Today at Westminster Abbey a service was held to ‘recognise the commitment of the Royal Navy to effective peace-keeping through the [continuous at sea] deterrent over the past fifty years and to pray for peace throughout the world.’
I am extremely grateful for the peace we in the West have enjoyed over the past fifty years. I recognise that there are many in our armed forces who are committed to peace keeping and long, as I do, for peace throughout the world.
And yet I struggle with the very concept of celebrating what is ultimately the world’s most deadly weapon of mass destruction in a Christian service of worship. To me, this is totally at odds with the God I believe in, and with the very life and teaching of Jesus Christ, the ‘Prince of Peace.’
‘This sends out a terrible message to the world… that, here in Britain, we celebrate weapons – in a place of worship – that can kill millions of people.’ – Kate Hudson, general secretary of CND
In 1969 Britain launched its nuclear deterrent service. I have grown up with the very real threat of nuclear war. I am grateful that that threat has not materialised, and I am grateful to the women and men of our armed services and to those working in international diplomacy who have helped ensure that we have lived in peace.
Whatever our views about the effectiveness of policies of nuclear deterrence, however, we have to acknowledge that they are built on the foundation of the most awful weapons of mass destruction.
The UK holds 120 operational nuclear warheads. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II killed between 100,000 and 250,000 people. Today’s nuclear warheads are far more powerful.
Westminster Abbey describes their service as a service to recognise the commitment of the Royal Navy to effective peace-keeping through the deterrent over the past fifty years and to pray for peace throughout the world. However, by linking it to the nuclear deterrence programme, whatever the intention, it gives the message that the Church of England not only condones, but actually celebrates – in a service of worship – these weapons that carry the potential to indiscriminately kill thousands of innocent people.
‘To celebrate a device that is designed to indiscriminately kill and destroy thousands of innocent civilians is totally incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and with our commitment as a Church to peace and to the flourishing of all humanity.’ – Rt Revd Roger Morris, Bishop of Colchester
For me, the very existence of nuclear weapons is a cause for lament, not for celebration.
When Lois and I married – nearly four years ago – we both felt quite strongly that we had been brought together for something more than just our own joy. We have been so wonderfully blessed over these four years: with companionship, fun, the love of both our families; with friends; with a home and all its comforts; with good health and with opportunities to encounter beauty, goodness and wonder.
And, along with all this, a developing dream: a dream of something we could build together; of a place of beauty, stillness and peace in the midst of all the busy-ness of life; a safe, sacred space where we, together with others in community, could offer hospitality of heart and hearth to anyone who might be looking for a little breathing space.
And now we are here – at Breathing Space, on the outskirts of Coventry; a little haven of stillness. A place that we are making our home, as we unpack boxes and shuffle furniture around. A place where others can come and share the beauty, retreat from the pressures of everyday life, and, perhaps, encounter something of the Divine.
As I gaze out at the garden, with its profusion of shape and colour, even at this time in the grey damp of December, let alone with the sharp, frosty, sun-lit mornings we had when we first arrived, I am filled with gratitude and wonder. Watching the birds flit around the garden, or rise to the tops of the trees, my spirit, too, soars and I feel blessed.
Waking on my birthday to a cloudless Tuscan sky, the streets of Prato silent and empty in the cool of the morning (and no cafés open for a cappuccino and croissant), I wandered up the river seeking peace and beauty. A couple of miles on, I found my spot: away from the slowly waking town, shared only with egrets and a heron. I sat on a rock in the cool shade as the river gushed past me and the sun climbed slowly over verdant hills.
You spread a feast before me.
I am so blessed: from the wonder and joy of being with Lois – a second chance at life and love; the pride I take in Esther and Joe; the fulfilment I find in my work; the excitement of stepping out into pastures new.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me.
Back in Coventry an exciting new start awaits – yes, it feels uncertain, a step in the dark. And yet, I feel a sense of peace and wholeness; an ability to trust; and a conviction that the journey is the right one.
You lead me to restful waters.
(and yes, I did eventually get my coffee and croissant!)
On 25 March 1965, when I was far too young to be aware of it, Martin Luther King led thousands of non-violent demonstrators to the steps of the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama.
52 years on it seems as though the struggle for peace and justice is every bit as needed as it was then.
Images of peace and terror
This past week seems to have thrown up an incredible mix of good and evil: of terror, injustice, violence and greed combined with equally powerful images of peace and reconciliation.
