by Chris Wilson.

An organisation allied to the Quaker Socialists is Independent Labour Publications (ILP). This is not the same as the old Independent Labour Party of Keir Hardie, George Lansbury, Ramsay MacDonald, Isabella Ford and the Salters but a successor organisation established in 1975 called Independent Labour Publications. They publish books and articles about ethical socialism on their website at independentlabour.org.uk, and it is well worth a read. You can also find them on Twitter (X) at @IndLP. This article of theirs by Chris Wilson reviews ‘Keir Hardie’s Creed’ by Rev Neil Johnson.

A new book on the ILP’s founder and first leader explores the religious underpinnings of his socialist faith. It contains important lessons for the left today, says CHRIS WILSON.

Methodist minister Reverend Neil Johnson offers a valuable contribution to the historiography of Keir Hardie in this fascinating booklet. While many have written about Hardie’s life and politics, here focus is trained on the Christian underpinning of his developing activism.

Keir Hardie’s Creed deserves consideration by all those interested in the formative years of the British Labour movement or in the development of Hardie’s political thinking. Johnson draws an interesting distinction between Christian socialist and socialist Christian thought, placing early pioneers such as FD Maurice in the former camp, as one whose ecclesiastical position and theological reflection led to socialist advocacy; and Hardie in the latter, drawing inspiration more from the person of Jesus than from some doctrinal system.

He has a point. Christ’s life certainly resonated with Hardie’s own. Johnson points to Caroline Benn’s observation that Christ and Hardie were both born to unmarried parents, had fathers who were carpenters and mothers called Mary. No wonder then that Hardie saw in Christ’s life some expression of his own.

Hardie’s Christianity was certainly of the dissenting variety, with strong congregational influences, and shaped by the emerging Labour Churches. For Hardie, Jesus became the working man of his time, excluded and marginalised yet expressing in and through his life the struggle for brotherhood and peace, where the ends never justified the means (Christ rejected the Zealots of his day), and with his disciples holding all things in common.

Here then is an embryonic, deeply ethical and democratic socialism.

Johnson also offers a valuable summary of those other influences on Hardie’s life, from John Ruskin to Robert Burns to Thomas Carlyle to John Stuart Mill. This I found convincing, although I am less sure about the impact of Walt Whitman or Ralph Waldo Emerson as that risks recasting Hardie as a Unitarian Christian, deeply devoted to the person of Christ but not accepting his privileged position as saviour of humanity. This might have been true of Ramsay McDonald but Hardie’s later wish to have preached the gospel suggests otherwise in his case.

On the other hand, Johnson is surely right to see Hardie’s embrace of socialism in religious terms. The argument that his socialism was no more than the religion of Jesus (as opposed to religion about Jesus) recast as political activism in his own time is compelling. Hardie’s creed was neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism but something else, something more like a religious revival based on a political outworking of Hardie’s personal commitment to Christ.

Gospel of Labour

I also liked the author’s attempt to summarise Hardie’s creed: “Socialism is the Christianity of today … the gospel of the whole labour movement … based on love, fraternity and service.”

There is much here that needs to be rediscovered today – the idea that we should be changing capitalism not accommodating it, and that change must not just be a revolution of structures but also of the heart. Hardie’s socialism was never of the Leninist insurrectionist variety, notwithstanding his nod to Marx in his book From Serfdom to Socialism.

Johnson also explores Hardie’s commitment to temperance, and this deserves further unpacking – that his politics was also shaped by the wider fraternities to which he belonged. There was the miners’ union, of course, but also the temperance of the Independent Order of Good Templars (still going today, and still pointing out the damage of alcohol to people and societies).

Hardie remains a deeply compelling figure. Johnson has reminded us that he cannot be simplistically located even within the (or should that be ‘a’?) Christian tradition, but rather is someone who stands apart, a dissenter amongst dissenters, a prophet standing alone. There is indeed, something of the Old Testament prophet in Hardie – speaking truth to power, seeking the common good, praised then vilified in his own lifetime.

What then can we learn from this book and from Hardie?

That socialism has to be visionary, certainly; ethical too, with deeps roots in the culture of the day; and fed in Hardie’s case from the ecosystem of radical dissent, trade unionism, friendly societies, temperance causes and a growing working class confidence. We learn that hearts as well as minds, behaviours as well as structures need to change if the New Jerusalem, or the Kingdom of God, or the socialist utopia is ever to arrive.

But there’s also a strong warning against naivety. Hardie’s pacifism was swept away by the blood of the trenches and its relevance today is questionable when confronted with our current world and its authoritarian leaders.

Still, when facing a world of injustice, inspiration can still be drawn from Keir Hardie’s creed, just as, in turn, the great man drew inspiration from that radical Galilean peasant, Jesus Christ. As Johnson notes, in the words of James Keir Hardie himself, “Socialism is a sacred cause.” And Christ’s ‘Sermon on the Mount’ from Matthew 5 is a pretty good place to start.

——————————————————————————

The Reverend Chris Wilson serves on the national executive committees of the Community Union and the Co-operative Party. He is a church minister and member of Christians on the Left. He writes in a personal capacity.

Keir Hardie’s Creed: Faith in Socialism by Neil Johnson is published by Wipf and Stock, and available here for £27 (hardback) or £16 (paperback). See also: ‘Hardie’s Creed & the Religion of Socialism’ by Neil Johnson. And: ‘Christian Socialism: Out There & Active’ by Chris Wilson.

by Nicola Grove.

In this article Nicola Grove reflects on how rarely these days do we hear from the people actually involved in the issues of the day. In between stand commentators, presenters, pundits, opponents and supporters. Quakers too sometimes do this, excluding the voices of those marginalised by mainstream media.  

I was in an online meeting about how to enable the stories of marginalised people to be told; in this case focusing on disability. Family members were prominent, sharing moving and often uplifting accounts of personal connections. But because my work focuses on participation, I was struck by the absence of the individuals themselves. We were hearing the stories of their allies, but were these the stories that they themselves would want to tell?

Cut to a wonderful exhibition about displacement. As well as contemporary images and installations, there were powerful art works dating back to the Spanish civil war and World War II. The curator had added her comments – that one disturbing charcoal sketch of refugees risked dehumanising them by presenting a faceless mass. (For the record, I didn’t agree, I could easily discern individuals amongst the trudging crowd). But what would displaced people themselves think? We don’t know, because nobody had thought to ask them. 

How do people want to be represented? How do they feel about being seen as vulnerable victims? What do they think about the programmes we run, that we are certain are vital to their survival? What do they want us to do? Have we asked them?

Quakers are not immune to this trend. I have been reading through Quaker responses to the unfolding genocide in Palestine. Strong statements and letters are written in our name by the various bodies in British Yearly Meeting. The letter pages of the Quakers’ Friend magazine have provided contrasting views over many years about whether criticism of Israel is de facto  antisemitism. In the body of the magazine we have read recently that perhaps war crimes are not something we should focus on, since all war is a violation. The inferences are clear – we need to question our “progressive” stance on, say, settler colonialism, on self determination, on any ideas that Hamas might be an evolving, complex, multifaceted organisation. Similarly, a book is reviewed that exhorts us to adopt the concept of Israelophobia, whilst distorting (to put it mildly) the history of Palestine and Palestinians. We are now told that to invite Jeremy Corbyn, a leading campaigner and politician who has spent his life working for peace and justice to give a public lecture at the same time as the Quaker Yearly Meeting would be to risk accusations of antisemitism and “damage the reputation” of Quakers.  

Do you notice any absent voices here? Where are the Palestinian voices? Where is the voice of the  banned speaker, Jeremy Corbyn? 

I will leave the final words to Pastor Isaac Munther from Bethlehem, another absent voice. Astonishingly, no Quaker outlets publicised his metanoiac Christmas sermon “Christ under the Rubble”, nor covered his visit to London in February, apart from a link in a recent newsletter to one minute of a candlelit vigil. Perhaps his words are too dangerous for Friends to hear, because they challenge our comfortable thinking that as Quakers we are principled, impartial, peace-loving. And that this stance is enough, quite enough, to prove how much we are suffering on behalf of others.

