Ship of Fools: A Fundamentalist Province of the UK?

Thread: A Fundamentalist Province of the UK? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026719

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Northern Ireland has always had fundamentalist tendencies, both religiously and politically, which in no small way led to a lot of rather gruesome conflict. However, there has been a decent period of sustained 'peace', but the issues one would expect to be less fought over seem to be becoming more entrenched.

To give a recent example: a local council managed to secure a banning of the Reduced Bible by the Reduced Shakespeare Company. I've seen this myself, and while a lot of religious comedy can sit uneasily with me, I think you would have to be fairly uptight to find anything truly offensive in this play. But one play is not the whole story. In the last five years or so there have been a number of 'interventions', both on religious and political grounds, with the resulted banning of art, plays and even books from school ciriculums. There have also been recent fuss's over school book notes, the teaching of evolution in schools, certain plays and art works that have not resulted in banning, but have been viciously fought none the less.

The 'reformed' church scene is radically changing too. There have always been a plethora of fundamentalist shacks dotted all over Northern Ireland, but the recent rise in them seems to suggest that society is moving in a certain direction (at least within one strata or section of the community). Denominations like the Presbyterians, Methodists and Episcopalians have seen very significant drops in numbers in the last decade. Now I know there are many reasons for this, but that's not what I'm interested in here. In response to that, what many of them appear to be doing is forming themselves and even aligning themselves with the fundamentalist shack that is their neighbour, which in many cases seems to be where the new generation of church goers went.

You could argue that this is a Protestant anomaly, but with the two major players in power being the DUP (seen as 'Protestant') and Sinn Féin (seen as 'Roman Catholic') and despite most of these episodes emanating from the concerns of the DUP; Sinn Féin seems remarkably compliant. What is worrying is that local councils expect to be able to weigh in on such matters to begin with. Surely this is well outside their powers and even their remit? The fact that they have won victories in many of these situations does not bode well, as it might set a precedent for further rulings in such matters.

I haven't lived in the North for a very long time, but when I do journey back to it these issues seem to be much more apparent than they ever were before - despite having been issues before. Is it possible to have for example, a fundamentalist city run by a fundamentalist council? There seems to be nothing being done to protect against this kind of activity, and it is sad to say it, but I can see this having a very significant bearing on 'peace' in Northern Ireland.

[ 27. January 2014, 12:11: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Nearly everything I hear about Norn Irn just makes me wonder if we're talking about another planet. I just don't get the place. I'm drawn to responses like "A marching season? A Marching season? WT very F?!?" - then when I hear about people holding vigils over their right to march down a particular street, even though it annoys the hell out of everyone living there. Not that I understand the annoyance either. They're just other people - why the fear and loathing?

Like I say, I don't get the place.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think to understand Northern Ireland, you have to understand that it is critically, historically and fundamentally divided on religious affiliation* grounds. Even when they can agree on more minor matters like who rules them, and whether they should be allowed to kill others, the fundamental divide remains.

The marching season is a core reflective of this. The idea that anyone should stop them celebrating their religions victory over their neighbours is seem as a fundamental affront to their faith.

Of course, when the expressions of their faith - like killing the infidel - are removed, their passion for more religious-worded fervour is increased.

What is more, the less Ian Paisley rants and raves - and he seems to be beyond this nowadays - the more chance their is for someone else to take this banner of "No Popery".

So to me, this makes sense, with the more recent political developments there. "sense" of course is always a relative term when dealing with the Northern Irish. They are lovely people, yes, but when it comes to their religion, they make the rest of us look sane and reasonable.

*Note this is not necessarily the same as actually faith. It is a label, not a faith statement.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've only visited the Province once, in 1998 just as the peace process seemed to be kicking in.

I was struck by how full the church car-parks were on Sundays and how many churches were open on a Friday night with people 'witnessing' to passers by and so on ...

And by the number of guys out handing out tracts.
'Will ye accept an invitation to join us at the Metropolitan Tabernacle on Sunday?'

People tell me, though, that things aren't what they were. That church attendance is slipping, that people are less bothered about some of the strictures ...

I've always liked the story, probably apocryphal, about the wee elder leading the prayers in a Presbyterian church within earshot of a large park where steam train rides had been introduced for the kiddies on a Sunday.

The elder waxed lyrically about this desecration of the Sabbath in his prayers when, as if to illustrate his point, the whistle of the steam train could clearly be heard from the direction of the park.

'And if you listen Lord,' prayed the elder, 'Ye can hear the sound of the engine whistle noi ...'

Noi - my attempt to render 'now' in Ulster pronunciation.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Personally, I think if Ulster's protestants were more aware of how the establishment of Protestant power in Ireland - especially Ulster - was little more than a bid to increase the British Empire's gross profit margins, they'd be less ideologically attached to the politics that were inevitably born out of those times. It's much less romantic, religiously, to see oneself as merely a useful pawn in the wider game of wealth-acquiring politics.

Unfortunately, the plantations of land-seeking protestants in what was and always was throughout a Catholic nation, was always bound to end in confusion, prejudice and injustice. In the centuries-long British bid to 'domesticate' and harvest the resources and people of Ireland there are no real winners, so far as the native populations are concerned. Just a spectrum of degrees of success, depending on location and place in history.

As for the marching thing. I lived in an area of Lancashire/formerly Yorkshire where the churches march the streets every year - brass bands, and such like; robed choir and clergy etc. I wonder how pacific and submissive these good English folk would be if they were requested not to march where they had paraded for some few hundreds of years previously, because a significant number of the locals were opposed to it? (Which incidentally they are - roads are blocked off, it's quite expensive to staff the event, not everyone's a Christian etc.)

I could live without either Protestants or Catholics marching, or occupying the streets with their own peculiar brand of patriotism or religious adherence; they get in the way of my shopping and my freedom to not listen to their music, or read their slogans. But I would much prefer to live in a country where all non-violent demonstrations/marches/expressions of opinion are respected and tolerated.

Banning is a short-term expedient which merely ensures that the problem remains, but festering and growing below the surface, and giving sanction to people's sense of oppression and resentment. This feeds quite directly into hardening religious attitudes, such as the ones Fletcher Christian refers to. The more the identity of the British Ulster Protestant is blurred or undermined, the less secure s/he will feel and the more inclined to be religiously hardline.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've always liked the story, probably apocryphal, about the wee elder leading the prayers in a Presbyterian church within earshot of a large park where steam train rides had been introduced for the kiddies on a Sunday.

The elder waxed lyrically about this desecration of the Sabbath in his prayers when, as if to illustrate his point, the whistle of the steam train could clearly be heard from the direction of the park.

'And if you listen Lord,' prayed the elder, 'Ye can hear the sound of the engine whistle noi ...'

The spirit of Mrs Proudie, still alive and well! She who objected to the running of the trains to Barchester on 'the Sabbath'. Just the thin wedge of rampant secularism. Of course, to many fundamentalist Christians in Ulster, she was absolutely right! To such folk, the godless morass of immorality, decadence and debauchery that England now is only goes to prove it!!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Well yes. Ideally we wouldn't want to ban Orange marches. We'd want things to change so much that Catholics weren't threatened by them and could enjoy the spectacle without fear. (And much less importantly us soft lefty beard and sandals Protestants could enjoy the spectacle without guilt). After all they are sort of fun in a swaggering outdated-version-of-macho kind of way. And those lambeg drums can be wonderful.

But Northern Ireland seems to be nowhere near that situation. Much of Scotland isn't either.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think seeing the 6 counties only in religious terms is confusing, since then you miss out on the history of Ireland, and how the 6 counties remained British. I'm not denying that religion counts for a lot, but so does nationalism, of different kinds. I nearly wrote the '6 county statelet'; I mixed with bad company!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But Northern Ireland seems to be nowhere near that situation. Much of Scotland isn't either.

