Below is a link to Martin Luther King’s speech in full, it remains well worth reading.
Friday, March 13, 2015
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.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
this is a re-post of my blog on Emerging Voices
in our social media age slogans with punch spread fast. following the 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 Christians 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 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/mourning-the-parisian-jou_b_6442550.html. he is editor of liberal Jewish magazine Tikkun. The word Tikkun means to mend or rectify and is often used in the phrase Tikkun Olam, the mending or healing of the world. Yet as a liberal magazine it has often questioned the actions of the Israeli state and as a result has suffered terrorist attacks by Zionist Jews and Christians. These, Lerner notes, do not get the attention of attacks by Muslims in France. Others, myself included, have been uncomfortable about an apparent blanket support for all forms of free speech and particularity Charlie Hebdo’s covers which i think are often offensive to many more than Muslims http://freethoughtblogs.com/teacosy/2015/01/08/we-should-not-kill-people-for-speech-but-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo/ . some notable examples would include a picture of the three persons of the Trinity having anal sex, depictions of Jews that look like Nazi propaganda as well as numerous portrayals of Mohammed in a similar vein. in response to this i think there is an intelligent debate about the value of free speech. we rightly value this and we do not want to live in societies in which arbitrary power and corruption thrive on the silencing of criticism, not in which petty lawsuits succeed off the back of honest comment or humour. Yet, in truth defamation cases abound in a society that deems some forms of free speech criminal, in some cases no doubt rightly so but often on the basis of the power and wealth of those offended. as many have pointed out Muslims in France are neither wealthy or powerful. i am here with Lerner when he says.
“And shouldn’t free speech and individual human liberties be our highest value? This value that is put into danger if you ask for some kind of responsibility from comedians.” Two responses: 1. No, individaul human liberties is not our highest value. Our highest value is treating human beings with love, kindness, generosity, respect and see them as embodiments of the holy, and treating the earth as sacred. Individual liberty is a strategy to promote this highest value, but when that liberty gets abused (as for example in demeaning women, African Americans, gays in public discourse) we often insist that the articulators of racism, sexism and homophobia be publicly humiliated (not shut down, but using our free speech to vigorously challenge theirs). 2. Free speech is not defeated when we use it to try to marginalize hateful or demeaning speech. So lets call demeaning speech, including demeaning humor, what it really is — an assault on the dignity of human beings.
Charlie Hebdo have not surprisingly issued a massively sold post attack edition with a cartoon of Mohammed on the front. In a sense they had to. the cartoon however, is not straightforward. The depiction of Mohammed will offend many Muslims who believe the prophet must not be depicted, and the depiction is in classic Hebdo style with a large nose and funny coloured skin. so far so expected. The text though is more complex. The headline runs ‘all is forgiven’ and the prophet is depicted with a tear rolling down his cheek and carrying a sign that says ‘Je Suis Charlie’. A previous cartoon of the prophet had him being beheaded by an ISIS fighter. Both may be read, and i think are intended to be read, as suggesting Mohammed would not be on the side of groups like ISIS or the attackers of the Hebdo cartoonists. Indeed Muslims have carried ‘Je Suis Charlie’ signs because this is their belief. Yet in other cartoons Mohammed’s depiction is connected to elements of Islam the magazine is attacking. The cover is thus both ambiguous, provocative and intriguing. It led me however, to imagine the same cover with an Hebdo Jesus instead. Jesus, offensively drawn, stands under a headline that says all is forgiven, a tear rolls down his cheek and he carries a sign that reads ‘Je Suis Charlie’. Such an image would i think be profoundly Christian; even the offensive portrayal would speak of God’s identification with the marginalized in Jesus. We are with Jesus as he dies, disfigured and says ‘Father forgive them’. What would Jesus do today? And if I am one of whom Jesus says ‘as the Father sent me I send you’, what should I do? Somehow this must involve identification with others, but this will be with all not just some, even in love of those who would kill us. If all can be forgiven can this lead us to reconciliation and not conflict? What ridicule might we be prepared to bear in its pursuit?
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2015/01/je-suis-charlie-what-would-jesus-do-exploring-some-slogans-a-little-further/#ixzz3PPPhvwt0