Diocese of Down & Dromore

Speaking at the Inter-Faith Conference, Bishop Michael Jackson calls Christian Churches to engage more actively with social and political developments that shape modern society.

Referring to the Church of Ireland's Hard Gospel Project, which focused on living with difference and emerged from the experience of Christian communities confronting the legacy of sectarianism in Northern Ireland he said that it offers a model for engaging in a range of issues including sectarianism, but also of use in developing positive inter-faith exchanges:

"One of the things I would rejoice to see is a renewed and refreshed confidence in the working out - that is the verbs more than the nouns – of the Hard Gospel principles in the specific arena of Inter Faith relations. Ireland offers us a particular cluster of opportunities and possibilities. Vast tracts of our country and people are constantly and continually in danger of being taken back into sectarianism, whether polite or less polite, from a vacuum to a vortex. The political and social theory has moved ahead of the church's response in terms of words, ideas, activities but still the philosophy of A Shared Future remains unfinished and contested business in Northern Ireland."

Full text of address follows:The Hard Gospel and Inter Faith Encounter – why would you bother?

Two booklets produced within the Church of Ireland: Life beyond Boundaries, a publication of The Hard Gospel Project (2006) and Guidelines for Interfaith Events and Dialogue, prepared jointly by the Committee for Christian Unity and the bishops of the Church of Ireland (2007) form the basis of a two-day Conference on Inter Faith issues being run by the Inter Faith Working Group of the Church of Ireland’s Commission on Unity and Dialogue held in the Church of Ireland Theological Institute on September 1st and 2nd.    

The foreword to Life Beyond Boundaries by Archbishop Eames, as Primate of All Ireland, issues a challenge in the name of The Hard Gospel Project hich in what it says remains as urgent today as it was in April 2006: 'But it (The Hard Gospel) calls for action, change and serious readjustment. Above all it represents for me the sincerity and integrity of internal examination on the same basis the Church has often demanded of society. We are in other words doing unto ourselves as we have asked of others.’

I quote this in full for the following reasons: (1) It sets before us the imperative not only to talk but to act (2) It locates such performance and transformation in a personal response (3) It reconnects with society a church which is increasingly in danger of withdrawing from society (4) It gives an interesting twist to an over-used Biblical cliché – Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In any of these particulars, it is worth delaying over. In one respect, I think the foreword could go further. It says suggestively: ‘The Gospel is a hard gospel when we take it seriously. Yet the path to Calvary was not easy...’

The Inter Faith outworking of the Hard Gospel philosophy, on which we have embarked in this Conference, takes us through and beyond Calvary - to Emmaus for the Resurrection appearances of Jesus, to Jerusalem for the Day of Pentecost and the giving of the Holy Spirit and onward to all nations. I say this because Inter Faith encounter and dialogue are a form of witnessing to one’s own faith in the context of another person’s presence as witness to his/her own faith. The last point is important because demonizing is so much easier when someone is absent. Too much of our thinking is conditioned now by media catch-cries like: clash of civilizations and axis of evil. Too much of this sentiment is itself conditioned by the Messianic complex in a secular context of Blair and Bush in response to militant Islam. If we remain stuck at this point, then the experiment and the imperative of The Hard Gospel will leave us cold and out in the cold.

One of the most important distinctions to keep in mind is that between the mirror and the mirage. Very often we think that we are ourselves seeing things when we are in fact distorting them to our own advantage and vanity. Genesis 1.26, a text shared by all three so-styled Abrahamic Faiths, is insistent that humankind is made in God’s image and likeness. The Guidelines for Interfaith Events and Dialogue argue that all people are our brothers and sisters by virtue of creation. The argument from creation brings in the argument for peace and justice as something which respects and enhances the integrity of creation. But it also personalizes it. The Corinthian Epistles in particular press home for Christians the recognition of the face of Jesus Christ in the face of the other. This again is a feature of Christian theology common both to The Hard Gospel and to Inter Faith encounter. God reveals the self of God.