Indeed. There's a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice here, and the local authority still bans football colours from schools.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

What's the state of the Anglican Church in Northern Ireland? From my recollection, Anglicans historically are a small minority with most Protestants being Presbyterian or Congregationalists.

As a small minority, the NI Anglicans may serve as good mediators.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What's the state of the Anglican Church in Northern Ireland? From my recollection, Anglicans historically are a small minority with most Protestants being Presbyterian or Congregationalists.

As a small minority, the NI Anglicans may serve as good mediators.

In theory, this should be so. Certainly, in my student days in the 70s it simply meant that they were distrusted by both sides, either as Protestants with services masquerading as sacraments and piratical in their expropriation of the altars of the saints of a thousand years or, on the other side, as still possessed by the spirit of popery.

By all accounts, such sentiments are fading away rapidly, and as the peace process continues and slowly but slowly things begin to heal, CoI clerics and leaders have sometimes been able to build bridges so that clergy of all sides can be seen together in public (e.g., the Queen's visit to Enniskillen).

Perhaps it might be best to think of the CoI's position as being one where gifted clergy and leaders can be a point of contact where conversations and, perhaps someday, joint activities can happen. Given the history and culture of the province, that's a valuable opportunity.

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

I live in Liverpool and we have a lot of Orange marches and I think it's great. The bien pensants like to sneer at the prod working class (anyone here recognise themselves?), while giving Gerry Admas and co a free pass, so it's great to see the Lodge giving them a big Fuck You!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think Ken answered that one a few posts back. Bonfire Night celebrations are now enjoyed by people irrespective of religion or politics.

Incidentally I live in Liverpool and I've only seen one Orange march in the last ten years. I know they happen but they are not that obvious to most people, unless they are trying to get to Southport on 12 July.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

My feeling is that fundamentalism is not really the problem in N.Ireland. I think that the general level of religious commitment - while still very high compared to the rest of the UK - is not as great as it once was. But this does not necessarily make the level of sectarianism any the less. It's a question of identity, not "how fundamentalist are you".

For example, the old joke of "Are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?" does not really arise in practice because.... all Jews count as Protestants. A Jewish friend whose family had emigrated from N.I. to Wales during the Troubles told me how his father would watch news bulletins and say things like "Well, your head might agree with Molyneux... but your heart agrees with Paisley, doesn't it..."

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I live in Liverpool and we have a lot of Orange marches and I think it's great. The bien pensants like to sneer at the prod working class (anyone here recognise themselves?), while giving Gerry Admas and co a free pass, so it's great to see the Lodge giving them a big Fuck You!

Yeah, how great to celebrate the imperial oppression of a native people and their faith. [Roll Eyes]

What a deeply un-Christian sentiment. I must have missed the bit in the Bible where Jesus celebrates imperialism, must be because He Himself was in an occupied land and saw its evils.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
My feeling is that fundamentalism is not really the problem in N.Ireland. I think that the general level of religious commitment - while still very high compared to the rest of the UK - is not as great as it once was. But this does not necessarily make the level of sectarianism any the less. It's a question of identity, not "how fundamentalist are you".

For example, the old joke of "Are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?" does not really arise in practice because.... all Jews count as Protestants. A Jewish friend whose family had emigrated from N.I. to Wales during the Troubles told me how his father would watch news bulletins and say things like "Well, your head might agree with Molyneux... but your heart agrees with Paisley, doesn't it..."

The government is clearly quite fundamentalist, given how NI stands on DH compared to the rest of the UK.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The government is clearly quite fundamentalist, given how NI stands on DH compared to the rest of the UK.

It is also a Unionist/Nationalist coalition. One of the bastions of Partition when I was growing up was the perception that it ensured freedom of conscience on moral and social questions, denied to the priest-ridden South.

Also, I would advise against buying into the English Protestant Imperialist vs Irish Catholic Nationalist myth. Was Swift a Catholic? Or Wolfe Tone? Or Henry Joy McCracken? Or Charles Stewart Parnell?

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

The basic problem seems to be, in essence, that the bedrock of neither party will accept a settlement that does not involve the humiliation of the other.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Well said, Firenze.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be fair, Jade Constable, the Liverpool working class - of whatever persuasion - have good grounds to say a 'Big Fuck You!' to anyone and everyone.

That said, Scousers like Trouty can also be nauseatingly self-pitying and feel that the whole world is against them ...

Which is probably about right, come to think of it ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The government is clearly quite fundamentalist, given how NI stands on DH compared to the rest of the UK.

This does not follow at all. Theological liberals are not necessarily socially liberal. I'm sure religious conservatism has its influence, but the inference "conservative DH stance THEREFORE fundamentalist" is not valid.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The government is clearly quite fundamentalist, given how NI stands on DH compared to the rest of the UK.
It is also a Unionist/Nationalist coalition. One of the bastions of Partition when I was growing up was the perception that it ensured freedom of conscience on moral and social questions, denied to the priest-ridden South.

Also, I would advise against buying into the English Protestant Imperialist vs Irish Catholic Nationalist myth. Was Swift a Catholic? Or Wolfe Tone? Or Henry Joy McCracken? Or Charles Stewart Parnell?

I was listening to the radio today (R4, naturally), when there was a discussion of the Great War's effect on Irish society. One point stuck out enormously: there were 400 people in the General Post Office (of which, as the joke goes, 5000 survived), and 200,000 Irish citizens fought for King and Country in the trenches, volunteers all I believe.

Also, despite being a beardy leftie, I well remember Gerry Adams and his friends trying to kill me - so no free pass here.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I live in Liverpool and we have a lot of Orange marches and I think it's great. The bien pensants like to sneer at the prod working class (anyone here recognise themselves?), while giving Gerry Admas and co a free pass, so it's great to see the Lodge giving them a big Fuck You!
Yeah, how great to celebrate the imperial oppression of a native people and their faith.

Give me strength. I mean, far be it from me to defend the Orange Order (I have forced my car through an Orange roadblock in the past more than once) but Orange marches in Liverpool are the expression of their home culture by a minority group. The world doesn't easily divide into heroes and villains.

I hate the 12th. Always avoid being in NI for it.But there's not going to be any progress if the English chattering classes don't even attempt to understand why this matters to certain groups of people.

To add one more nuance. Growing up in a middle class Protestant home in NI my parents were lifelong avidly churchgoing evangelicals (easily portrayed as fundies, and certainly on the DH issues of the day) But they were involved in a group (as were many of their friends) which organised community discussions on big issues with the other side of the community, many of whom were their friends. The trouble didn't emanate from particularly religious people at all, but from a group of people who shouted loudly about their Protestant heritage but barely darkened the door of a church. So simple equation of religious fundamentalism with the troubles is ...well...wrong. IME. I haven't lived there for 15 years.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

It isn't just the protestants in N.I. who are conservatives on the Dead Horse issues of the day. Bad 1970s joke: "Catholics and Protestants unite against ecumenism".

The fact is that in Northern Ireland you have a local government which is based on an alliance between Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party. In no other part of the UK or, indeed, the bits of Europe with paved roads and literacy would this be considered a tolerable state of affairs. Indeed, speaking of affairs, the Alliance Party, which sits with the European Liberals in the EU Parliament, and is basically in favour of peace, love and an end to sectarianism only won representation in Parliament because the wife of a leading DUP stalwart had an affair with a 19 year old man. Coo-coo-cuchoo Mrs Robinson, as they say. But I think that English people (like yours truly) comfortable in their secularitee and convinced of their immesurable superiority to the rest of the world ought to reflect for a moment on the fact that if Ulster is dysfunctional we might, perhaps, bear some of the blame for that.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

These things are never neat and tidy.