I am left with images of our emergency services fighting to save the life of a man who had just killed four innocent people; of politicians and leaders on both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict gathering to honour Martin McGuinness – a man who had once been a source of terror and violent, but who had become an equally powerful force for peace; of President Trump being forced to back down from his attempt to reverse a policy which has brought better health security and welfare to millions of the least privileged in American society; of EU leaders gathering in Rome to celebrate the anniversary of a union that has, at the very least, been a major contributor to over 60 years of peace in Europe.
All those images leave me marvelling at the crazy, mixed up world in which we live: where so much of Martin Luther King’s dream has been achieved, and yet so much more remains to be done.
The image of five faith leaders standing together in a vigil to remember the victims of the Westminster attack stands alongside that of members of the Jewish community in Victoria, Texas, who handed over the keys of their synagogue to their Muslim brothers and sisters whose mosque was burned down on 28th January, just hours after Donald Trump announced his plan to ban immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries (Time Magazine, 2.2.17[1]).
“I want in terms of values, to refer to something that seems to me to go deeper, to something that is really at the foundation of our own understanding of what our society is about… That speaks of – at this time of year as we look forward to Holy Week and Easter – of a God who stands with the suffering, and brings justice, and whose resurrection has given to believer and unbeliever the sense that where we do what is right; where we behave properly; where that generosity and extraordinary sense of duty that leads people to treat a terrorist is shown; where that bravery of someone like PC Keith Palmer is demonstrated, that there is a victory for what is right and good; over what is evil, despairing and bad.” – Archbishop Justin Welby, 22.3.17
Terror may continue to shout… but the quiet voice will still be heard
Terror may continue to shout – whether in the form of a radicalized religious fanatic, or through the voices and actions of those from all backgrounds who promote intolerance. But the quiet voice of those who struggle in non-violent ways for peace and justice will still be heard.
As I write this, sitting on the deck of my cousin’s bach[1] looking out over Matheson Bay, as the gannets glide on the easy breeze and dive for fish in the gentle surf, it is easy to feel a sense of peace and goodwill.
The sense of goodwill, at least, has marked this holiday: paddling with the grandchildren in a kayak; playing family games; strolling through rain forest or along coastal walks; or enjoying a glass or two of Matakana wines with Lois. The peace is a bit more intermittent – being generally confined to when the children are bathed and in bed, or sitting reading quietly rather than charging round like elephants in boisterous games, or fighting over who should light the advent candle.
There is an incredible beauty around us, with towering kauri trees, bright red pohutukawas, and thick green bush all round. And we feel wonderfully blessed to be here.
At the same time, though, we long for others also to be able to share this blessing – for the peace and goodwill truly to be, as the angels promised, for all. For our friends who have suffered the horrible loss of bereavement this year. For those who have struggled with illness, family turmoil, children’s behaviour. For those who have been hurt by the very people who are supposed to offer safety, care and love. For families we have come to know who will probably never have an opportunity like this.
So we will hold on to the angels’ promise, we will enjoy the beauty that surrounds us, and we will ponder what we can do to share even a little bit of the peace and goodwill with which we have been blessed.
After the initial shock of the EU referendum result, I find myself, along with many others, numbed by a deep disappointment and a sense of grief. Like any grief, this brings up different emotions: emotions I have seen echoed in Facebook posts and in the words and faces of friends.
Grief – as I explored in a previous blog, “What’s natural about a healthy person dying” – combines three core processes: saying goodbye; moving forward; and making sense. So how do I, having voted to remain, turn my grief to something positive, rather than sinking into despondency, or bitterness and blame?
Making Sense
Much as I espoused the values of the European Union, and what seemed to me the benefits of remaining a part of that, I have done so within the privileged context of a democratic society – something my ancestors fought hard to attain, and something that I cannot take for granted. And that democracy has voted to leave.
While it may seem to me that some of those who voted to leave did so for selfish or small-minded motives, while others were driven by fear, or misled by false threats and promises, to taint all Leave-voters with that brush would be to succumb to the same prejudices and generalisations that I objected to in some of the more extreme Leave campaigners. It seems to me that the reality is far more nuanced and varied. There are, undoubtedly, passionate and thoughtful people who voted to leave for much the same reasons as I voted to remain: seeing an exit from the EU as a move to greater justice, freedom and wellbeing. I may disagree with their appraisal, but I hope I may be given the grace to respect and listen to them. And I hope that in the inevitable leadership vacuum which seems now to have imploded into our country, it will be people such as that who rise to fill the gaps and take our country forward into this next phase.
