A letter from Doug and Elaine Baker in Northern Ireland
February 2009
Northern Ireland Update
The Consultative Group on the Past issues report
It has been a significant week in Northern Ireland, with the latest development in the long-running peace process. The Consultative Group on the Past, a cross-community panel appointed by the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to recommend how this society might find ways to deal with the legacy of nearly 4,000 murders, 43,000 physical injuries, deep sectarian division and brokenness everywhere, published their report. The report suggests establishing a Legacy Commission to oversee investigation into the violence carried out during the Troubles by various factions and the provision of information to the next of kin of victims about what happened to their loved ones. It also calls for a bursary to address the effects of the conflict, including addiction and suicide prevention, and calls on churches to take responsibility for their role in nurturing the social context in which the conflict could occur.
It’s a controversial report because it deals with the monumental pain of decades in which neighbors suspected neighbors, people were blown up in public places and nobody could feel entirely safe. No one has ever been charged for the majority of the murders that took place during the Troubles, and many relatives’ pain is magnified by not knowing why their loved one was targeted and who was responsible and by not feeling that justice has been done for them. In some cases, their pain is increased by spurious claims made about their loved ones that implied that they were “legitimate” targets.
Although it was not intended to be the main thrust of the report, the suggestion that family members of all of those killed should receive a payment of £12,000 in recognition of their suffering has received most attention. This is primarily because it makes no distinction between noncombatant civilians on the one hand and combatants in the police, army and illegal paramilitary organizations, like the IRA and their Loyalist counterparts, on the other. There are good reasons for this. Attempts to create victim hierarchies serve to continue this society’s division. It is true that claims that argue “our victims were innocent, yours were not” are hard to counter in many specific cases. For example, there have been several incidents when those planting bombs that killed several bystanders were blown up themselves by their own devices when they went off prematurely.
However, it also appears clear to most that many who got caught up in paramilitary activity most likely would not have become involved in violent crime had they grown up in other parts of the United Kingdom. The complexities of the Troubles meant that many who became perpetrators of violence had also been victims of violence and deep sectarian division. While they bear full responsibility for their actions, it is also clear that something about the context in which they found themselves contributed to the course of action to which they resorted. The suggestion that the families of all those who were killed receive a recognition payment does not pivot on any arguments about whether or not actions taken were justified or even understandable. The payment suggested is to the family of those who died, not the victim themselves. The suggestion recognizes that many families did not even know about — let alone support — the illegal activities of their loved ones who died as a result of them and that, whatever the circumstances of their deaths, all those left behind experience pain. Some commentators have put it this way: “every mother’s tears are salty.” Other voices, not just of hardliners, have responded by saying “Not all tears are the same. Some are bitter, some are angry, some are simply sad.” The debate about this particular suggestion in the report will go on for some time, and the recommendation could ultimately be thrown out rather than implemented.
However, the Consultative Group on the Past has made it clear that the “recognition payment” was never meant to be a central feature of the report. Recognition of each other’s suffering is. They believe there is no real prospect for movement forward if the argument continues alone the lines that “We are the real victims here” without recognizing that all sections of the society share some responsibility for the destructive conflict of the past 40 years.
The report seeks to do a number of other things as well.
- Recognizing that those bereaved by or survivors of sectarian violence have a huge need to know what happened to them or their loved ones and why, the report suggests some ways to set up an information recovery process.
- Recognizing that there are still many practical issues faced by survivors of traumatic events, the report calls for the provision of special services and healthcare needs.
- Recognizing that public inquiries into particularly controversial deaths have so far been extremely slow, expensive and unsatisfactory in producing new information or clear conclusions, the report recommends that there be no new public inquiries.
- Recognizing that arguments about “the past” could easily hold back creation of a shared and reconciled future forever, the report suggests a five-year time limit on the work of the Legacy Commission (assuming one is set up) and some actions that could be taken at the end of that period as ways of making a real departure from the destructive violence of the past.
- Recognizing the divisive role which religion has often had in the past, the report challenges the Christian Churches in Northern Ireland to review and rethink their contribution to a nonsectarian future, particularly in the area of education.
The report is important reading for anyone with an interest in Northern Ireland as well as anyone who cares about questions of dealing with violence and trauma anywhere. Perhaps the most important element is the fact that the principles of restorative justice are implied in the consultative group’s report: an attempt to transcend revenge and establish a way forward based on the understanding that justice and mercy go hand in hand — and that your security and mine depend on each other.
The Consultative Group on the Past has given serious attention to the question of trauma and societal healing. The report argues that burying the scars of violence and trauma does not heal them any more than vengeance makes a victim feel better in the long term. Some way of acknowledging and dealing with those scars and all that caused them is vital if the future is truly to be different from the past.
You can access the full report at the Web site of the Consultative Group for the Past.
Stafford Carson elected moderator-designate of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland
At the February meetings of PCI presbyteries, elections are held for moderator of the General Assembly. The candidate winning in the largest number of presbyteries is elected. The Rev. Stafford Carson, minster of First Portadown Presbyterian Church, was elected with the vote of 10 presbyteries. The Rev. Derek McKelvey, minister of Fisherwick in South Belfast, received six presbytery votes and the Rev. Norman Hamilton, minister of Ballysillan in North Belfast, received five.
Carson is a self-defined theological conservative, not engaged in ecumenical activities, who spent a number of years on the staff of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia before returning to parish ministry in Northern Ireland. The other two candidates both come from the more ecumenically open wing of the PCI. The split in the presbytery votes reveals the continuing divide in PCI between those who see building cross-community (Protestant-Catholic) relationships as central to a faithful witness to the gospel in this context and those who view it as either irrelevant or inappropriate.
A different theological debate, however, has been the focus of media attention. For some years the two Presbyterian congregations in Portadown have held a joint Christmas morning service, alternating buildings year by year and with the minister of the visiting congregation preaching. In 2006 Carson refused to allow the new minister of Armagh Road Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Christina Bradley, preach because he is not persuaded that the PCI’s position in ordaining women is scriptural. PCI rules do allow a male minister to make such a decision on the basis of conscience. The secular media has run with the story on and off for the past two years, and it has brought no good publicity to the church in wider society, particularly with younger adults. Carson has stated his intention to work positively as moderator with female ministers in the boards, committees and courts of the church and is happy to speak in any of the congregations with a female minister, but draws a line at inviting any to preach from his pulpit. Dr. Carson assumes his role on June 1, 2009, and we pray for God’s blessing upon him in all that his role will require of him. Whether this issue will dominate his year in office or not is still to be seen.
Doug Baker
The 2009 Mission Yearbook for Prayer & Study, p. 171