What did Pastor Munther actually say about us? He said: “This is not about “praying for peace” “raising concern” or “sending support”. Piety, religiosity, true spirituality means the active participation in loosing the bonds of injustice, undoing the straps of the yoke, letting the oppressed go free, and breaking every yoke. This is active solidarity, this is action.”

Nicola Grove, 23 March 2024.

[Another version of this article later appeared in the Friend magazine on 05 April 2024.]

by Graham Taylor.

In 1670 persecution of Quakers by the Puritan government was in full flood. Meeting Houses were being closed, or totally destroyed, and Quakers imprisoned. Yet Quakers did not falter but insisted on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly . Unlike most at the time, they not only insisted on free speech for Protestant sects but asked that Catholics , Jews and Muslims be allowed freedom of speech as well. Their reward after the Revolution of 1688 was the Toleration Act which, although it granted freedoms only to Protestants, nonetheless is still one of the foundation-stones for the civil liberties we enjoy today.

The persecution was severe. In August of that year soldiers closed down their Meeting House in Gracechurch St, in the City of London, but Quakers pursued their customary tactic of meeting and speaking as close as possible to the building where they are forbidden to speak. This tactic is still practised even today. The organisers in 1670 were William Penn and William Mead, both leading Quakers, and after they refused to end the meeting they called in the street outside, they were arrested and charged with unlawful assembly. Presiding at their trial in September was Samuel Starling, the Lord Mayor of London, acting in his role of Sheriff. The trial showed that Starling was no fan of free speech and no fan of Quakers.

There was conflict at the trial from the beginning but at first it was rather comic . Starling knew that one well-known aspect of Quaker egalitarianism was that they refused to remove their hats to their ‘social superiors’. When they did that, he had planned to fine them for contempt of court, but to his evident annoyance Penn and Mead appeared before him without their hats. He had to order court officers to put their hats back onto their heads, so they would then refuse to remove them in his presence when he asked them to, so he could then fine them for contempt.

That was the last light moment in the trial. Starling then, very unwisely, took on William Penn in a battle of wits. Penn had enquired under which law they were charged and Starling declined to make any answer but merely said it was “common law”. Penn then asked which specific part of common law he meant because if he was using an interpretation of common law that ruled out freedom of speech and assembly, this was a threat to “the rights and privileges of every Englishman”. When Starling tried to brush him off, perhaps unsure himself of the answer, Penn then revealed to the court his line of defence in the now famous sentence: “The question is not whether I am guilty of this indictment, but whether this indictment be legal.”

On hearing this, Starling ordered Penn removed from the dock and returned to the ‘bail-dock’, a cage where prisoners sat waiting to be called. But William Mead was up next, and he found Mead pursued the same line as Penn, this time citing learnedly the Institutes of Edward Coke, regarded in the 17th century as England’s leading legal authority. Mead too was sent to the cage.

Starling then proceeded to the conviction and imprisonment of Penn and Mead by instructing the jury on the obvious guilt of the defendants. However, to his astonishment it appears, he found the jury no more compliant than Penn. They refused repeatedly to obey the instructions given. The jurors found a spokesperson for their principled stand in one of their number, Edward Bushel. Eventually, in exasperation, Starling had the jury locked up without food and water until they produced the verdict he wanted. The Court Recorder, John Howel, told the jury: “you shall not be dismist, till we have a verdict that the court will accept; and you shall be lock’d up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco: You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict by the help of God, or you shall starve for it.”

Penn appealed to the jury to remain strong, and they did, and history was made when they endured the punishment for two days and still remained defiant. Starling fined them, as well as sending Penn and Mead back to jail for contempt of court, but he had gone too far. Later, in the face of extreme disquiet amongst members of the establishment who themselves might need the help of a jury one day, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, John Vaughan, made the historic ruling that in future a jury could not be punished for any judgements they chose to make.

The modern reader should not be too contemptuous of Sheriff Starling, as if they would have acted differently if they had been alive at that time. For a start, there are cases similar to the Penn-Mead case taking place today and usually only a few individuals protest. Secondly, there were historical circumstances constraining Starling, Howel and the Puritan government. The courts at that time had no presumption of innocence, no exclusion of hearsay evidence, and no burden of proof on the prosecution. From Starling’s point of view he was trying to keep order in the City of London (there were no police in those days) and here was a bunch of trouble-makers (Quakers) clearly guilty of what today would be called a breach of the peace. The jury surely must have heard of the Quakers’ appalling reputation, Starling would have thought: Quakers were extreme egalitarians, refusing to address their superiors by ‘you’; refusing to take off their hats to clergy, judges and other eminent people; refusing to pay taxes for the upkeep of the state Church; and refusing to swear oaths just because their social superiors did not have to swear oaths. Starling must have felt it very unlikely, in the City of London, that the solid citizens who sat on juries, reliant for their livelihoods on law and order, would countenance in their own City such unruly behaviour.

The recent cases today with a similarity to the Penn-Mead case were those of climate activists not allowed by judges to communicate to a jury the motives for their protests. This meant the actions of which they were accused looked to the jury like random criminal damage. In addition, there has also been a general trend in recent years towards an erosion of the right to a fair trial by jury. That was the reason for the ‘re-enactment’ demos by Quakers and others in London last weekend and why there is a National Week of Action called by the campaign, ‘Defend Our Juries’, for April 13-21. The aim is that every court in the country will be picketed. These tactics try to draw public attention to the undermining of juries but it is doubtful whether any other protest will be as colourful as the ‘fancy-dress’ re-enactment last Sunday. About 70 protesters, some in traditional Quaker dress, sat around the Monument at London Bridge in an impressive Quaker silence before they marched to the site in Gracechurch St close to where the trial of 1670 took place, and then moved on to a third demo outside the Ministry of Justice in Petty France.

An article by Rebecca Hardy in the Friend, the weekly Quaker magazine, written before the event, described the dramatic ‘re-enactment demo’ in this way: “The London event at Gracechurch Street is in support of the Defend our Juries campaign, which was sparked by a wave of restrictions in climate activist court cases. These prevented defendants from mentioning climate change in front of a jury, sometimes resulting in imprisonment. The re-enactment will depict the trial of William Penn and William Mead, which became a legal precedent for the rights of juries. Quaker Phil Laurie, one of the organisers of the event, told the Friend: It’s basically to alert Quakers to the fact that one of the great gifts of Quaker activism in the early days was the jury system – and it’s under threat. Quakers need to wake up to this and defend it. A jury was threatened with prison last month if they acquitted someone according to their conscience. We’re reminding people that this was hard won by the sacrifice of Quakers in the 1670s…”

There were several Quaker Socialists among the demonstrators last Sunday who went to all three protests. Starting from the impressive Quaker silence at the Monument, they proceeded to the re-enactment in Gracechurch St, then to the demonstration outside the Ministry of Justice, before finally arriving, weary but happy, at the Westminster Quaker Meeting House in St Martin’s Lane, where they were greeted by warm hospitality and hot soup. Trudi Warner, a climate activist, then gave a filmed account of why she was at the Penn-Mead demo. She herself was one of those soon to be on trial, and she told the camera that the case, and the subsequent ruling, “had established the really important legal principle about jurors being able to give a verdict according to their conscience”. That victory she pointed out – now commemorated on a plaque in the Old Bailey – was all due to some persecuted Quakers who 354 years ago “held a protest meeting in the street”.

Graham Taylor 2024.04.13

by Priscilla Alderson.

Recent remarks by Wes Streeting MP give a distorted view of the effect that his proposed reforms would have on the NHS . He says Labour healthcare policy is to support the private sector ‘to help to reduce NHS waiting lists’ but this involves taking doctors and all other healthcare staff out of NHS services, where they have been trained.   The plan includes the NHS paying for private services for some patients. But these waste money by costing more than they would do if they were provided directly by the NHS. Meanwhile, some leading Labour MPs accept funds from private healthcare companies and can expect to work for them in future decades and earn very high incomes. This is explained in:

 https://www.healthcampaignstogether.com/pdf/HCTno22.pdf

Professor Allyson Pollock has researched the privatising of the NHS for over 20 years and has made this moving webinar. Anyone who care about the NHS would greatly benefit from watching it. https://gftu.org.uk/general-election-protect-the-nhs/

by Ruth Kettle-Frisby.

