Ministry of conflict
John Myhill believes it is time to accept personal responsibility
The novel The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner was written in the early nineteenth century by the aptly named James Hogg. The book is an over-wordy argument against Calvinism, and I am not recommending it, only the title.
When it comes to speaking and writing, I am that ‘Justified Sinner’. I have come to realise that much of my ministry (in Meeting for Worship and generally in most of what I write and say) gives those who are listening the opportunity to feel superior (‘I knew that’, or ‘I do that’), or to feel argumentative (and thus face up to the seeds of war within themselves).
Each day I come across wise words and good ideas, spoken and written by others. This can be very uplifting and positive, especially within the silence of a Meeting for Worship, and I think I would like to say such things.
However, what really makes me feel alive – pulse racing and sharp intake of breath – is when I hear something that sounds to me totally wrong, misguided, or foolish. That makes me want to respond, to argue, to put people straight, or to enter into disputation and potential conflict.
I think many of my fellow Quakers may be wary of this kind of feeling alive. To me they seem becalmed, lacking wind in their sails, attempting to escape the spirit’s embodiment in flesh-and-blood emotions, and missing out on pleasure as well as pain. Chiefly, I think, they are missing out on excitement, enthusiasm and energy.
Here in Norfolk we were recently prevented from seeing the moon turned to blood as it was ‘eaten’ by a lunar eclipse (pure Book of Revelation), because a thunderstorm (real wrath of God stuff) brought an end to drought and field fires. Clearly, even with the greenest of international agreements, we are not going to prevent rising temperatures for many years to come. So, is it not time to stop wringing our hands every time there is a major conflagration and start accepting some personal responsibility?
We should not build houses near woods and other flammable crops. We should cut firebreaks through all potential combustible estates. We should encourage wetlands and saltmarshes. We should discipline the young so they know their lives are on a knife-edge, where playing with matches can lead to multiple murder.
Recently, there were reports of a man reading aloud the Sermon on the Mount outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London. The St Paul’s Cathedral authorities asked the police to move him on, as he was on Cathedral property. Were they worried he might disturb the tourists or prompt an outbreak of George Fox-style Quakerism? Fortunately, the police felt he was not disturbing the peace. But what happened to the idea of people of faith standing together for toleration and mutual respect?
Albert Einstein once said that the most important question we can ever ask is if the world is a friendly place.
If we decide the world is an unfriendly place, we can justify all the methods to keep out unfriendliness and the bigger weapons to destroy all that which is unfriendly. We might even destroy ourselves in the process.
If we decide that the world is neither friendly nor unfriendly but just mechanistic, there is nothing we can do as life is pre-programmed, or perhaps random.
However, if we decide the world is a friendly place (and I firmly believe it is), then we can afford to trust others, to be open to all, delighting in all things – especially in those that may appear contrary, controversial, or even threatening.
Could it be that some Friends are less optimistic or perhaps less naïve than I am, and cannot accept this friendly view of the world?