On the whole I agree with Leprechaun - a lot of conservative or verging-on-fundamentalist Christians in Nor'n Ir'n' didn't have any truck with the sectarian violence at all.

That said, there were practising RCs and practising Prods involved in some pretty hairy stuff.

I know an Ulster Catholic here whose father - a very devout Catholic - used to throw people out of his house if he so much as heard them refer to Protestants in even the mildest of derogatory ways.

He'd grown up in the 1920s and hated sectarianism with a passion.

The same applied, no doubt, on the other side of the sectarian divide ... but neither side is completely squeaky clean. No-one is.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I live in Liverpool and we have a lot of Orange marches and I think it's great. The bien pensants like to sneer at the prod working class (anyone here recognise themselves?), while giving Gerry Admas and co a free pass, so it's great to see the Lodge giving them a big Fuck You!
Yeah, how great to celebrate the imperial oppression of a native people and their faith.

Give me strength. I mean, far be it from me to defend the Orange Order (I have forced my car through an Orange roadblock in the past more than once) but Orange marches in Liverpool are the expression of their home culture by a minority group. The world doesn't easily divide into heroes and villains.

I hate the 12th. Always avoid being in NI for it.But there's not going to be any progress if the English chattering classes don't even attempt to understand why this matters to certain groups of people.

To add one more nuance. Growing up in a middle class Protestant home in NI my parents were lifelong avidly churchgoing evangelicals (easily portrayed as fundies, and certainly on the DH issues of the day) But they were involved in a group (as were many of their friends) which organised community discussions on big issues with the other side of the community, many of whom were their friends. The trouble didn't emanate from particularly religious people at all, but from a group of people who shouted loudly about their Protestant heritage but barely darkened the door of a church. So simple equation of religious fundamentalism with the troubles is ...well...wrong. IME. I haven't lived there for 15 years.

You misunderstand. I'm not equating religious fundamentalism with the Troubles, I'm saying it is inappropriate for a Christian to celebrate the 'Glorious' Revolution and the oppression of the Irish by the English. Nothing to do with religion.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not equating religious fundamentalism with the Troubles, I'm saying it is inappropriate for a Christian to celebrate the 'Glorious' Revolution and the oppression of the Irish by the English. Nothing to do with religion.

The Glorious Revolution OTOH was entirely about religion - the refusal of English to accept a Catholic monarch. (Though to add to the mix, William of Orange had the backing of Pope Alexander VIII.)

If - as you appear to be doing - you take it as a synecdoche for the entire course of Anglo-Irish relations over 800 years, then I would submit you are failing to understand the event itself and its context. Religion has everything to do with it, and with subsequent history.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

No one who has ever eaten Ulster Fry with champ in Brights Restaurant or similar, washed down with some of the black stuff, will ever believe the province is beyond redemption.

But seriously, folks ...

I made a lot of trips to Belfast for work reasons during the troubles, was gladdened by the experiences of generous hospitality from folks on both sides of the divide. And saddened by the effect of the troubles. Gildas is right. Leprechaun is right. Drawing simplistic conclusions about the province is not helpful.

Apart from the champ, the Ulster Fry and the Black stuff, that is. Particularly when shared with mixed company. Not much of an ecumenical experience but it was a start.

[ 28. January 2014, 19:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I would not be so sure. Of the three known plot leaders two were Anglican and one was Roman Catholic It was about power and status more than religion.

What even more remarkable the only side that may not have been present among the plotters were the Presbyterians. There may have been a fourth, and if there was he was Presbyterian.

It was weird when I found that out on a visit to Revolution House. D'Arcy was Roman Catholic. The Presbyterian name that is missing a Booth of Dunham Massey, I can't recall which.

Oh and if you are wondering why the Booths were so circumspect, well a distance cousin was a certain Jane Grey

Jengie

[ 28. January 2014, 19:20: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I would not be so sure. Of the three known plot leaders two were Anglican and one was Roman Catholic It was about power and status more than religion.

If you were part of a ruling elite, then realpolitik might well trump faith - as witness the Pope/King William nexus. But the populace? Acknowledging that the content of 'religion' could include actual faith propositions, and sectarian, tribal or national loyalties and identities as well.

Like the story of the American visitor to Ulster:
'Say, what is this?'
'It's The Twelth!'
'I know what day it is'
'The Twelth of July!'
'And I know what month it is - but what's it about?'
'Away home and read your Bible!'

I would say that the divide in Ulster is religious, but you need to understand how religion functions in that society - as witness the stooshie mentioned in the OP.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But the divide in the six counties is not only religious - how can it be? It connects very obviously with Irish nationalism and British nationalism.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

The NI divide is both religious and national because both sides follow versions of Christianity which believe in the idea of a 'Christian country'; with rival versions of Christianity involved both are seeking to be the ruling version and avoid being the minority discriminated-against party. The Catholics/Republicans seek that aim by also seeking reunion with nominally Catholic Eire, the Protestants/Unionists by seeking to perpetuate the union (sorry, 'Union') with nominally Protestant England. Of course there are all sorts of other factors involved besides religion - economic factors and anti-colonialism for starters - but the religious factor makes the whole thing unusually intractable; surrendering "God's cause" in not an option in such circumstances.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The Glorious Revolution OTOH was entirely about religion - the refusal of English to accept a Catholic monarch.

Well, it also had quite a lot to do with the primacy of parliament over the Monarchy, and a lot of the anti-Catholic feeling wasn't so much religious bigotry as it was the refusal to accept a de facto foreign overlord in the Pope.

Yes, there were real religious arguments, but it was far from just a religious matter.

(Alexander VIII may have supported William III, but the Pope at the time of the Glorious Revolution was Innocent XI, who certainly did support William III, for reasons that contained plenty of murky politics both religious and secular.)

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

Currently there is a historic enquiry going on in Banbridge investigating cases of abuse in children's homes which will eventually include the notorious Kincora. Currently Nazareth House and Termonbacca in Derry are under the spotlight and there are plenty of horrific stories on the RTE and BBC Northern Ireland news sites. The curious thing is that none of these stories came into the public domain until now unlike cases in the Republic - on the Roman Catholic "side of the house" up here there has often been an attitude of not wanting to make a show of the institutions of the Church in front of "themmuns".

This was typified by a soft-centred piece about life in Nazareth House in the nationalist Derry Journal last September, full of ah sure the nuns were strict but grand. The reality coming out is far more grim.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But the divide in the six counties is not only religious - how can it be? It connects very obviously with Irish nationalism and British nationalism.

Not even that simple. Whatever might have originally been the case, for several centuries, it has been a dispute between two different Irish nationalisms. There was a joke phrase current in England in the 1970s, always delivered in a cod Unionist accent, "We're loyal subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, whether she likes it or not".

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
... Currently Nazareth House and Termonbacca in Derry are under the spotlight and there are plenty of horrific stories on the RTE and BBC Northern Ireland news sites. The curious thing is that none of these stories came into the public domain until now unlike cases in the Republic - on the Roman Catholic "side of the house" up here there has often been an attitude of not wanting to make a show of the institutions of the Church in front of "themmuns".

This was typified by a soft-centred piece about life in Nazareth House in the nationalist Derry Journal last September, full of ah sure the nuns were strict but grand. The reality coming out is far more grim.

That's interesting. I tried to get some discussion going on the 'Why do we all dislike Pope Benedict' thread, on whether, if we complain that the RCC should have grassed its bad priests in, say, the USA or the Republic, why should we give it any greater slack elsewhere, e.g. in Ulster? Nobody rose to the question.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

To answer your question Enoch, because national identity, religion and how you were dealt with in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1972 by the intertwined ruling party and Government of Northern Ireland were hopelessly entangled and never in a good way.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
To answer your question Enoch, because national identity, religion and how you were dealt with in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1972 by the intertwined ruling party and Government of Northern Ireland were hopelessly entangled and never in a good way.