[This article is taken from the Quaker weekly magazine, the Friend (15.03.24), which reports all topical debates within British Quakers. You can read, and subscribe, at: thefriend.org]

Traditionally, actions of witness taken by Friends – such as holding someone in the Light during Meeting for Worship, gathering in a silent vigil for peace, or sharing ministry – have been understood as peaceful. These are valuable, and may even contribute to positive change and healing. But it is Britain’s worst-kept secret that our basic human rights and freedoms – such as the abolition of slavery and a woman’s right to vote – were achieved through intense political struggle, revolt and a high cost to human life. The truth is not very nice, not very calming, and not very peaceful – and, ironically, not very ‘British’. 

What even is peace? Our lives can often appear to be peaceful. In East London, I do not have to worry about a bomb dropping on my children’s heads. There is a useful British veil of landscape, postcards, family days out, and cultural institutions like art galleries, schools, universities, and places of worship, including Quaker Meeting houses. But this veil is itself the result of bitter, bloody conflict, and underneath it lies a sobering truth: our historically-embedded political, social, economic and cultural inheritance is anything but peaceful. Our lives, lifestyles and privileges, our thought processes and instincts, are dripping in unjust conflicts and the blood of our brothers and sisters who we continue to colonise. Our history of empire and colonialism continues into our complicity in war. Homeless friends continue to suffer on the streets. Our friends from the global majority die as a result of climate breakdown. Meanwhile, billions of pounds are spent on funding nuclear weapons, and we continue to invest in fossil fuels. 

We are free to talk about peace until the cows come home. But the truth is that even if we as individuals oppose, say, war in the Middle East, we have already been collectively dragged into it. We live and breathe conflict. When a person or group of people (including women and people who make up the global majority) are powerless in the face of gross, supremacist injustice, what springs to the western mind when we think of ‘peace’ just hasn’t ever cut it. 

Peace is much more complicated than it first appears. If you could go back in history to stop the direct activism that led to the partial emancipation we have today, would you do so? Not an easy question to answer, is it? Do we not all, at some level, condone the consequentialism by which peaceful ends are arrived at by violent means? Do we not embody that very maxim as an imperialist nation?

I do not doubt that there is a difficult variety of perspectives on the ground among Palestinian and Israeli civilians. Lack of education, constant suffering and fear will likely lead to all sorts of views that we in the west deem to be unacceptable. I invite Friends to empathise, not condone.

In ‘Hold your peace’ (21 February), Keith Braithwaite expressed a suspicion of the word ‘but’. This little word, however, can be a powerful one, capable of holding space for nuance, empathy and understanding. Rarely is anything clear-cut. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are on the rise, and both of these evils should be condemned. Alongside this, I believe we should extend our empathy to Palestinian civilians, without conflating them with Hamas. We should condemn violence by Hamas, while also trying to understand where it came from. This will allow us to visualise an achievable peace. We should also condemn violence by the state of Israel, but listen open-heartedly to our Jewish friends who feel terrified, and who are being subject to an increase in abuse. 

We should do whatever is in our power to uphold all of our friends peacefully. But it is disingenuous to insist on ‘peace’ as the western psyche understands it. It’s OK to be mistaken, it’s OK to be wrong, and it’s OK not to know.

I recently went on a march for Palestine with a friend and her young daughters. I wanted to join others in a desperate plea for a ceasefire, but doubts began to creep into my thoughts: Is it right for me to get involved in something I don’t fully understand, and which doesn’t directly impact me? Am I legitimising the lexicon and culture of conflict by participating in a protest that is explicitly couched in the language of ‘sides’? Am I contributing to increased racist abuse of our Jewish friends?

Different answers to these questions have prompted a number of cultural civil wars here in the west. For me, I am proud of the marches for Palestine by people of all faiths and none, and my heart goes out to Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who suffers as a result of violence, oppression, injustice and war. 

It’s worth being mindful that peace never exists in a vacuum. This truth is understood in our Quaker values by the fact that peace is not sufficient alone; it must always coexist with truth and justice.

It seems to me that there is a powerful way for Friends to collectively put our Peace Testimony into action. It starts with our being mindful of the distinctly unpeaceful origins of the relative ‘peace’ that many of us enjoy in the UK. From there we must keep up the pressure on our government by supporting organisations like CND, War on Want, Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Tax Justice UK. Together we should unequivocally oppose the UK’s investment in neocolonialism, climate injustice, occupation and nuclear arms. In the spirit of early Friends and activists throughout history, we are called to challenge the UK’s complicity in global acts of violent injustice. If these policies are said to be undertaken on our behalf, we should tell the world that they are not made in our name.

Ruth Kettle-Frisby

by Sheila Taylor.

The QSS Summary and website post:

On 11 February the BYM Trustees recommended that our Salter Lecture on ‘War & Peace’ should not go ahead at the same time as Yearly Meeting if Jeremy Corbyn were one of the speakers. On 23 February QSS produced a Summary of the situation, expressing our concern and our feeling that this decision was giving way to the establishment and the media.

We sent our Summary to the Trustees to explain our view, and a meeting was arranged for Sheila to have a discussion with Marisa Johnson and Paul Parker. We also sent it to the two other BYM decision-making bodies: Meeting for Sufferings and Yearly Meeting Agenda Committee, asking for it to be circulated to their members, but we were told that was inappropriate.

On 29 February an item was therefore posted on the QSS website headed: ‘Will Quakers ban Jeremy Corbyn?’. This was the first public mention of the Salter Lecture issue, and for some people in inner-Quaker circles it caused what they described as a ‘media storm’.

Communication with QSS members:

Discussions with BYM about the Salter Lecture had actually been going on since September. All that time we were hoping for a resolution that would be acceptable to both sides. However, the Trustees’ decision seemed to make this impossible. So on 1 March we sent QSS members our Summary of the situation, and within two days we received 31 responses from members expressing dismay, disappointment and a considerable degree of anger.

QSS talk to Management (1 March):

When Sheila met with Marisa and Paul on 1 March, she pointed out that Jeremy Corbyn’s office had still not been able to confirm his availability for July. However, she also stated that QSS could not possibly disinvite a speaker whom they considered perfectly appropriate. If Jeremy were unacceptable in Friends House, QSS would be obliged to hold the Salter Lecture elsewhere.

Marisa declared that she would happily speak to Jeremy Corbyn in person, explain the situation and ask him to withdraw. Sheila therefore arranged a meeting for this extraordinary conversation to take place.

Meeting for Sufferings (2 March):

The Trustees had sent their report on the Salter Lecture to Meeting for Sufferings as a ‘Confidential Minute’, which was not revealed until the actual meeting. So when Marisa spoke to the minute, members were unclear about the background and the implications. The report was accepted, with just a few queries from members who had seen the website or read the QSS Summary.

The meeting with Jeremy Corbyn (14 March):

Sheila and Marisa met Jeremy over a cup of tea in Portcullis House. He was very gracious, but said he was sad and disappointed with the Quaker position. He had spent five years combatting the lies told about him by the Labour Party and the media. Quakers had also experienced persecution, and he felt it would be a shame if they allowed others to set their agenda.

The meeting was warm and friendly. In response to Marisa’s request, Jeremy said he would do whatever QSS wants – speak or not speak. He wanted to maintain his close connection with QSS, so if July were not possible, he would do another event for us some other time.

Yearly Meeting Agenda Committee (16 March):

Last weekend YMAC met to decide the final agenda for Yearly Meeting. Mary Aiston introduced the item on the Salter Lecture, accompanied by Marisa. Nearly two hours were spent discussing it and producing a Minute, which was sent to us. (Attached.) It is disappointing, though hardly surprising. Essentially everyone involved in this procedure has accepted the recommendation of the Trustees. On the positive side, I gather that YMAC expressed a great deal of respect for QSS and much enthusiasm for the Salter Lecture and for this year’s topic. Members stated how keen they were that the lecture should go ahead.

Ironically, if Jeremy is not available in July anyway, this whole debate will have been unnecessary. Paul Ingram is eminently qualified to speak on War and Peace, and is happy to do the lecture on his own or with another co-presenter.

