disagreement was
anything but ‘good’. Indeed from both sides there a voices suspicious that
‘good disagreement’ is just an attempt to brush the issue under the carpet.
There are also those on both sides who think the only solution is for the
church to split. The only way forward for us not to be in the same church.
Indeed it is clear some on both sides can no longer really accept that the
others are even Christian. Moving on to a place in which change might happen
and this find support with provision for those who disagreed so they could
remain together seems at best a long way off, let alone good disagreement. In spite of this there was also much good from many people of all positions in that discussion and therefore some hope.
Working
for change is not easy, indeed it can be very costly and take great courage.
The film Selma, about the US Civil Rights Movement, has been showing recently
in the UK. The trailer poster boldly proclaims ‘one dream can change the
world’. This connects us to one of the 20th century’s great
speeches, Martin Luther King declaring ‘I have a dream…’ This is full of famous
passages often quoted and played, indeed even used in pop songs. We remember it
not just for the great rhetoric, but because it encapsulates a way of working
for civil rights that was both prepared to have courage and yet also sought
peaceful change. A terrorist movement was a real alternative. When King gave that speech in Washington in
1963 he had already been campaigning for desegregation for 8 years. In 1964
this led to a bill ending desegregation in the south but on the ground in many
places it was not implemented. The Selma marches that the film is named after
happened in response to segregation in 1965. King was still campaigning when he
was shot dead in 1968.
I wonder what King would say to
those who dream of justice in our churches and the end of segregation on
account of sexual orientation? Perhaps these words from that speech are ones
that he might echo?
‘There will be neither rest nor
tranquillity in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The
whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until
the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I
must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the
palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be
guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by
drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our
struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our
creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must
rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvellous new militancy
which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all
white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence
here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our
destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound
to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the
pledge that we shall always march ahead.
We cannot turn back’.
It is King’s passion not to give
up, yet to go on embracing those who would oppose, even with violence that
gives the ‘soul force’ to his dream. The realisation that they cannot walk
alone, and yet cannot turn back. This is a hard road and one that must at times
have seemed intolerable, but it is the road that reflects the one who called us
to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us, let alone when we feel
those are members of our own family of faith.
Good disagreement? As part of
learning to understand and love the other perhaps. As a long term solution? No.
yet revolution cannot be the answer either, the overcoming or expelling of the
other is not an option for those who follow Christ the one who seeks to
reconcile and include all. And so with King we are called to the slow and
painful path that does not turn back, but seeks to draw all together not
through violence or power, but with love and a strong belief that we truly are
brothers and sisters in Christ.
Below is a link to Martin Luther King’s speech in full, it remains well worth reading.
events in Paris earlier this month it is not surprising that ‘Je Suis Charlie’ has been much used in solidarity with the cartoonists at satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo gunned down by Islamic fighters on account of their portrayals of Mohammed. Many of my Christian friends still have as their Facebook image the sign for a Christian used by ISIS to identify houses lived in by Christ
ians before they are forced to pay taxes under a form of Shari law or be killed. both symbols are about the power of identification, a show of solidarity with those attacked by saying ‘I am one with you, I too am attacked’. Most powerfully both symbols have been used by Muslims to show their solidarity with others against those Muslims who are the perpetrators of the violence. This response is understandable indeed in some cases very brave. People identifying with each other, especially across potential cultural, racial or religious divisions, is something i think we should all support. our world needs reconciliation when there is so much division and prejudice. Yet i have found myself sympathizing with a number of voices who want to condemn what happened in Paris bu questioning if they really want to say ‘I am Charlie’. One of the most eloquent is this piece in the Huffington Post by Rabbi Michael Lerner