Presumably the problem now (or at least a problem) is that by including all parties in the government of Northern Ireland there is now no effective parliamentary opposition? Yes, everyone is trying to work together and bury the hatchet, which is all well and good, but who holds the executive to account? Where does political criticism of the government's actions come from?

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

To an extent from the three smaller parties: Alliance, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists but given they are in government it is circumspect. There is the very interesting NI21 but they are very new. There are of course the sheer viciousness of dissident Republicans and the atavistic "Fleg" protestors.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

I would also add that the appeal of the DUP and Sinn Fein to their respective electorates is a crude one. The majority of those voting for them would neither be fundamentalists on one side or advocates of the Provisional IRA campaign on the other, but vote for the parties on the basis that they will "Stand up" for usunns against themmuns.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Horrifying as the abuse in children's homes is, I'm not sure it's really relevant to a thread on 'fundamentalism' in NI - after all neither RC nor Protestant fundamentalists would support such conduct.

As regards the 'fundamentalism' the trouble is they aren't fundamentalist enough, or they would realise that the NT both rejects the idea of a 'Christian country' whether Protestant or Catholic, and positively teaches a different way for Christians to relate to the countries in which they live, rather than the entanglement between religion. and state noted in the last few posts.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I've realised that my reference in my last post to 'the last few posts' was overtaken by Anglican't and Ronald Binge (the latter twice) adding posts while I was actually composing my own. For the correct context of my post go back to Ronald's post just before Anglican't's post and the 'last few posts' before that one!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
To answer your question Enoch, because national identity, religion and how you were dealt with in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1972 by the intertwined ruling party and Government of Northern Ireland were hopelessly entangled and never in a good way.
Presumably the problem now (or at least a problem) is that by including all parties in the government of Northern Ireland there is now no effective parliamentary opposition? Yes, everyone is trying to work together and bury the hatchet, which is all well and good, but who holds the executive to account? Where does political criticism of the government's actions come from?

One of the differences between NI and GB is that this is not really a terribly relevant question. For so long the opposition saw its role as being one of opposing the state that it will take some time for anyone to envision opposition as having the job of critic and potential replacement of the government.

First, let's stop the killing and then begin the difficult process of being able to talk to each other again. Then perhaps other things can develop in a little while. Until then, we must rely on the media and the occasional gadfly councillor or deputy.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I caught a glimpse of the Northern Ireland Assembly on CPAC. The DUP, Sinn Fein and the lot of characters with shady pasts were debating a measure on Public Libraries in County Down. When reminded how boring it was, Ian Paisley could only say "yeah, well..."

*Cable Public Affairs Channel in Canada.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

In politics, boring is good.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The whole thing is nowhere near as simple as that, Steven Langton. Many of the Provos, for instance, were revolutionary Marxist in ideology. How do you square that with Catholic nationalism?

But that's the way it went.

Plenty of the NorAid supporters in the US wouldn't have delved into their pockets so deeply if they'd have known that ...

Sure, I agree that religion, nationalism and the idea that countries should be Catholic, Protestant or whatever else is a toxic mix, but as other posters have said, religion is only part of the equation.

It's always been that way. Even if there'd never been a Christendom or countries identifying with whatever faith or persuasion their rulers professed then it would have happened on a micro rather than a macro level ... this group not getting on with that group etc etc.

Sure, it becomes far more deadly when there's nationalism and politics involved on a large scale, but the Anabaptist idea that all would have been fine and dandy and love will have prevailed if it hadn't been for the Emperor Constantine etc is an idealistic fantasy ...

But that's a tangent.

People are people and people are political. Wherever there are people there are politics. We have to live with that and make the best of it.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

A little pedantry – I am ‘Steve’ or ‘Stephen’, not ‘Steven’, please!!
I didn’t say it was so very simple, Gamaliel. You perhaps missed my overnight post (29/01/2014, 01; 16 am) in which I explicitly said there were many other factors in Ulster besides religion. As a 1960s student I was well aware of the Marxist element on the Republican/Provo side; Marxists often aligned with minority ‘liberation movement’ interests against the capitalist governments Marxism opposed, and in practice found themselves supporting what were really narrow nationalisms which weren’t actually communist but welcomed the arms and funding from Russia/Libya/etc.. In Ulster they jumped upon a movement originally started as a Catholic Civil rights movement, and in the end the Catholic/Nationalist/Republican element outlasted Communist involvement which was severely curtailed after the fall of Russian Communism. The rival Unionist movement was resolutely Protestant throughout and that factor still needs to be faced in discussing Ulster.

Nor do I think there would be ‘no problem’ without Constantinianism; I take seriously a Bible which tells us all men are sinners and of course human greed etc. will lead to all kinds of conflict. The trouble is that any ‘state religion’, or idea of a religious state, aggravates the worldly issues and makes other negotiations far harder; the Unionist slogan ‘No Surrender’ is significantly fuelled by a ‘we are fighting for God and can’t let Him down’ feeling.

What I am aiming for is that ‘Christianity as a state religion’ should be taken out of the equation generally, not just in Ulster, so that the wars are not being fought in the name of Jesus, and also so that Christians neutral in worldly conflicts can play a part in peace making which is not compromised by the kind of thing seen in Ulster. In the context of this thread, I think it is well worth making the point that seriously ‘fundamentalist’ Christianity wouldn’t be doing the kind of thing that happens in Ulster because seriously fundamental Christianity would reject the involvement in the state which is so toxic in the province.

In Ulster, taking Christianity and a large number of Christian people out of the conflict by asserting the NT teaching of not seeking a ‘kingdom of this world’ for Jesus would make a real difference and take much of the heat out of it. Is that a bad thing?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I caught a glimpse of the Northern Ireland Assembly on CPAC. The DUP, Sinn Fein and the lot of characters with shady pasts were debating a measure on Public Libraries in County Down. When reminded how boring it was, Ian Paisley could only say "yeah, well..."

*Cable Public Affairs Channel in Canada.

My mind is still boggling. What are the viewing figures for CPAC if its schedules offer debates in other peoples' legislatures? Or do Canadians have different tastes in fixes from the rest of us? Was it prime time viewing?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Apologies for messing up your name, Steve.

I can certainly see what you're getting at, and agree on the Marxist element gravitating towards minority causes that could edge over into narrow nationalisms ...

I also have a lot of sympathy with your view of the Unionist side of the equation - religion and nationalism mixed toxically.

The problem though, from an idealistic, Anabaptist style perspective is that none of this goes away when you separate Church from State - although I agree that the outcome is generally far less deadly ...

You've only got to go to Wales to find a woeful lack of co-operation or even outright hostility between Welsh Baptists and English Baptists and so on.

Of course, the situation in Ulster is far more serious and goes back to 16th and 17th century political shenanigans ... or even further back, if one is so inclined, to Henry II and his invasion of Ireland ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

And for all the separation between Church and State that you find in the USA, it's not as if US Christians are somehow neutral, squeaky-clean and 'above' politics in a 'My Kingdom is not of this world ...' kind of way.

Far from it. The opposite in fact.

The US Religious Right is as gung-ho about the US flag, Constitution and 'One Nation Under God' and all that schtick as any Ulster Protestant is about a Protestant State and William of Orange and all that malarkey.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I’m writing this up at leisure ‘off-line’ to get it as correct and thoughtful as possible; I hope when finally posted it will fit with where the thread has been going, and/or spark useful fresh thoughts. (I've noticed your recent posts, Gamaliel - I'll give thought and come back shortly)

WHILE I FULLY RECOGNISE THAT THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS TO THE PROBLEMS OF NORTHERN IRELAND (Gamaliel please note!), it is clear that the religious aspect is very important and is presumably also the main point of a thread about a ‘Fundamentalist province’. As I analyse it the two rival forms of Christianity involved both adhere (in slightly different ways) to the idea that there can and should be ‘Christian countries’, and each wants to be the form favoured in the province; after centuries of fighting/persecution/terrorism/discrimination/etc., neither side can realistically accept the other’s kind of ‘Christian country’.