The Jewish injunction to love God and love our neighbour as we love ourselves presents a comprehensive challenge to all three Abrahamic religions, and it is this:

Is a particular religious identity, any religious identity, of itself so self-justifying that the religious person assumes that he loves God and that this never needs to be questioned? To my mind this goes some way to offering an explanation as to why the young lawyer in St Luke 10 makes the assumption of himself that it is self-evident that he loves God. It has been the tragedy of a society infected and imbued by sectarianism, such as the island of Ireland, to assume, selectively and according to one’s own denominational-cultural allegiance and affiliation, the best in oneself and the worst in others. It remains the on-going and tragic flaw of a country which maximizes the importance of its own religio-cultural identity to assume, selectively once more, the best in oneself and the worst in others. Self-knowledge and self-love involve and require the presence of our neighbour. Both repudiate self-hatred and hatred of the other. Hence, the commentary on the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Life Beyond Boundaries is particularly helpful: ‘We also need to learn how rightly to know and love ourselves – to know and understand our true identity, in the context of a sustained and loving relationship with God and our neighbour.’

Archbishop Eames, in my opinion rightly, raised the issue of the church’s internal examination – in terms of action, change and serious readjustment – on the same basis as that on which the church has often demanded of society. This takes us to the heart of our dilemma and, like any dilemma, it is not and can not be simple. The old-style Christendom is dead and gone. There are, however, still many monolithic states where culture and religion dictate and control much of life from day to day both in terms of practice and policy. Two other components need to be remembered. There still is an expectation of a benign presidency by the church in society – and yet as any of us who was involved in the now-defunct Church in Society Committee in the Church of Ireland knows, once there was anything on paper which sounded in any way progressive, there was intense twitchiness in many parts of the Church of which we as Members of that Committee were also part.

There is, further, an expectation of asking theological questions in today’s society. People talk theologically in coffee shops, over dinner, in the bus as well as at home. This comes from a number of factors – all of them derived from the information technology revolution, now slumbering and coming to life alternately in most Western sitting rooms and coat pockets – laptop, iphone or ipad. The global information revolution poses cosmic questions. These questions are rightly considered theological but they are not the sorts of questions which churches regularly ask. Churches have ecclesiasticized theology and have ecclesiasticized information. Theological questions of the broadest kind are frightening to many church people for another reason and, to my mind, it is this: because they ask them to witness, to substantiate their faith. They are, in the idiom of The Hard Gospel pamphlet Life beyond boundaries: questions beyond boundaries. And the very asking of them takes us beyond sectarianism and denominationalism. The movement of the Holy Spirit coming in and out of the church means that we cannot control a wind which blows where it wills (St John 3.8).

One of the by-products of the lazy easiness with which we have accustomed ourselves to a low-density, small-input Christian culture is that it is all rather vague when anyone asks us any questions. Christianity is so glorious, in my opinion, because it is so richly complex. Conflictual journalism and confrontational interviewing have a field-day because no two people will argue or plead in the same way about the same religious topic or issue. From the outside, other world religions seem devastatingly straightforward. Jewish people seem to recite the Torah three times a day – and that is it. Muslims seem to pray five times a day – and that is it. Buddhists seem to sit and meditate – we’d all love to do that, we think – and that is it. Christians seem to go to church for one hour each week – and that is it. Caricatures abound and all of them are unhelpful.

People involved in Inter Faith dialogue are, rightly, concerned to make very clear that it is not Ecumenism nor is it religious syncretism. There are, nonetheless, specific things we need to keep in mind and to learn from ecumenical thought and practice as we embark on Inter Faith life and work in the Church of Ireland in a serious, meaningful and organized way. In the ecumenical context, Fr Michael Hurley SJ spoke of ecumenical tithing, that is, spending one tenth of one’s time of worship, prayer and charity in a denomination other than one’s own. Is there scope for a version of such a model in an Inter Faith understanding? Beware the high theological level and not honouring the local and the simple goodness of human achievements! It is important that those who lead stand with those who follow. It is important also to realize and to celebrate that, as in the ecumenical realm, the local sharing of life and respect is often more efficacious than the cerebral interchange of ideas. Do not be frightened to be adventurous! God does not need us to prop him up in our section of the church for God to continue to exist, flourish and love worldwide in abundant graciousness. Expect things to be sporadic and do not be knocked down at the first challenge or insult! Remember too that we are members of the Anglican Communion and that the resources of NIFCON (The Network for Inter Faith Concerns) are there to be called upon and used.