What concerns are there now? (22 March):

In the autumn we were told the concerns about Jeremy Corbyn speaking at the time of Yearly Meeting. These were based on the public perception that he is anti-semitic, and on the assumption that his presence would attract a great deal of negative media attention. They were:

The anticipated media attention, including on social media, could be overwhelming for staff. It would distract from the themes of Yearly Meeting. The distraction would mean that QSS fails to achieve the aim of our lecture topic. Quakers could be seen as condoning anti-semitism. It could damage BYM’s relationship with the Jewish community. It could endanger the Ecumenical Accompaniment programme in the Middle East.

I feel the discussion has been changing over recent months. The YMAC minute does not mention most of these points (media, YM themes, lecture topic, antisemitism, Jewish community). As for the EAPPI programme, the only danger stated is that participants might get their entry visas refused – by the Israeli government.

Interestingly however there is a new concern mentioned for the first time by YMAC. They say: “We are aware of the risk to relationships within our Yearly Meeting community, posed by one group exercising authority over the decisions of another, when we are all trying to move forward in prayerful discernment.” And they ask QSS to “consider the risks identified…….to relationships within Britain Yearly Meeting”.

This is very vague, but QSS has picked up much resentment from members and other Friends about the power of Trustees, interfering in the Salter Lecture and unfairly influencing others’ opinions. Personally I regretted that QSS were not allowed to express our views directly to the decision-making bodies. There seems to be a problem about who is allowed to query what, not just in public but also internally. And it was worrying to have it implied that any other speaker we might choose should first be ‘run past’ the management team. I thought that Jeremy Corbyn was a one-off case, but perhaps some people would like a veto on all future Salter lecturers!

Sheila Taylor (Salter Lecture Coordinator)

The YMAC Minute

YMAC 2024-3-11 Salter lecture

We receive paper YMAC 2024 03 12, Salter Lecture, which has been introduced by Mary Aiston. We have been joined by Marisa Johnson, the Clerk to Britain Yearly Meeting Trustees, for this agenda item.

We are asked to decide whether to agree to the Quaker Socialist Society’s request to hold a Salter Lecture, on the subject of war and peace, delivered by Paul Ingram and Jeremy Corbyn, at Friends House during Yearly Meeting. If the lecture does take place during the time of Yearly Meeting (at Friends House or elsewhere), we are asked to decide whether it should be included in the Yearly Meeting programme.

We are grateful to Britain Yearly Meeting Trustees for identifying risks associated with the proposed lecture and for explaining them to us. We are grateful to the Quaker Socialist Society for communicating with our clerks during the period of exploration of these questions. We are glad to hear that the clerk to Trustees and the Salter Lecture Coordinator have met with Jeremy Corbyn to explore the issues with him.

We have met together, acutely aware of the risks associated with each way forward from here. We do not wish to be swayed by fear of controversy, and we are aware of the fast movement of information and speculation on social media and elsewhere.

We note that Britain Yearly Meeting’s work in Israel and Palestine is particularly vulnerable at this time, and that this work may be put at critical risk by the conversations that we would expect to arise around a lecture held in the proposed way and including Jeremy Corbyn as a speaker.

We are aware of the risk to relationships within our Yearly Meeting community, posed by one group exercising authority over the decisions of another, when we are all trying to move forward in prayerful discernment.

We ask that the Friends in the Quaker Socialist Society tasked with arranging the Salter Lecture consider the risks identified both to peacebuilding work in Israel and Palestine and to relationships within Britain Yearly Meeting, and either:

• arrange for the Salter Lecture to go ahead in Friends House at the time of Yearly Meeting, delivered by Paul Ingram, or:

• make alternative arrangements for a venue for the Salter Lecture that may include Jeremy Corbyn as a speaker. This could be at the time of Yearly Meeting or at another time.

We agree not to publish details of the Salter Lecture as part of the Yearly Meeting programme if the latter choice is taken.

We recognise the difficult decision ahead for our Friends in QSS, and we offer them our prayerful support as they move forward with this. We send this minute to the Quaker Socialist Society and to BYM Trustees.

by Sheila Taylor.

Here is the recent report received by the Quaker Socialist Society Committee from the Salter Lecture Co-Ordinator, Sheila Taylor, explaining the course of events since arrangements were first made for this year’s Salter Lecture back in July 2023.

Quaker Socialist Society Report (01/03/2024)

QSS proposal for Yearly Meeting:

Ever since 1899 there has been a Quaker Socialist lecture at Yearly Meeting, given by a lecturer sympathetic to the Quaker ethos, on a topic of current importance. For 2024 we felt the most crucial issue worldwide was war and how to prevent it. Our vision was that this Salter Lecture would contribute to the Quaker tradition of mediation and peaceful conflict resolution. 

We invited two speakers to do a joint presentation: 

Jeremy Corbyn, socialist and lifelong campaigner for peace and disarmament. In 1998 he gave the Salter Lecture: Socialism, Injustice and Poverty, with Barry Coates, World Development Movement.

Paul Ingram, Quaker, expert onglobal nuclear disarmament. Led BASIC (British American Security Information Council). Now at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge. 

Both are pacifists who believe that genuine security can only come through relationships and trust. Both support the traditional Quaker approach of not taking sides in a conflict. We felt this would be of interest to all Quakers, including those who do not identify with socialist politics.

As 2024 Yearly Meeting is Friday – Tuesday with the Swarthmore Lecture on Saturday evening, we asked the Recording Clerk if it would be possible to hold the Salter Lecture on Monday evening. 

Reaction by Britain Yearly Meeting:

Our proposal (made in September) was met with horror. The idea of Jeremy Corbyn appearing during Yearly Meeting caused panic that Quakers might be accused of antisemitism by association. The topic of the lecture was sadly sidelined and completely replaced by a discussion of public perception, antisemitism and the power of the media.

Jeremy Corbyn has never been antisemitic towards Jewish people. He was merely branded ‘antisemitic’ long ago due to his regular criticism of the Israeli state and its treatment of the Palestinian people. This criticism was then weaponised in a campaign to remove him as leader of the Labour Party, although an EHRC report later admitted that Corbyn himself was never personally guilty of antisemitism. 

The Present Situation:

Now, nearly five months into the appalling war in Gaza, Israel stands accused at the International Court of Justice of war crimes, collective punishment and genocide towards the Palestinians. And the majority of the global community finds itself in the same situation as Corbyn, labelled ‘antisemitic’ by the Israeli state and its few remaining allies. 

Dropping Corbyn would be seen by many communities in the peace and labour movements as giving in to those powerful voices which seek to remove all who challenge oppression or suggest radical departure from the status quo. Quakers have not done this in the past. Our judgements have been based on what is right, not on fear of upsetting the establishment. 

Yet some still assume that Corbyn’s presence would inevitably mean ‘antisemitism’ dominating the media narrative of Yearly Meeting. Their thinking seems determined first and foremost by fear of upsetting those who will not accept any criticism of the Israeli state. 

A Risk Assessment which was produced focused solely on possible negative reactions to Corbyn, and as a result, Trustees have recommended that the lecture should not be held at Yearly Meeting.

QSS View:

Friends have always stood up against witch-hunts and been guided by our commitment to Truth. Jeremy Corbyn is a leading figure in the British peace movement and has an outstanding record of solidarity with Jewish people. We believe in free speech, and do not want him ‘no-platformed’ by Quakers. 

Question for the Quaker community to consider:

Could the Trustees’ recommendation be wrong? Does this recommendation basically succumb to the reactionary establishment, to those not prepared to accept criticism of Israel, and those with an agenda to silence radical voices in Britain?

Sheila Taylor 

(Salter Centenary Co-ordinator)

by Pastor Munther Isaac.

[This is the transcript of the sermon given by Munther Isaac at Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, London, on 18th Feb 2024. Munther Isaac is pastor of the Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem. As Gaza was being bombed and the West Bank raided, he addressed a packed church as follows:]

“I don’t take lightly your support and your solidarity with us. I truly wish I was here in different circumstances, yet I’m glad for this opportunity we have to come together in one heart and in unity.