I personally have over the years (and originally largely because of my concern about NI when the current troubles kicked off during my student years in the late 1960s), come to believe roughly the ‘Anabaptist’ position that the New Testament actually teaches against Christian states and offers positively a different, humbler, and definitely more peaceful way for Christians, however they may interpret other aspects of the faith, to relate to the country in which they live and the non-Christians who they live among.

In the present situation we see “Catholic Republicans/Irish Nationalists” who want to be united with nominally Catholic Eire, and “Protestant Unionists/Ulster Nationalists” who want to remain united with nominally Protestant mainland UK. Being a ‘Protestant Republican’ or a ‘Catholic Unionist’ is verging on impossible and probably dangerous (Catholics who join the PSNI have been targeted and even killed as ‘traitors’ by Republican terrorists). But if Christians adopted the NT teaching, there would instead be a three-way split; the choice would be Irish Nationalist/Ulster Nationalist/ or Christian whose attitude would be that as citizens of the kingdom of heaven on earth they weren’t involved in the controversy anyway.

The Christians would be pacifists; and they would obey such NT texts as Paul’s “…we do not war with carnal weapons. For the weapons of our warfare are not physical, but they are powerful with God’s help….” (II Cor 10; 3,4) or “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them… repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble (in Gk. simply ‘kala’ – good things) in the sight of all. If possible so far as depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God….” (Romans 12 - read it all and note that Romans 13, about relations to governments, follows on). Or again texts like Peter’s – well actually practically the whole first epistle, which ironically is a key text for us Anabaptists despite having been written by the supposed first Pope.

Christians following the NT wouldn’t be staging provocative parades or violent protests about flags and parades, not only because of that teaching about living peaceably but also because those issues aren’t relevant if you’re not trying to set up or defend a ‘Christian country’ of either persuasion….

One of the problems of the ‘Christian country’ way of thinking is that it allows people to kid themselves that the ‘Christian country’ cause provides a legitimate exception to all the NT teaching about love, turning the other cheek, being willing to suffer unjustly, willing to die for your faith but NOT kill for it and so on; whereas actually that teaching is a major part of why ‘Christian countries’ are wrong.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

It may now be difficult to be a Protestant Nationalist in Northern Ireland, but before partition there were lots of them.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Yes, there were. But Partition and the Troubles almost extinguished this, making the "ussuns" and "themmuns" thing even stronger than before, though one might not have thought such a thing possible.

Amazingly a few remained brave enough to resist the tribal pressure. Here is one example.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I've just checked out Turquoise Tastic's reference and I like the sound of Mr Turnley - but it confirms my view that such a position is now dangerous for those who try it.
It is one of many ironies of the NI situation that the 19th C Home Rule movement was often anti-English/Anglican and included many of the non-conformist Protestants. I suspect that fell apart because of the great differences between RC and the non-conformists, particularly the Presbyterians who would ultimately aim at a Protestant country.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Last thing overnight – part of promised response to Gamaliel’s last…
American ‘Separation of Church and State’ – hmmm! American Anabaptists would tell you that the American version of that separation is not much like the Anabaptist version, though it does have the merit of allowing Anabaptists to exist (mostly) un-persecuted. As I understand it what happened is something like this….

The original English colonies in America were supposed to be Anglican like England itself; however because the distance across the Atlantic made enforcement harder, many non-conformists and Puritans sought refuge in the New World – the classic example being the Pilgrim Fathers, who by the way didn’t exactly allow religious freedom in their own colony. Quakers as is well known founded Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island was a Baptist foundation.

After 1688 I assume that the English colonies also benefited from the Act of Toleration, so the colonies of the War of Independence were a considerable mix but mostly Protestant. Whitfield I understand preached and ‘fellowshipped’ with Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists as well as Anglicans, and towards the end of Wesley’s life American Methodism formally split from Anglicanism after Anglican indolence led Wesley to ordain clergy (bishops?) to look after the growing Methodist flock.

In the War of Independence the former colonies chose obviously to reject Anglicanism, and instead of adopting a particular alternative establishment opted for a constitutional rule of no establishment of religion. While some of the leaders seem to have favoured Deism or Unitarianism, this was generally interpreted that the USA would be a Christian land, just that no particular version of Christianity would be privileged over others. As the growing USA absorbed the former colonies of other European countries, French and Spanish, Catholics were also included, and the general freedom allowed oddities and nonChristian groups also to exist so long as they didn’t cause too much trouble/scandal.

However – you still see the basic ‘Christian state’ assumption in many things. For example, in the 1800s Native American children were forcibly taken from their parents and sent to emphatically Christian schools, while Mormons were forced West to Utah and when ‘The Frontier’ caught up with them there was a war which forced them to abandon their polygamy. As I’m sure you know, the 1920s saw the infamous Daytona ‘Monkey Trial’ over evolutionary teaching (doubly scandalous now it has been revealed to have been pretty much a set-up for the benefit of the local tourist industry!), but atheists were generally unpopular – see for example Cecil B de Mille’s horribly sentimental late silent film ‘The Godless Girl’.

Catholics remained objects of suspicion even as late as the JFK election in the 1960s. The motto ‘In God we trust’ is a very late apparition, though I don’t have the exact date handy. More recent shenanigans, e.g., under Bush, I assume you know about yourself.

In other words, not the Anabaptist version of separation of Church and State; more like a practical compromise between assorted Constantinianisms which had realised that in the New World they couldn’t impose their particular version. I doubt they even realised, let alone intended, the use their wording would sometimes be put to in the late 20th Century by nonChristian forces. The Northern Ireland version is somewhat similar to the USA – a collection of Constantinians willing to sink their differences and forego a fully established position to keep NI a broadly Protestant province.

This is getting a bit long to add the Anabaptist version. I am thinking I’ll put a slightly edited version on my blog (stevesfreechurchblog on Wordpress) and I’ll add a bit about the Anabaptist version there…. In this thread I'll come back to it after I've seen reaction to this.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
While some of the leaders seem to have favoured Deism or Unitarianism, this was generally interpreted that the USA would be a Christian land, just that no particular version of Christianity would be privileged over others.

This is fairly debatable, and while the separation of church and state in the US may have been subverted, it's pretty obvious that it is intended to not privilege ANY religion, not just not privilege specific denominations. Given that the separation in the US constitution is about as strong as it can reasonably be, arguing that it doesn't really exist sounds a lot like no-true-Scotsmanism.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

It's all so messy in Northern Ireland! Though thank God there have been huge steps forward in recent years, regardless of how much further we have to travel. The children of today are not looking at the same Belfast (or Province) that I looked at, or lived in, when I was growing up. And that's an incredible progression to begin with.

Those who say that religious fundamentalism doesn't necessarily equal the kind of social fundamentalism that perpetuates the Catholic/Protestant political divide are quite right. But it is a fact that there is a very real correlation between the two. Correlation does not equal cause, of course. But the conditions necessary for political/social fundamentalism are undeniably exacerbated significantly by religious fundamentalism. Which only goes to complicate everything even more!

Interestingly, I notice (as a personal anecdote) that some of my fundamentally Protestant religious acquaintances are turning to Northern Ireland's UKIP for their political direction.

As for the question of whether Northern Ireland's problem is or isn't mainly religious-based. I think those who have identified that religion is inextricably woven into the political issues, but is still not THE reason for the difficulties are also quite right.