Personally, I am more interested in verbs and nouns and it is for this reason that I welcome words like: action, change and serious readjustment in the foreword to Life Beyond Boundaries. It is because so much is shared and learned in the doing together and in the surprises which come through in that doing. But there are nouns and there have to be nouns – because nouns are, of course, the result of what verbs do. They need to be addressed if we are to move forward. We need, as a matter of urgency, to address the relationship between a number of pairs of words if we are to deal with difference positively in Ireland and in our churches today: principle and prejudice; permission and precedent; analysis and action.

One of the things I would rejoice to see is a renewed and refreshed confidence in the working out – that is the verbs more than the nouns – of the Hard Gospel principles in the specific arena of Inter Faith relations. Ireland offers us a particular cluster of opportunities and possibilities. Vast tracts of our country and people are constantly and continually in danger of being taken back into sectarianism, whether polite or less polite, from a vacuum to a vortex. The political and social theory has moved ahead of the church’s response in terms of words, ideas, activities but still the philosophy of A Shared Future remains unfinished and contested business in Northern Ireland. The findings and recommendations of the Consultative Group on the Past – alias The Eames-Bradley Commission – despite already being used as a template in sophisticated conflict resolution internationally, found its impact whittled away almost to nothing in the minds of so many because of the specific £12,000 payment suggested to families of victims. In the Republic of Ireland, in relation to the registration of civil partnerships, we have been dragged into the present of other European countries and have been forced to admit that, while we might prefer it were the state to create a special category for civil servants who as Christians dissent in conscience from involvement in any way in such registrations, we accept the entitlement of the state to legislate for equality in this area. Citizenship and conscience need to converse, co-exist and move forward in good faith.

The Section 75 (1) provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 - alias the Equality Agenda – does not apply directly to churches in respect of the need to promote equality of opportunity. Section 75 however, does go on to provide that public authorities must have regard ‘to the desirability of promoting good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or religious group.’ Would it not be something rather wonderful were the Church of Ireland to grapple creatively, compassionately and courageously with the spirit contained within the letter of Section 75, rather than, perhaps, looking quizzically at it over our half-moon glasses, and looking to see what of ourselves as we are we can safeguard as we pick through it? This is where, in a sense, I have my biggest bone to pick with the young lawyer. Eternal life is not an inheritance, a commodity, an achievement. It is a present which is partially opened already in this life. We have confused the kingdom of God with moral correctitude; we have put our own values between the generosity of God and the people of the land, that is, those whom Jesus embraced and whom no self-respecting religioso would touch; we have turned into a commodity on the shelf of our own religious supermarket God’s pearl of great price.

The hope expressed in The Hard Gospel Scoping Study Report is that ‘members of the Church of Ireland would be equipped to become more confident in their inclusive Christian identity, engage in good citizenship, make a positive impact on society and experience the freedom to be truly Christian and part of a diverse but unified church.’ Personally, I should like to see more evidence of this and hear of more models of sustained good practice on a regular basis. The Hard Gospel programme, approved by the Standing Committee of the Church of Ireland in 2005, confirms that ‘The Church of Ireland wishes to make a creative contribution to the new and diverse society which is emerging in Ireland, north and south.’ This society is emerging and will continue to emerge whether we are part of it or not. It will not wait for us to agonize over our identity in an era of change. Again, if I may be permitted to draw and take a parallel from ecumenism, we in the Church of Ireland have done all too little to make the various ecumenical Agreements of which we are part across European Christianity work within Ireland itself. The one noble exception is Porvoo and it is in fact to a Porvoo Meeting in Oslo in 2003 that we owe the genesis of our Guidelines for Interfaith Events and Dialogue. Three members of the Church of Ireland were there as were two of the speakers at this Conference.

We live daily the dilemma of two clear Patristic theological emphases in Europe. This choice at its starkest is between (a) an exclusivity in Christian belonging, derived from the later Augustine and excessively influential in contemporary western theological systems which are derivative of Augustinianism, all of which have a hard doctrine of the Fall and (b) the theology of Irenaeus which has a very different, developmental understanding of Christian discipleship and the emergence of maturity and adulthood with responsibility over a lifetime of living with God, as propounded primarily by the Orthodox traditions. In my own understanding, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo leads through to the diversity of the body of Christ. A body which does not move does not go anywhere. The energy of believing has not got to do with making us more like ourselves or even making our neighbour more like us, but with letting God make both our neighbour and ourselves more like God.