But above all, it seems to me that many of those who voted to leave did so precisely because they felt disenfranchised, marginalised or pushed aside by those in power. People voted because they wanted a change. While there has been a lot of vitriol and blame in the wake of the referendum, there have also been those who have pointed out just how important it is that we take time to listen to those from both sides who used this vote to speak out: those who normally don’t get a voice or any opportunity to influence what happens in our nation.
Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.
Proverbs 21: 13
Saying Goodbye
Regardless of how we voted, things will no longer be the same. It seems to me that now is a time for grieving by those who voted to remain, and a time for sombre reflection by those who voted to leave. It is right to express our grief: the sense of shock, the disbelief, the feelings of numbness, loss, uncertainty. So the outpourings of emotion that we have seen on Facebook, in our newspapers and on our news channels, and from many of our pulpits, are right and proper.
I have found myself wanting to apologise – to our children, to all those who will be affected by the inevitable economic turmoil, to the many wonderful people from other European countries and elsewhere in the world who have blessed us by coming to our land, to my friends and colleagues in Europe.
And I think it is right that so many have called for a second referendum: right for them to call for it, expressing their anger and disappointment. But much as those feelings need to be expressed, I do not feel it would be at all right to hold a second referendum. That could only lead to even more bitterness and division. No – we need to accept the results and live with the consequences. So while we in the UK will still be part of Europe, we will no longer be a part of the European Union, and we need to go through the process of breaking those ties and saying goodbye.
Moving Forward
And so, as we go through the next few weeks, months and years, and move out of the Union, as we face the turbulence of further economic and political upheaval, we need to also move forward in hope.
And my biggest hope is that somehow, through all this, we will find a way in a post-EU Britain, to maintain and uphold even more strongly the values for which the EU stands: for peace, for justice, care for our neighbour and our world.
“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail…
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child…
It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child” – Treaty on the European Union
Holding onto that, it seems to me that we all need to strive even harder to support and hold to account those who represent us in the corridors of Westminster. To put pressure on our MPs to uphold those values, and to lend our support to those who strive for these values.
I will continue to grieve. Perhaps this blog is part of that: expressing something of the disappointment I feel; trying to make sense of what has happened; hoping that we may somehow, in time, recover some of what we have lost; and above all, longing for a Britain and a Europe where peace, justice, and respect and care for our neighbours and our planet prevail.
I have just returned from an inspiring 3 days at the Soria Moria conference centre in the hills above Oslo. Over more than ten years now I have had the privilege of joining a supportive and pioneering group of practitioners, academics, bereaved parents and support groups from Scandinavia, Europe and further afield for this conference on sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). I always come away with new ideas and fresh enthusiasm, having heard from others about some of the latest research, discussed challenging cases, and considered how we can best work to support families and prevent the horror of unexpected child deaths. There is a spirit of collaboration, humility and learning that pervades the conference and I have no doubt this has led to some major advances in our understanding and direct benefits to children and families around the world.
The conference centre at Soria Moria takes its name and logo from Theodor Kittelsen’s dramatic painting of the poor boy, Halvor, knapsack on his back, gazing off into the distance, far, far away where Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold: a vision of a brighter, better future.
Far, far away Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold – by Theodor Kittelsen
The EU referendum
So what has all that got to do with the forthcoming referendum? Perhaps because the spirit of collaboration, humility and learning I have experienced at Soria Moria captures so much of how I think we should be living together in our increasingly globalised society, and that the vision of a brighter, better future captured in the fairy tale of Soria Moria embraces some of the key values that I believe should underlie our considerations of whether to leave or remain in the EU: values of peace, justice and wellbeing.
“The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.” – Treaty on the European Union
Peace
Since the end of the Second World War in 1945, we have experienced an unprecedented 70 years of peace in Europe. While that peace clearly cannot be attributed solely to the presence of the European Union, it seems to me that the formal agreements forged between the constituent countries have at least contributed to that peace, and certainly have done nothing to undermine it. We are blessed by an incredible level of security and safety in our countries, and I am grateful to all those who contribute to this. And there are very real threats to that security, not least the ongoing threats of terrorist groups who operate across all borders, as well as potential threats from nearby countries. It seems to me that a united Europe is a much stronger counter to those threats, with all the advantages of shared security, information transfer, and collaborative rather than competitive security forces.