“Is not this the fast that I choose:

to loose the bonds of injustice,

to undo the straps of the yoke,

to let the oppressed go free,

and to break every yoke?” (Isaiah 58:6)

It has been more than 130 days since the war on Gaza began. It is beyond my comprehension to believe that this war, this genocide is still going on. 28,000 thousand killed, including 12,500 children. Thousands more still under the rubble. 70,000 or so injured, 1.7 million displaced, trapped and starved. This is beyond inhumane!

What happened to the conscience of the world leaders? I say, “world leaders” and “lord of wars”, because the voices in the street are sending a different message. They are speaking loud and clear: stop this genocide. But sadly, the war lords are not listening.

The International Court of Justice was clear in its description of what is happening and its rebuke to Israel and those complicit in it, yet even the ruling of the ICJ was not enough to stop this genocide. And now we fear that Israel will assault Rafah! Could it get even worse?

The people of Gaza broadcast to us scenes of their genocide, the war leaders declared to us and to the world their intention to wipe out Gaza and recolonise it, and the world is still debating and deliberating whether what is happening is a war of genocide or not. It’s hard to believe.

Israeli soldiers are posting mocking videos of the destruction of an entire civilization… while the world still debates and deliberates! They’re even debating just getting humanitarian aid to Gaza. We’re not even able to get humanitarian aid, let alone end this genocide.

That’s why I say the truth is evident for all to see. There is nothing to debate. Apartheid is clear. Genocide is clear. We don’t need to explain it anymore. Truth is evident for all to see and, believe me, world leaders know the truth. They are denying it. In fact, they have been denying it for 76 years now.

I think of my own work. How many delegations did we receive? How many lectures did we give? How many times did we explain things?

And what makes it harder for us is that when Israel alleges that some members from UNRWA were involved in the attacks on October 7th, support to UNRWA stops directly from countries around the world, including the UK. The amount of hypocrisy is incomprehensible. The level of racism involved for such hypocrisy is appalling. I cannot get beyond this!

And now, 130 days later, we have some world leaders and church leaders who are beginning to change their stance. It took 130 days and I say it is too late! You showed up to Tel Aviv to show support; you provided the theological and political cover, you described it as “self-defence”, Israel’s legitimate right to exercise self-defence. And now you want to convince us that you care? After you have given the green light for this genocide, even offering to pay the bill. Now you are showing concern? I am sorry, you cannot undo what happened. You cannot change history. You cannot wash the blood from your hand.

Indeed, the conscience of the world is dead. They have grown numb. World leaders are obsessed about their thrones. They are intoxicated with power. We have world leaders literally signing, autographing, the missiles! They are obsessed with war. They don’t care for the victims. In fact, they already labelled them as terrorists, animals, and evil ones. Think of the level of dehumanisation behind such attitudes.

Don’t tell me it is not racism! Those complicit in this genocide do not see us as equals, as humans. How else do you explain this lack of empathy for human lives? For children dying, pulled from under the rubble, for babies found decomposed in hospitals in Gaza?

130 days later, we are tired of sharing these stories – but we will not stop! We are tired of sharing about the killing of our children. We have been pleading “Lord Have Mercy!” for more than 130 days; indeed, for 76 years!

As Palestinians, we find comfort in our faith. We find hope in the Word of God. This Sunday is the first season of Lent. As we journey towards the cross, may we reflect on the profound meaning of this season. I think of three things:

– It is time of Repentance.

– It is a time of fasting, and such a time to reflect on the meaning of true piety.

– It is a time to reflect on the mystery of suffering and how the road to glory has to go

through the Cross.

So, let me talk about these three things, and link them to what is happening in Gaza today.

Repentance – how our world needs to repent today! From apathy; from numbness to suffering; and from normalising and justifying a genocide.

Morality and ethics are missing from politics today. Let’s think about the idea that in our political sphere we have normalised a genocide. That’s why we need to repent.

For, when world leaders watch a genocide and ethnic cleansing unfold live on TV and social media, yet continue to explain it, while only raising concern over the death of innocent civilians, our collective humanity is at stake. This is why I say we need to repent.

When churches justify a genocide or are silent watching from distance, making carefully crafted balanced statements, the credibility of the Gospel is at stake.

We need to repent from our racism, from our superiority, from our bigotry. This war confirmed to me that the world does not look at us as equals. They describe a genocide as a “misstep”. Biden said it’s “over the top”. War crimes and the killing of 30,000 are a “misstep”! We need to repent from the sin of apartheid – the idea that certain people are more entitled than others. To think that churches are promoting this is beyond my understanding.

In this Lent season, we are also called to reflect on our religious practices. I think of the meaning of fasting as we read in the prophecy of Isaiah, and the message is clear: piety that does not produce compassion and mercy is false piety! Piety that does not lead to hunger for justice is false piety.

“Is not this the fast that I choose:

to loose the bonds of injustice,

to undo the straps of the yoke,

to let the oppressed go free,

and to break every yoke?” ( Isaiah 58:6 )

How much of our world and our churches is full of false piety; a piety that lacks mercy, justice, and truth. Today’s reading from Isaiah is as if it he were talking about our world today. Isaiah challenges us to go beyond “charity”. And many Christians love to hide behind charity, to look like good ones, while being silent when the genocide is happening. This is about taking a stance and active participation to bring justice and liberation. This is not about making a statement when you see a genocide! Jesus did not say,

“I was hungry, and you prayed for me and made a statement!” Jesus said, “I was a prisoner and you came to me!”

This is not about “praying for peace”, “raising concern”, or “sending support”. Piety, religiosity, true spirituality means the active participation in loosing the bonds of injustice, undoing the straps of the yoke, letting the oppressed go free, and breaking every yoke. This is active solidarity; this is about action.

I ask: Is this what the church is doing today? Let us be honest with ourselves! I hope you understand why we, as Palestinian Christians, have been crying out, “where is the church?” The question when we face injustice and suffering should not always be “where is God in the midst of suffering?” Many times the question is “where was the church?”

We are occupied by religious practices, theological discussions. Moreover, I feel the thing we lack the most today is courage. And I hesitate to use this word because the courage needed to speak the truth is nothing to the courage the people of Gaza are showing us every day. We need courage to speak the truth. But we are not speaking many times. We fear the consequences. We fear the backlash!

We live in a time when the church wants to avoid controversy at any cost. Can you imagine if Jesus walked on earth avoiding controversy! Can you imagine if he was asked a question, he would craft a balanced statement that aimed at appealing to the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the disciples and the Romans (and, if possible, his heavenly father!). Isn’t this what the church is doing today?

The way church statements dance around the issue of “ceasefire” or (god forbid) condemning Israel is indeed amazing. They write two-pages long statements that basically say nothing other than unequivocally condemning Hamas!

Honestly, we should not be surprised; how many times did we, as Palestinian Christians, experience rejection from the Western church? How many times were invitations sent to us to speak in global venues and then these invitations were cancelled. Why? For fear of controversy.

There are church leaders who are willing to sacrifice us for the sake of avoiding the hassle of having to explain to outsiders why they are meeting with us Palestinian Christians! They’d rather not do that, so they don’t invite us. They don’t meet with us. They sacrifice us for comfort. It happened for me even on this trip.

Sometimes I joke, Jesus sat with sinners, so consider us sinners and listen to us and sit with us! It is amazing, the idea that church leaders fear having to explain to others why they met with Palestinian Christians because it’s “controversial” and then end up not meeting with us. It’s beyond my comprehension.

This is why when I say “courage”, I actually shouldn’t use the word “courage”. They sacrifice us for comfort, the same way they offered us as an atonement sacrifice for their own racism and antisemitism – repenting on our land over a sin they committed in their land!

All of this while we claim to follow a crucified saviour, who sacrificed everything, endured pain and rejection for the sake of those he loved! We claim we follow him but are not willing to sacrifice even our comfort. We just want to avoid controversy.

When the church does not want to lose its comfort, something is seriously wrong with our

Christian witness. When the church sacrifices truth for the sake of conformity and avoiding controversy –  something is seriously wrong with our Christian witness.