When English-based governments began to 'plant' their (ahem!) civilizing influence in the savage soil of the Irish nation, of course, it was as much about religion as about political and economic power. Religion was (again that word)co-relative to both politics and economic wealth, without necessarily being causal, in the equation. An English or British government could NOT have successfully annexed Ireland for its own political and economic purposes without the imposition of the Protestant church superiority being established.

We're merely reaping now (as we have done for centuries) what was sown since 'Eliza and the ladies' sought to compel O'Neil to pledge allegiance. It wasn't the Crown he was asked to be loyal to; it was the Protestant crown. And because religion was so fundamentally part of the formation of the Irish political landscape then, so it is now.

Trying to remove the significance, influence and part played by religion in Ireland, from even the current struggle for political stability, would be like trying to remove from a building that part of its underground foundation which - while perhaps unwisely and badly laid - is still integral to the fact that the building exists and remains standing however crookedly.

Hence the hellish difficulty to set things right. Or at least find a way forward that offsets the wonky foundation, without demolishing the whole edifice.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I agree that the US constitution ought to be interpreted as not privileging any religion; I am indeed arguing that it has been significantly subverted as my examples illustrated. AS I said, Anabaptists living there don't see the typical practice as quite the same thing they believe in - which was the point raised by Gamaliel. They see the USA as having a 'Neo-Constantianism' which as Gamaliel said, can appear more 'Christendom' than countries like ours which have an old-fashioned establishment. I'm still working on my exposition of the Anabaptist alternative - hope to put it up soon.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd agree, Steve Langton, about the incipient and often unrecognised Neo-Constantinianism which is as bad - if not worse at times - than the old fashioned variety on this side of the Pond.

On other boards I visit, I'm struck how quickly Protestant fundamentalist converts to Orthodoxy, for instance, begin to out-Orthodox the Orthodox and start touting Putin as some kind of hero - whereas many of the 'cradle Orthodox' are more than happy to slag the guy off.

So I think Anselmina is right, fundamentalism isn't necessarily the cause of these things but it quickly gravitates towards black-and-white political positions and support for leaders who seem to give black-and-white answers ...

Anabaptism always has to watch out for this tendency within its own modus operandi ... for all its talk of the priesthood of all believers and so on it can very quickly produce autocratic leaders.

I could cite examples from Reformed Baptist congregations I've known as well as other settings which have an Anabaptist polity.

The Baptist Union seems able to resist this tendency though ...

But this is getting into a tangent from the OP which is about No'r'n Ir'n.

Which is far more complicated.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Everybody has to look out for the autocratic leaders thing; but at least if you're not trying to take the state over it doesn't affect other people or lead to or aggravate major wars, as the 'Christian country' idea all too often has, including in NI.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On other boards I visit, I'm struck how quickly Protestant fundamentalist converts to Orthodoxy, for instance, begin to out-Orthodox the Orthodox and start touting Putin as some kind of hero - whereas many of the 'cradle Orthodox' are more than happy to slag the guy off.

I think this is true of all converts. There is a saying that all new Christians should be locked in a closet for six months; otherwise their words and actions are likely to turn off those who have not yet made a decision.

Moo

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I've a suspicion that Gamaliel's comment about converts was aimed a bit at me as a convert to Anabaptist ideas rather than being born Amish or Mennonite. it is true that Anabaptist 'Camp followers' like myself have tended to become more outgoing and vocal than the 'cradle Anabaptists' who have got a bit cosy in their settlements. Or to put it another way, we've gone back to what the original Anabaptists were like when they were fresh!

I am myself not a fresh convert but effectively took an Anabaptist position in the late 1960s simply from the Bible; For a long time I knew little of other Anabaptists and only in this century have I got involved in the UK Anabaptist Network and wider Anabaptism.

The relevance to this thread is that it was the situation in NI which made me realise the problems of the various 'Christian country' positions.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is a saying that all new Christians should be locked in a closet for six months; otherwise their words and actions are likely to turn off those who have not yet made a decision.

Moo

Not sure this is necessarily true, though. I've also read that new converts tend to be the best evangelists because they're the most enthusiastic, and enthusiasm is catching.

I've heard of NI's high concentration of churches, but find it hard to imagine what this means in practice. Are all these churches in a state of high activity, or have they begun to rest on their laurels?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Anselmina:

quote:

Those who say that religious fundamentalism doesn't necessarily equal the kind of social fundamentalism that perpetuates the Catholic/Protestant political divide are quite right. But it is a fact that there is a very real correlation between the two. Correlation does not equal cause, of course. But the conditions necessary for political/social fundamentalism are undeniably exacerbated significantly by religious fundamentalism. Which only goes to complicate everything even more!

I will say this with the understanding that I might have misunderstood what you are saying, so forgive me if that is the case.

I used to believe quite strongly that the woes of Northern Ireland in fact had nothing to do with religion at all; that those in terrorist groups on both sides were not the people who were in church, that those involved in fleg protests or in hijacking St Patrick's Day (as an alternative fleg protest) were not in church, and that those who spouted what I considered to be a backward blind hatred were not in church. I think I wanted to partly convince myself that Christianity really couldn't have any part of this whole horrible mess. Now I'm not so certain in my beliefs on that issue.

It's such a complex issue that there are sociologists and political analysts who have literally written hundreds of books on the subject, so I dare not try to rehash that in some simplistic way here. There is no need either to rehash what I said in the opening post, other than to add that there is a growing disconnect with the church. This was noticeable during the time of the Good Friday Agreement, and to be honest, I was hopeful that it would be a catalyst for change for those churches I knew to be sanctuaries of hate - they would either die out, or they would grow with the change. I essentially coaxed myself into believing that this goring secularism was a sign that a new generation wanted no truck with the hatred and the violence of the past - who would truly want to return to a situation that was essentially a protracted civil war? As it turns out, that disconnect from the church, I believe, has been replaced by a political fundamentalism. It's very hard to see it from the outside. Everything looks good on the surface, with politicians talking, things seeming to move forward slowly; yet there are growing tensions. To walk around Belfast today, or to travel through Northern Ireland today, it appears that society is more divided now than it ever was before.

Add to that, that the churches have been emptied of those 'sensible' and 'considered' voices, courageous clergy have been replaced by clergy who seem desperate to move towards fundamentalism (regardless of their own denomination) and a leadership that either re-enforces it or stands in grand isolation. It's a slightly scary prospect on the whole. In the past couple of weeks there have yet again been attacks on non nationals. Northern Ireland is a scary place to be if you don't 'fit', and the last time this happened (which included the murder of non nationals) the church said absolutely nothing. Again it is silent and has nothing in place to help bridge the problem. In 1993 an inter-faith forum was created as a point of dialogue, integration and education. No cleric is a member.

As a teenager growing up there, I noticed fairly early on that people publicly said one thing, but privately voted another. I was lucky, in the sense that the SDLP held a lot of power at the time and it was semi-acceptable (if a little curious) for a Protestant to vote for them. By the time I hit voting age of course, things were changing rapidly. There was also a certain reticence about talking about politics with friends. That still exists, but it's worse than it ever was.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a polarisation at work - one that led to the troubles in the first place. This time it is without the disparity of human rights issues, yet it has all the hallmarks of being about the erosion of perceived 'rights'. On the secular level there is the entrenchment of political gulfs, while in the church, there is a very definite move to more fundamentalist beliefs. Both are intermingled in a way that is almost sect-like and makes a fearful crucible. I'm conscious too that I'm doing a bit of tarring all with the same brush. I'm old enough to remember the peace walks, the ecumenical encounter that held such hope and those who continue to do such wonderful things today. But what once was a large lamp in the midst of much darkness seems to be little more than a struggling candle.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

A bit of a tangent, but ...