“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.” – Treaty on the European Union
Justice
The very basis of the EU, as stated up-front in the Treaty on the European Union, is respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These are values to which all of us should aspire. It worries me when our government talks of opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights, as though we are somehow above respecting such rights. It seems to me that our membership of the EU has helped promote rights for children, women, workers, minority groups, and those who are most vulnerable. We need to continue to fight for justice and equality and should welcome and work with all those who share such values.
Justice extends too to our planet, and care for the environment. Here, too, it seems that the EU has been a significant driving force in promoting environmental sustainability, green energy, and care for creation. Once again it seems that we are in a stronger position to promote that in a united way.
“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.” – Treaty on the European Union
Wellbeing
Much of the debate between the two sides in the referendum seems to have focused on the economy, with both sides promoting scare-mongering predictions, based on rather tenuous speculation. I think this is a great shame, as economic wellbeing is just one part of wellbeing, and so much is uncertain either way. It seems to me that the only certainty is that if we leave the EU there will be a period of economic and political instability during which fresh treaties and agreements will need to be made with each of the other member states. The only people likely to benefit from this seem to be the already wealthy bankers, stockbrokers and lawyers.
Nevertheless, economic stability is a component of the EU treaty promoting a social market economy, employment, social progress, and free trade. Again, these seem to be worthwhile goals.
But there is so much more to wellbeing: healthcare, education, research, diversity, culture. All of these are promoted within the EU treaty, and it is hard for me to see why we should argue against them.
“The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.” – Treaty on the European Union
So, motivated by what I consider to be basic values of justice, peace and seeking the common good, for ourselves and for our neighbours, I will be voting to remain on the 23rd June.
“In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.” – Treaty on the European Union
I am writing to you as I am increasingly concerned by the way the debate in Parliament on military action is going, and the direction in which Mr Cameron seems to be taking our country in his proposed response to the Paris terrorism attacks.
We have all been horrified by the indiscriminate brutality of the Paris attacks. Like the rest of the population, I would not want to see such atrocities take place in Britain, and I would want to stand in solidarity with our neighbours in France.
However, I cannot see how military action in Syria can do anything but escalate the crisis, and cause even further suffering for thousands of innocent people. I understand that the death toll in Syria after four years of civil war is now over 250,000, nearly half of them civilians, and over 12,000 children. The lessons of Iraq tell us clearly that, no matter how technologically advanced our weapons, the reality is that we cannot accurately target terrorist groups in these countries, and that the more the fighting escalates the higher the civilian death toll will rise. If we respond to the terrorist threats with airstrikes and bombs, innocent civilians and children will inevitably die. We cannot take that risk.
It is also difficult to see how military action could possibly do anything other than strengthen the cause of terrorists. Writing in the Guardian on 27.11.15, journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer pointed out that in 2001 there were perhaps a couple of hundred terrorists in the Hindu Kush; following George Bush’s war on terror, and the loss of as many as one million Iraqi lives, there are now an estimated 100,000 terrorists posing a threat to the international community. Isis was apparently created six months after the start of that invasion. If the West continues to drop bombs on Syria, killing civilians in the process, this will only provide welcome ammunition to Isis and result in the alienation and radicalisation of yet more disenfranchised people.
The lesson is clear: we cannot beat terror with terror.
I recognise that there are no easy solutions to the threats posed by terrorist groups, nor to the ongoing oppression of unjust regimes in Syria and elsewhere. However, there are alternatives to the escalation that would come with air strikes. I would suggest four key strategies in which we could positively engage: to stop Gulf states delivering weapons to terrorists in Syria and Iraq; to help Turkey seal its long border and prevent the flow of new fighters joining Isis; to support moves to give the Sunni population in these countries a voice; and to fully invest in social and economic development in Syria and its neighbours.
Wardah Khalid, Peace Fellow in Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation in the States makes similar proposals:
‘Create a comprehensive, multilateral strategy with our allies, including the Arab League and the U.N., that includes such tools as a regional arms embargo to prevent weapons from going into the wrong hands, penalties for purchasing illicit oil that funds the Islamic State group and more money for diplomacy and humanitarian aid. A political solution to Syria and its President Bashar Assad must also be revisited, as the power vacuum there is what allowed radicals and their foreign backers to first take hold.’[1]
So I would ask you, for the sake of the many suffering children and adults in Syria, and for the sake of our own national security, to please vote against any military action in Syria.
Today at Westminster Abbey a service was held to ‘recognise the commitment of the Royal Navy to effective peace-keeping through the [continuous at sea] deterrent over the past fifty years and to pray for peace throughout the world.’