So thirdly, this is a season in which we reflect on the mystery of Christ’s own suffering and consider our identity in the cross and as followers of a crucified yet risen saviour. We need to think of the meaning of suffering and the meaning of costly solidarity.

Jesus said: “If any wish to follow me, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?”

Jesus here tells us what it means to be a Christian – a follower of a crucified saviour. Jesus says that a Christian is one who denies himself or herself, who carries the cross, and who loses themselves for the sake of Christ and the Gospel! He is the one who understands that if he wins the whole world, it has no value without saving himself.

Christianity without sacrifice is not Christianity. The first and most important thing we sacrifice is our “self” – the “I”. This is the logic of Jesus himself, and this is how he lived. He was the one who denied himself for us, and he was the one who was crucified for us humans, because he loved us. He wants the same from his followers.

Jesus never sought what was for himself, but always what was for others. This is the kind of love that says the other is before me and I am here for the sake of others. Have we forgotten what it means to be a Christian?

And Jesus says, “For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?” When I think about the amount of wisdom hidden in this phrase! How many people have lost themselves and their souls, their values in pursuit of glory and power – or even comfort. I am not just talking about political leaders.

How many peoples lost their soul and values when they took the approach of power, the logic of might. Today we see it expressed in colonialism, genocide and exploitation. The approach of tyranny. How many leaders and peoples chose silence in the face of a genocide in order to win the world? To gain the world, but in reality, they lost their soul. This is why I say, what the world needs today is courageous leaders. People who are willing to sacrifice to speak the truth! How many politicians and religious leaders do we know who have been bought off and lack the courage to speak the truth? Is this how we follow Christ? They might have won the world, but they’ve lost themselves, as Jesus said.

Over my life I’ve met many people and I met many people who ended up becoming influential – either church leaders or even politicians in very influential positions. When we first met them, they were with us, they understood, they were for justice – “we will do everything for you”. But along the way, as they become more and more important and influential, they sacrificed Palestine. I know so many of these leaders.

I am tired and fed up of church leaders who share with me behind closed doors in confidentiality that they support us 100%, but that they are confined in what they can say in public! I hear this all the time, from church leaders and politicians! You know how frustrating it is? They know what’s happening, but they say they cannot speak up. Leaders in their comfort zone lack the courage to speak up, while the honourable people of Gaza risk everything for the sake of freedom and dignity. They have more honour and dignity than those politicians or faith leaders who are not speaking out.

Friends, I speak as a Christian. As followers of Jesus, we must be willing to risk all to speak truth to power. This is why in Palestine today, we do not only talk about solidarity; we talk about ‘costly solidarity’, because we know that sometimes there is a price to pay.

This war has shaken our faith – in humanity and sometimes in God. But we cannot lose our faith in God. We continue to search for a voice. I’ve found so much comfort in the psalms of lament, and we cry over Gaza: “My God, my God, why did you leave Gaza? How long will you forget her completely? Why do you hide your face from Gaza? In the daytime I call upon you, but you do not answer; by night we find no rest. Do not depart from the people of Gaza, for distress is near, for there is no one to help … Our souls and our lives approach the abyss … our eyes melt from humiliation. We call upon you, Lord, every day. We stretch out our hands to you. Why, Lord, do you reject our souls? Why do you hide your face from us?” (Adapted from Psalms 13, 22, and 88)

We search for God in this land. People ask me this question all the time, “Where is God in the midst of this genocide? How do we explain his silence?”

But away from philosophy and existential questions, I look at our history and I see that in our land, in Palestine, even God is a victim of oppression, death, the war machine, and colonialism. We see the Son of God on this land crying out the same question on the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It’s the same prayer that Jesus prayed. Why do you let me be tortured? Crucified?

God suffers with the people of this land, sharing the same fate with us. This becomes our comfort in the midst of suffering – the idea of God’s presence amid pain, and even amid death. For Jesus is no stranger to pain, arrest, torture, and death. He walks with us in our pain and suffering.

God is under the rubble in Gaza. He is with the frightened and the refugees. He is in the operating room. This is our consolation. He walks with us through the valley of the shadow of death. My prayer has always been that those who are suffering will feel this healing and comforting presence of God with them.

We said during Christmas, if Jesus were to be born in our world today, he will be in Gaza, under the rubble. Jesus under the rubble is the message of God identifying with humanity in its suffering and pain. It is about the God who sides with the oppressed, even being born among them, as one of them, becoming a refugee and a victim of the violence of Empire.

God is in solidarity with the marginalised and the oppressed. God takes sides; God is not neutral. And here is my message: God’s solidarity should become our solidarity! If God takes sides, so should we. Neutrality is not an option.

Today Gaza is indeed the moral compass of the world. This war has divided the world; and maybe this is good thing. We need to know where people stand. Gaza is the moral compass of the world. We either side with the logic or power and ruthlessness, with the lords of war, and with those who justify and rationalise the killing of children. Or you side with the victims of oppression and injustice, and those who are besieged and dehumanised by the forces of Empire and colonisation.

It is really a simple choice: you either support a genocide, turn a blind eye, or justify a genocide, or you cry out: “No! Not in our name. Stop this genocide!”

So, I come here to the UK and I want to challenge the church here: if we truly seek justice and righteousness, in obedience to the commandment of Christ, we must have the courage to speak up and call things by name! This is not a conflict. Israel is not exercising its right for self-defence. Rather, Israel is the coloniser. Israel is a settler-colonial entity. They have displaced millions of Palestinians. Israel was built on the ruins of the people of Palestine. We live under apartheid. What is happening in Gaza is a genocide, it’s ethnic cleansing. Continuing to repeat the Empire narrative only serves to empower the aggressors and maintain this injustice.

Can we continue to even speak about “peace” or even “resolution to a conflict”? Or should we really call an end to tyranny and injustice and apartheid. Vocabulary is important. We are not talking about a struggle between equal forces. This is not simply about a ceasefire; but putting an end to 76 years of ethnic cleansing. And today putting an end to this genocide.

If we are truly concerned and want an end, we must call things by name. I’m tired of diplomacy. This is a time to act. This is a time, to quote Isaiah again, “to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.” It is time for the church to be the church!

I’m convinced that the way and how churches deal with what is happening today – this injustice, this genocide – will reveal a great deal about the identity of these churches. We do not exaggerate to say that the credibility of our Christian witness is at stake here. I recall here something the South African [theologian and thinker] Allan Boesak said, namely that “Palestine today is the gauge for churches and the conscience of churches today”. And he said this before October 7th, before this genocide. How much truer are these words today.

Before I conclude, having called out the church, I want to acknowledge the many of you who have been speaking out. The many of you who have been sacrificing, who have shown positive solidarity. We see you, we feel you and I want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. We’re doing this together. Your actions, your prayers, your support means a whole lot to us, especially in the face of the rejection that we see. So thank you.

It has been my honour to work with you during this time and we cannot rest. So my call today is simple: We cannot rest until this genocide is over. End this genocide NOW. This is moral call. This is a moral call. It’s not about words, it’s about action. We cannot afford more death! We cannot rest until this genocide is over.

So, let’s act, let’s mobilise creative non-violent means. I encourage you to continue to speak out. To join demonstrations. To mobilise within your community and congregations. Put pressure on your political leaders through calls and written correspondence. Organise non-violent direct-action campaigns and sit-ins. Whatever it takes to compel your government and decision-makers to take action. This is beyond urgent.

We need to act. We cannot rest. We need accountability in the face war crimes. That’s why I said call things by name. Hold people and governments accountable. Injustice will continue as long as no one calls the aggressor accountable. The reports on apartheid must be taken seriously. The ruling of the ICJ must be taken seriously. We need to act. We need to invest morally. We need to implement the International Law. We need to boycott, if needed. We need to call for sanctions. We need to hold people accountable. Otherwise, all of our words just become empty words if we did not act them. Please consider what it means to be true peacemakers. It is time the church here in the UK moves from its shallow diplomacy and neutrality into prophetic peacemaking and costly solidarity.

You need to challenge your own churches. The prophet Isaiah says, “learn to do good” (not just speak good), “seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” (Isaiah 1:18) These are all active, participation words. They are not statements and prayers only.