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've a suspicion that Gamaliel's comment about converts was aimed a bit at me as a convert to Anabaptist ideas rather than being born Amish or Mennonite. it is true that Anabaptist 'Camp followers' like myself have tended to become more outgoing and vocal than the 'cradle Anabaptists' who have got a bit cosy in their settlements. Or to put it another way, we've gone back to what the original Anabaptists were like when they were fresh!

I am myself not a fresh convert but effectively took an Anabaptist position in the late 1960s simply from the Bible ...

The relevance to this thread is that it was the situation in NI which made me realise the problems of the various 'Christian country' positions.

Au contraire, Steve Langton, it wasn't aimed at you at all but if the cap fits ...

I had no idea whether you were a 'cradle' Anabaptist or a convert to this position ... and incidentally, it is a position for which I retain a great deal of sympathy ...

If you are aiming to return to the original Anabaptist concerns of non-violence and so on then more power to your elbow. Munster wasn't the only outworking of 16th century Anabaptism of course ... and it's the whacko tendency that has tended to draw the attention and get the press as it were ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I would add, though, that nobody adopts any position 'simply from the Bible.'

It's never that simple.

Nor is the Bible ...

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

OK, Gamaliel, I made a guess I wanted to clear up; I guessed wrong, sorry. Actually it was pretty much from the Bible that I drew my Anabaptist conclusions, coming from an evangelical background and facing the question "I seem to share almost all my beliefs with Ian Paisley but his politics and their results really worry me; does the Bible really teach that kind of thing?" So I went and checked, and it didn't teach that kind of thing. Which is what I mean when I say the two sides in Ulster aren't fundamentalist enough in their Christianity, they don't attend to the Bible on this point.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

I think that it is a fairly important part of Anabaptist theology that one is, by definition, a convert. I'm an Anglican, but if you said to me why do you have a bad conscience about being an Anglican rather than an Anabaptist I would reply "Ooh, er, they are all converts and we are not, necessarily". In any event being a convert or an Anabaptist is not a disqualification from posting on the Ship. So on behalf of the Anglican posters on the Ship, Steve, can I take this opportunity to say "Hi!". I dare say we'll disagree with you from time to time but that's hardly the end of the world.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Thanks, Gildas. Agreed it is pretty much inherent in Anabaptism to be a convert. However, there are of course well established Anabaptist groups and communities such as Mennonites where people brought up in such communities will generally join them as baptised believers. such groups are often referred to as 'cradle Anabaptists' despite the slight illogic. People like myself have come to an Anabaptist position independently, often with little or no knowledge of the traditional groups. Obviously we believe in believer's baptism rather than infant baptism, but we also adopt the positions of really emphatic separation of church and state and of pacificism - a rejection of war in God's name and generally also in other causes as in "If we won't kill people for God...".

I was brought up in Anglicanism and learned much of value; but the 'Christian country' idea,whether Anglican or in other forms like Ian Paisley's, seemed seriously biblically flawed. The Bible not only rejects 'kingdoms of this world' for Jesus, but positively teaches a better alternative. I believe the best option for resolving the problems of NI, at least the somewhat toxic religious aspect, is to call people to the biblical (rather than merely 'Anabaptist') alternative.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

Passed through the villages of Culmore and Drumahoe outside Londonderry yesterday. Opposite Culmore (Controlled) Primary School the letters "IRA" were crudely graffitied in large letters. Meanwhile on the other side of the Foyle Bridge Drumahoe had fresh Union Flags up, flanked with flags with the insignia of 2 Para on them.

Those that know Derry will know the significance of these actions. Culmore is on the west bank of the Foyle and has a relatively high proportion of Protestants for that side of the city, while being in the minority in the village. Drumahoe has a majority Protestant population but like New Buildings and briefly the Fountain, has had the insignia of the regiment responsible for the Bloody Sunday killings in 1972, the anniversary of which occurs around this time.

This is all about intimidation of the "other side" and sending a clear signal that the bully boys do not want accommodation of difference.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I agree with you about the ‘bully boys’ – the question is, can we do anything about them? Apologies for the length of what follows but unlike some UK politicos I don’t think NI’s problems will be solved by brief ‘sound bites’.
You talk of the ‘Protestant’ populations involved, but the description of ‘intimidation’ by ‘bully boys’ realistically implies that those involved are either not truly Christian at all, or if they are, they are horribly misguided. Nonetheless, because they claim to be our Christian brothers, so we have a responsibility in the matter – a responsibility to the people of NI, a responsibility to the ‘bully boys’ themselves, a responsibility to our Lord Jesus whose name and teachings are brought into disrepute by this kind of thing, and also a selfish interest because what goes on in NI reflects on us and makes difficulties for the mainland UK churches (that is, people with whom we discuss our faith are all too likely to point to NI as an argument against Christianity). We need both arguments which have some hope of convincing the NI professing Christians involved, and a stance which makes us credible to our fellow-citizens (and to groups like Muslims, these days).

I’ll leave the IRA aside for now; otherwise the differences between the two sides and the different arguments needed would make this twice as long. Also I have an impression that on the IRA side there is a larger element of secular nationalism to be dealt with, the Unionist side is much more emphatically ‘Protestant’.

Because the ‘Protestants’ are largely also pretty ‘fundamentalist’ in attitude, we are most likely to convince them if we can find a biblical argument against their position – if, that is, we can show them they aren’t as fundamentalist as they think they are. I am contending that this is in fact possible – that the NT doesn’t support the idea of ‘Christian countries’ which underlies the religious aspects of the dispute, and actually teaches a different approach in which the Church is itself the world’s ‘Christian nation’ but ipso facto exists not as a dominant governing factor but as a humble group of, in effect, ‘resident aliens’ (Peter actually uses a word which translates almost exactly as that) living peaceably among their assorted ‘other-believing’ fellow-citizens, risking martyrdom but resolutely not fighting back or doing other unpeaceful things like provocative marches, flag protests, etc.

Attacking, verbally only, of course, the (nominally, but actually defective) ‘fundamentalism’ of Ulster’s Protestants with an even sounder and more fundamental biblical argument is probably the best chance of winning them over, whether at the level of people like Ian Paisley and the Orange Order leaders, or even at the level of the rather thoughtless ‘tribalist’ types like the marching band involved in the horrendous Ardoyne stand-off, and featured in a documentary last year by journalist Alys Harte.

Arguments on a ‘liberal Christian’ basis are unlikely to work; they may major on peace and love and tolerance and cosiness, but to the typical Ulster Protestant they will simply be seen as betraying and disobeying the Word of God, even as actually Anti-Christian in an almost apocalyptic sense. They won’t listen to such a case, and it’s a clumsy tactic because it effectively involves converting them to a different view of the Bible before you can persuade them of the tolerance etc., whereas in fact the Bible itself has the necessary teaching to give them reasons for the tolerance and turning the other cheek on terms they can already accept.

It’s also hard to see how a coherent argument could be put forward by any denomination or individual Christians who adhere to the ‘Christian country’ idea in any of its numerous varieties. It is precisely the idea that you should set up and defend such countries which gives the ‘bully boys’ their apparent justification for their violence, intimidation, etc., enabling them to believe that as Christians they have an apparent exception to the NT teaching of turning the other cheek and so on. Anglicans in particular should note that while their practice nowadays may be moderate and even wishy-washy, the fact is that national establishment is technically a more extreme position than Ian Paisley’s, indeed even than the RCC position. They should also note, as I’ve pointed out on SoF before, that they, the Anglicans, are basically what makes mainland UK the ‘Protestant country’ the Unionists want union with. While of course, it is the descent of the RC church from the Imperial Roman Church’s version of a Christian country, and the history which followed, worldwide as well as in Ireland, which makes them seem a threat to the Protestants. As I say, no coherent option on offer from such quarters.

