 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Editorial
Alwyn Thomson
Comment:
Failed Politics?
Norman Hamilton
From
the Director: Words and Deeds
David W Porter
Loyalism
and Me
Philip Rankin
Real
Life
David Campton
Policing
Matters
Sam Pollock
The
Crisis Within
Eddie
Kinner
Loyalism
- The Issues
Mervyn Gibson
Scapegoating
Billy Mitchell
Review...Beyond
Retribution
Stephen Graham
Down
to Basics
Malachy
O'Doherty
Faith
in the Future
David
W Porter
For
God and His Glory Alone:
Study 1: Love
FROM THE DIRECTOR:
WORDS AND DEEDS
In welcoming the Loyalist ceasefire of October 1994 the members of ECONI
along with many in our community saw signs of hope. We were encouraged
that abject and true remorse was expressed to the 'loved ones of al innocent
victims'. Eight years on from that hopeful autumn the difficulty of turning
remorse and regret into trust and confidence is all too evident. Saying
sorry, it seems,
is not enough.
The recent response
to the offer of 'apologies to non-combatants' families by the IRA agonisingly
demonstrates this. Eoghan Harris writing in the Sunday Independent conjures
up the imagery of John Gray's populist book on relationships, Mars and
Venus, aptly concluding that:
The nub of the matter is that Northern Martians [Protestants] believe
a sincere apology must be supported by an amended life, that words must
be backed by deeds.'
Furthermore, most Northern Protestants demand this not only of the IRA but an hundredfold of the Loyalist paramilitaries. And then some.
While many Christians are unequivocal in their rejection of working relationships with unrepentant terrorists, many more are torn in discerning how God would have them bear witness to the foundation truth of our faith - God is LOVE. It is this amazing revelation of the character of God that sets the context for everything. Grace, Truth, Justice, Mercy, Righteousness, Forgiveness - all find their bearings from this core value.
Leave it to the movies
to peddle the myth of 'Love means never having to say you're sorry' -
just ask anyone maintaining a long term relationship! Love does mean a
sacrificial commitment to the wellbeing of others - 'God's love was revealed
to us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might
live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved
us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.' (1 John
4)
Let's face it, all
our apologies, remorse, regrets and attempts at repentance are often conditional,
shrouded in excuses and subject to our persistent relapse to the old ways.
Measured against God's commitment to us, our struggle on the journey of
faith in the full knowledge of what God has done for us is a constant
cycle of less than satisfactory sorrys, far from amended lives and deeds
which are way short of righteous.
Possibly a forgotten
'sorry' the Protestant churches need to say is to the Loyalist communities
we have left to their fate. We need to acknowledge that it is our own
worst prejudices and fears that they often articulate. And we
need to be willing to take the risks of re-engagement for the sake of
the love of God.
For churchgoing Protestants,
engaging with Loyalism is often a harder challenge than reaching across
the divide to Republicans. It can expose for many their own denial of
responsibility to serve the grassroots communities from which they came.
In this issue of lion & lamb others write of their perspectives on
this challenge, but I remain convinced that we cannot expect people to
hear the kingdom call to repent without the incarnational reality of
belonging to the context in which we minister. Most of us accept this
for those serving overseas. Yet it remains our caling in whatever community
we are placed to bear witness.
The question haunts:
following on from the hard work of Archbishop Eames and Rev Roy Magee
among others, what could have been achieved if the church had been more
robust in engaging with Loyalism following its
tentative, yet sincere remorse? Dare we continue to make the same mistake
when faced with IRA apologies and Loyalist admission of involvement in
recent violence?
There is a real need
to respond with grace, yet not naivete; to accept the sincerity of apologies,
without giving credence or legitimacy to paramilitary violence; to develop
the process of healing, while taking note of the political
realities.
The process of forgiveness
is a difficult path, all the more so when set in the context of violent
community conflict. It requires honesty and change if relationships are
to be truly healed. Any statement that acknowledges and takes responsibility
for the hurt caused is a significant step.
Many find Loyalist
and Republican understanding of their actions less than honest. It is
difficult to believe that bombing crowded shopping streets and bus stations
was an action in which those carrying it out were not fully aware of the
risk to ordinary civilians. Or that the indiscriminate murder of Catholics
was defending the Union. Because of our experience of living through this
conflict most of us need more than words to convince us that a real change
is taking place from violence to peace. Saying sorry is a good start.
Yet, it still needs to result in change of behaviour if the process of
forgiveness is to result in the healing of broken relationships.
Change is evident
and there are hopeful signs, although the continued violence at interfaces,
punishment beatings, targeting and all that goes in to maintaining paramilitary
organisations means that many remain doubtful. Is regretting that violence
was necessary, or even the honest expression of remorse for the pain caused
- while a good
start - a sufficient fulfilment of what the Bible indicates God requires
in confessing the sin of our hatred and violence?
Repent is the word the Bible uses to express the need to change course, to turn away from the past. And for all of us it requires acknowledging before God and our neighbour that much in our past relationships was wrong and a denial of God's values in our community.
David W Porter
 |
||
 |
 |
|