I want to conclude by going back to a letter we wrote back in October, warning about the genocide, saying this is a vengeance campaign, calling for the church to repent seeing already that the church was complicit. I can’t believe that these words are still relevant in February. We saw it coming! We talked about the God who will “judge the world in justice” [Acts 17:31].

I want to read the conclusion of this, because it’s very powerful. Back then we said, and today I say: “We also remind ourselves and our Palestinian people that our sumud (our “steadfastness”) is anchored in our just cause and our historical rootedness in this land. As Palestinians and as Palestinian Christians, we also continue to find our courage and consolation in the God who dwells with those of a contrite and humble spirit (Isa 57:15). We find courage in the solidarity we receive from the crucified Christ, and we find hope in the empty tomb. We are also encouraged and empowered by the costly solidarity and support of many churches and grassroots faith movements around the world, challenging the dominance of ideologies of power and supremacy.

We refuse to give in, even when our siblings abandon us. We are steadfast in our hope, resilient in our witness, and continue to be committed to the Gospel of faith, hope, and love, in the face of tyranny and darkness.”

And quoting from the Kairos Palestine group: “In the absence of all hope, we cry out our cry of hope. We believe in God, good and just. We believe that God’s goodness will finally triumph over the evil of hate and of death that still persist in our land. We will see here ‘a new land’ and ‘a new human being’, capable of rising up in the spirit to love each one of his or her brothers and sisters”.

With this hope we carry on. With this hope we refuse to give in. With this hope we persist until justice prevails and until freedom prevails.

by Munther Isaac.

At Christmas Palestinian Pastor Munther Isaac gripped the attention of the world with a photo on social media of a baby Jesus placed amidst rubble near his Lutheran church in Bethlehem. He said that if Jesus had been born this Christmas he would have been “born amid the rubble”. Last week he arrived in England to try and win support for a ceasefire and, beyond that, for the Palestinian cause. He is a sincere and powerful speaker, who held the audience spell-bound at the Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church in London on Sunday February 18. His Lent address, which started with the words of the Prophet Isaiah, pleaded for a humane response, begged for some humanity, and some solidarity, from Christians, and he certainly received it from the congregation at the Bloomsbury Church, as the photo shows.

But then the news arrived that the Anglican Church, which in the autumn had said little on the issue of Palestine, was now refusing to meet with Pastor Munther, on the grounds that he was going to speak at a Palestinian Solidarity meeting alongside the former Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. Pastor Isaac had travelled all the way from Bethlehem to meet Christian leaders in Europe and to refuse a meeting was not only discourteous at a personal level and wrong at a Christian level, but also politically absurd. Jeremy Corbyn is acknowledged by Palestinians as perhaps, over several decades, the leading UK campaigner on their behalf. Pastor Isaac could not but meet him. Corbyn is also acknowledged as one of Britain’s leading anti-racist campaigners. Since he was a young man he has attended nearly every Holocaust Memorial Day, regularly supported the Jewish community in Islington and has regularly denounced anti-Semitism, while at the same time condemning the racism of the Israeli political leaders and the practice of apartheid in Israel. There was no better person for Pastor Munther to speak alongside.

For Archbishop Welby, it was his one chance to redeem the lukewarm stance of the Anglican Church and take a Christian position. He knew full well that the accusations made against Jeremy Corbyn by a faction in the Labour Party never claimed he was anti-Semitic personally, only that he handled complaints of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party badly. Even that charge was dubious as it was later shown that anti-Corbyn officials inside the party had sabotaged the investigative procedure for political reasons. Thus the position of the Anglican hierarchy was not only lacking in humanity but was also disingenuous.

Graham Taylor

——————————————————————————

This report by Patrick Wintour (Diplomatic editor) appeared in the Guardian ( 21 Feb 2024)

Pastor says Welby would not meet him if he spoke at Palestine rally with Corbyn.

‘The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, cancelled plans to meet the Bethlehem-based Lutheran pastor Munther Isaac, saying he could not meet him if he shared a platform with the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at a pro-Palestinian rally, the pastor has said.

Isaac, the pastor of the Christmas Evangelical Lutheran church in Bethlehem, who has been highly critical of Israel in Gaza, saw his Christmas sermon go viral when he said if Jesus Christ was born today it would have been under the rubble.

He spoke at a Palestinian Solidarity Campaign rally at the weekend where Corbyn was also a speaker after being invited by the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, Husam Zomlot.

Lambeth Palace said it did not comment on private meetings.

The archbishop is concerned about the huge increase in antisemitism since October in the UK, and it is believed he feared it would have caused huge problems for the Jewish community if the two were to meet.

In an interview with the Guardian, Isaac said he was told by the archbishop’s aides that if he shared a platform with Corbyn, no meeting could happen. Isaac said: “It’s shameful. It’s not my type of Christianity not to be willing to meet another pastor because you don’t want to explain why you met him.”

“This sums up the Church of England. They danced around positions, and ended up saying nothing. They lack the courage to say things.”

He added: “The small Christian community in Gaza has discovered what is hell on earth. Most of them have lost their homes: 45 destroyed completely and 55 partially destroyed. There is no life left for them. This war will most likely bring an end to Christian life in Gaza. Everyone wants to leave.”

“It is so painful for us to see the Christian church turn a blind eye to what is happening, offering words of concern and compassion, but for so long they have been silent in the face of obvious war crimes. Churches seem paralysed, and they seem willing to sacrifice the Christian presence in Palestine for the sake of avoiding controversy and not criticising Israel. I have had so many difficult conversations with church leaders.

“I know from meeting many church leaders that in private, they say one thing, and then in public, they say another thing. I’ve had the same experience with many politicians and diplomats.”

Isaac, on a visit to the UK to build support for the Palestinians, said an immediate ceasefire was “a moral obligation”. He added: “This is not a time for neutrality or soft diplomacy. Gaza should be your moral compass.”

Welby’s allies would say he has spoken out strongly on what is happening in Gaza and will continue to seek opportunities to stand in solidarity with Palestinians, but has to remain mindful of the impact on other communities.

The House of Bishops, the upper chamber of the Church’s General Synod, issued a sharply worded call for a ceasefire on 13 February, saying Israel must stop its “relentless bombardment” of Gaza, and adding the manner in which the war was taking place “cannot be morally justified”.

Isaac said: “If it has not become clear to the world that this is a war of vengeance aimed at destroying the possibility of life in Gaza, and not a war on Hamas, I am not sure what more proof people need. The destruction of schools, universities and hospitals is everywhere. The Israeli soldiers brag and joke about it. How is the killing of 12,000 children a war on Hamas?”

The war, in its fifth month, was triggered by Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October last year, in which 1,200 people were killed and 250 taken hostage. Health authorities in Gaza say at least 29,000 Palestinians have been killed. About 85% of the territory’s population have been displaced from their homes, according to the UN.

“If what has happened so far cannot convince people that there needs to be an immediate ceasefire, there is something seriously wrong with our humanity. How much more catastrophic can it get?” Isaac said.

“Even as a pastor, my faith was tested in the last three months. It’s hard, it’s hard to pray and not to see results.”

He added: “My answer to the question where God is is that we have to ask where are the good people in this world. In Christianity we say we are God’s agents, we are God’s hands and feet on earth. The Gospel tells us what’s right and what’s wrong. It tells us what needs to be done. It’s on us when we choose to kill.”

by Priscilla Alderson.

The Quaker Socialist Society (QSS) held an online meeting in January to discuss ways to promote life-long Quaker, and socialist, values in state schools and in Quaker private schools. Members of QVinE,(Quaker values in education), joined the meeting. Their key values are: integrity, equality, simplicity, community, stewardship of the Earth, and peace.

Francis Green, Professor of Work and Education Economics at the Institute of Education University College London, began the meeting by speaking about his book, co-authored with David Kynaston, Engines of Privilege: Britain’s Private School Problem. Francis discussed the democratic deficit when private schools educate 7% of children in Britain; they get over 16% of the funds spent on British schools, and have 14% of Britain’s teachers. The schools’ ample resources, libraries, labs, drama theatres and sports facilities, help these students when they become adults to be the well-paid leaders in all areas of public life. They benefit from networks of influential and wealthy contacts, friends and marriage partners. The figure shows the percentage of privately educated members of some professions. 