Politicians are limited in what they can do, especially at present when so much about religion is politically correctly touchy and potentially tricky. They can’t properly tackle the religious issues even if they understand them, and in my experience they rarely do understand. Politicians can’t go in challenging people’s beliefs; they can only try to create a framework that might allow them to live together despite their differences. In NI the combination of the ‘Christian country’ idea and the messy history mean that there’s really no such possibility – people are too hurt, and too committed to their positions in areas which politicians consider inappropriate to deal with.

The Good Friday agreement has appeared to work quite well over longer than most previous political bodge-ups in NI. But only last year, a senior NI policeman gave evidence to a Parliamentary Committee saying that in essence the Good Friday agreement hadn’t fully dealt with the issues; rather, it had left all the issues unresolved, seething away under the surface, and now, they’re beginning to break the surface, and even just keeping an eye on BBC Teletext for NI is now throwing up constant episodes – some hoaxes, but all too many actual bombings, shootings and intimidations, plus of course the ‘flags protests’ and the problems over parades.

My analysis is that Tony Blair got lucky, despite not really understanding what he was dealing with. Before the Good Friday agreement had the chance to go sour in the usual way, the post-9/11 ‘War on Terror’ supervened, and it became both less acceptable to do terror in Ireland, and actually practically harder because of increased surveillance and so on, while a lot of the external sources of explosives, guns, etc., dried up. Indeed some of the former sources had already declined with the demise of the old Soviet empire and its interference in local rebellions like Ulster, and with the Middle East controversy becoming less a Cold War thing and more about Islam – Muslims wouldn’t be so interested in Ulster as their Marxist-minded predecessors had been. So active terror in NI did decline (though it didn’t entirely go away) – but as the underlying issues had not been truly resolved, this could not be forever, and there now seems to be a gradual build-up of pressure leading to all kinds of incidents.

The Good Friday agreement was not totally ineffective, of course; but it remains more fragile than many have believed. There may be a window now in which something different could be done before things break down again; but it won’t be the politicos who do it, it will need to be Christians who are not limited in the way politicians are, and who can take biblical teaching in to combat the unbiblical things that lead to the religious side of the Troubles, who can tell the bully boys not just that they’re politically undesirable but that they are unChristian in their own fundamentalist terms.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

Arguments on a ‘liberal Christian’ basis are unlikely to work; they may major on peace and love and tolerance and cosiness, but to the typical Ulster Protestant they will simply be seen as betraying and disobeying the Word of God, even as actually Anti-Christian in an almost apocalyptic sense.

You seem to be missing the point that your 'solution' in an appeal directly to the central message of scripture isn't already seen as a liberal woolliness. If - as a Christian in Northern Ireland - you have the certainty that your understanding of scripture (conflated as it is with your particular brand of national sentiment and God being in your favour) is the only correct view, any other suggestion will be seen as a 'liberal' affront.

Part of your proposed solution also assumes that there are enough leaders in the churches willing to take on this role, and I'm really not sure there are. There have been long debates through the decades as to what the church leaders should do and teach and the reality is that the vast majority in mainstream denominations avoid the subject altogether. Some might claim that it is out of fear of a congregation rising up against them, the fall-out experienced within a community, the personal threats that might result (both to a cleric and family members and even to a church building and its community). However, I would fear that the reality is in fact much different. Like I stated above, many in Northern Ireland are acutely skilled at saying something publicly, yet doing something quite different privately, and the reality (which to be honest frightens me) may be that they in fact feel more comfortable in that situation because it is in fact what they believe themselves. If you look at the past, the voices of reason were often very lone voices, who were deeply courageous, but they were nonetheless, lone voices. Again, the public may have publicly congratulated such courage in their social sphere, yet privately seethed at the perceived erosion of their fondest beliefs. Add to this the ignorance of sectarianism: in that some are even unaware of their own prejudices and hatreds. There are many clergy that believe whole heartedly that they are 'preaching the Gospel', yet in ignorance don't recognise the divisions that they preach, yet unconsciously prepare their preaching in terms of what is not 'Protestant' or what is not 'Catholic', adding in a nefarious way to the ether of division that is so pervasive.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I understand your scepticism, Fletcher; and obviously you can tell me things about NI that from this side of the Irish Sea I have to guess at a bit. Please feel free to tell me frankly if you think I’ve got anything badly wrong.

I see what you mean that just by suggesting a different answer to their own, the ‘bully boys’ will probably interpret it as ‘liberalism’. But actually over there you probably shouldn’t start with the ‘bully boys’, due to the obvious danger, unless you have the situation forced on you.

First, you could try contacting Christians over there who do practice the basic Anabaptist way. Explicitly Anabaptist there are ‘Mennonite Mission Network’ workers there – though you’d probably have to contact them through their parent organisation. There may be ‘Christian Peacemaker Teams’, but I’m not currently aware of any. The ‘Association of Baptist Churches in Northern Ireland’ is the equivalent there of the Baptist Union and the current BU President Ernie Whalley is a former NI guy himself, is very approachable and could probably direct you to a fellowship there which is ‘peace-minded’ – contact him via the UK BU (I may contact him myself and pass on anything useful). Independent and non-BU Baptists certainly include some which are decidedly Paisleyite!

In UK proper there are very few Anabaptist churches as such; the Mennonites however run a centre in Birmingham (easy to find on Google)which has useful resources of all kinds – they’ve in effect decided against setting up Mennonites as a separate denomination in the UK, but make Mennonite ideas available to all, particularly the peace church ideas. Wider is the ‘Anabaptist Network’ (again, find on Google), whose local Manchester group I myself belong to, but which unfortunately doesn’t currently seem to have an NI group; people of many different church backgrounds exploring the ideas of the traditional Anabaptists but also bringing new insights. In theory, ‘Open Brethren’ churches/assemblies should be on the peace side, conscientious objection having been a strong feature in the past, but I gather the NI groups may be more conservative and old-fashioned than the mainland assemblies. ‘Independent’ churches by definition can vary a lot!! I’ll do what I can over here to find out more.

Though a bit mixed, and wider than just the state/church issues, there is a series of books from Paternoster Press on the overall theme ‘After Christendom’, which you might find helpful.

Second, I’m not exactly appealing to the ‘central message’ as such, though I do put massive value on what CS Lewis called ‘Mere Christianity’, the common beliefs. What I’m doing is focussing in the specific area of what the NT says about the relationship between church and world, and asking people to check more closely what the NT actually says. Seriously, those who advocate this ‘Christian country’ stuff find it difficult to produce much in the way of ‘proof texts’ for their position. The suggested proof texts in such documents as the Anglican 39 Articles or the Presbyterian Westminster Confession are decidedly thin and ambiguous.

Try this thought; obviously the NT says lots about how Christians are to live in ‘pagan’ countries (and be warned, it’s not necessarily cosy; martyrdom is clearly a possibility!). Explore those texts. Paul in Romans 12-13, for example (and remember that the chapter division is not original; ch 13 follows straight through from ch 12, it’s not a sharp change of subject). I Peter is almost entirely on this ‘living among pagans’ idea, and for the supposed ‘first Pope’ seems to present an essentially Anabaptist rather than Catholic view. Though nowhere near complete yet the source on this kind of thing which I know best is my own stevesfreechurchblog, especially the strand ‘But Seriously’. Then ask “Is there anything in there, in the NT, that really supports the ‘Christian country’ line, or is this ‘living as peaceable resident aliens among pagans’ the way it was really meant to be till the Second Coming?”

Basically, try and build up people in NI who are finding out that they can take the Bible seriously, and very literally if they must, yet be outside the conflict, because the Bible is not really on the side of either of the violent factions.

This is getting a bit long. Hope it may be useful to you, Fletcher. Comment from other shipmates also welcome of course!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0