Francis, who was educated at a leading private school, works on reforms to address these injustices. He collects evidence on the schools’ impact on society, promotes fresh thinking and debate, and he shows how private schools could be reduced such as through higher taxes and through integrating them more with the state system. He ended by asking if there could be Quaker free state schools.

Almost all British Quaker schools are private schools with fees of around £33,000 to £43,000 a year for senior boarders. There was hope in the 1950s that state schools would improve so much there would be no need for private schools. QSS is concerned that over past decades differences in spending, resources and outcomes between the two sectors have continually increased. Finland, often described as having the best education system in the world, has no private schools, and private schools in most European countries are much more like state schools than in the UK. In Britain, private schools control society through their lifelong impact on their former pupils who become the ‘ruling class’.

During the online discussion among 45 people, there was general concern about sending children away from their families to school, especially at younger ages, with the lack of daily loving family contact and local friends. Some of the best people have attended boarding school, but many others suffer from ‘boarding school syndrome’. This is shown in extreme forms by Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, the out-of- touch attitudes of Rishi Sunak and David Cameron, Michael Gove cutting arts and sports in state schools, Paula Vennells’s treatment of sub-postmasters, the former head of Ofsted Amanda Spielman, and many others. Jeremy Corbin attended private schools. Private schools treat education as a product for sale, not a human right. Yet the British public repeatedly vote for politicians educated in private values, who keep privatising national services. Privately educated billionaires own most of the media, and through them powerfully influence public opinion and elections.   

Some Friends at the meeting described Quaker schools having the freedom to promote Quaker values in ways state schools cannot. They are peaceful and allow students to be individuals, learning ‘to get along with each other and having the space and the respect for each other’ with none of the bullying seen in large class sizes. Others thought that ‘for a very wealthy country we don’t devote enough of our resource to education’. The wealthy should pay higher taxes, and state schools should be less ‘run as tick boxes’ with an over-prescriptive curriculum, and should be more freely creative. We need a ‘national debate about what education is for and who it is for’.    

One person recalled asking her parents to send her to boarding school, which she enjoyed. The youngest of three sisters, she did not want to follow her sisters through their school, and she was pleased that her chosen school helped her and others each to develop their own individual life.

Quakers work in Quaker schools and state schools to promote peace education, ever more crucial with the growth of armed conflicts, talk of planning for future wars, and promotion of the military in British schools. Quakers work with Restorative Justice to help children to build fairer communities and tackle inequalities, to act against bullying and take responsibility for their relationships.  

One QVine member with years of experience teaching in state schools and at a university believes many state schools have values very similar to Quaker values, though they might not call them that. They respect individual’s space for children to be themselves. They listen to children, respect them and work with them. They try to work creatively within the constraints of the curriculum, with a strong sense of community. Some schools with a ‘massive cross section of backgrounds’, often in quite deprived areas, have extremely good practice and ‘many primary schools do amazing work’. We should heed the Children’s Manifesto written by thousands of children who sent their beautiful ideas about what kinds of schools they would like.  

One teacher, who was sent to boarding school when aged 8, later taught in a state comprehensive, quite a ‘rough sink school’. He thought it produced ‘far more rounded, kind, tolerant characters’ than most people he knows who went to private schools. He mentioned books such as Sad Little Men, about how private boarding schools ‘churn out very damaged people’, who feel a lack of love. Apart from abuse in the schools, he believes it is abusive to send a child away to boarding school. He questioned someone’s earlier comment that ‘education is always a privilege given that many children around the world have no schooling’. He is deeply concerned that during Michael Gove’s reforms of state schools he knew of more than one child who committed suicide in the run up to exams. With massive mental health crises, he believes more childcare is needed in all schools. Having taught in inner city schools, he considers that allegations of bullying there are ‘slightly over-egged’. The problems would be addressed much more rapidly if most parents didn’t use the option, their democratic right, of going to an alternative private provision. Instead, if they stayed with the state sector and helped to improve it with positive parental support, far more money and resources would flow into state schools. He added that the 17^th Century Quaker John Bellers, called the first Marxist educator, had many great ideas.  

An early years specialist thought the Government’s education policy of ‘young children being told things and being instructed’ just doesn’t work. She had helped to set up Sure Start, with multi-professional working to involve and support parents. She is ‘absolutely horrified’ at Ofsted’s destructive assessments of schools. ‘People used to come from around the world to look at our primary education a generation ago. It was so enlightened, so learner-centred. I won’t call it child-centred because the teachers were learning as well, and it was an adventure, we led the world. I have been all around the world telling people about our primary and early years education. It is tragic that we’ve lost all of that. We just need a political change.’ 

One socialist doubted that state schools’ finances could be boosted to private school levels, and he favoured dismantling the private sector. Others thought this was impossible and state schools could not take on the Grade 1 listed ancient buildings that are so costly to maintain.  The head of a Quaker school said how private coaching and catchment areas, where state schools increasingly reflect their privileged or disadvantaged local housing and communities, undermine equality within and between state schools. There was interest in setting up a Quaker Free School.

There were three closing commentaries. A QVine member who has taught in state and private schools was interested in the discussions around how Quaker values are lived out within our school communities and the challenges for educators in all schools. He had found more interest in talking about the purpose of education in a Quaker school than when he had worked in a range of state schools from urban to rural settings. He mentioned recent 2023 Quaker conferences about how can education create a better world, and other educators’ sense of relief to be able to be involved in these discussions. Quaker schools that were set up 200 years ago in very different contexts face new challenges to adapt to the needs of the modern world. With 30 educators, 120 students from schools across the world took part in another Quaker conference in June 2023. They echoed themes discussed at this QSS meeting, and like the Children’s Manifesto they made a call to action. Their three priorities were: 1) For schools to prepare students much more to take part in future local and global communities; 2) More practical and critical learning about the environment crisis; 3) More education about diversity and inclusion.   

A Quaker socialist spoke personally. ‘I’ll be really radical. We should simply get rid of private schools. I’ve always believed that socialist equality is the most important Quaker value. But I’m told “that’s simply not possible, not feasible, don’t be ridiculous and idealistic, get into the real world”. That’s where I am this evening. I haven’t heard any views as radical as mine.’ Some other people showed their agreement. 

Francis ended the meeting by welcoming the range of interesting insights and he responded to some of the comments. On the abuse of sending young children to boarding school he believes things are improving. It is now less common, the schools have changed a lot over 40 or 50 years, there is far less boarding, children start boarding when they are older, and many schools are now coeducational. He is glad for his own children at state schools that they can play with local friends during the holidays, which he couldn’t do. He agreed with criticisms of overcontrol of the state curriculum, the downgrading of arts and sports education, and he believes fear of Ofsted contributes towards the problems schools have in recruiting and retaining teachers, with a coming crisis for the profession. Frances thought that raising VAT for private schools would make little difference, certainly not to the top private schools. One possibility is to make it much easier for private schools in trouble to transfer into the state sector. Some Quaker schools might act as a kind of a model or leading light for this.

Comment by the Clerk

I clerked the meeting so did not give my views but will add two personal comments. Thank you very much to everyone who attended and contributed to the meeting. 

First, a main theme of the meeting was relations between individuals and the systems we live within. To socialists, the overriding system is social class. Equality therefore means inclusion across all classes and (dis)abilities as well as across gender, ethnicity and international backgrounds. Equality flourishes in inclusive local schools when all kinds of children learn and work together, supported by the mixed local community and the elected local authority. This state system began to be broken up with semi-privatised academies, growing informal selection by schools, and competition between them – policies promoted by former boarding schoolboys Tony Blair, David Blunkett and Andrew Adonis. 

Second, Habermas contrasted the System (State and Market) with the Lifeworld (personal life, free associations). The System colonises the Lifeworld, such as by trying to price everything. Many believe that children need a daily balance between school (formal System of public life and rules) and home (private Lifeworld of family, friends and free play) to nurture the values of integrity, equality, simplicity, community, stewardship of the Earth, and peace. 

Priscilla Alderson, Member of Dorchester Meeting, 24/1/24