Generous Justice (4) Why Should we do Justice?

In chapter 5 of Generous Justice: how God’s grace makes us just, Tim Keller turns his attention to the issue of motivation – why should we do justice?

Appeals to love, mercy and reason don’t work – most people know it is good to help the poor, but most don’t do so.

Postmoderns like Richard Rorty try to give persuasive motivations to help the poor completely detached from a moral framework – and the best he can come up with is that you should help the poor girl begging on the street because one day she might become your daughter-in-law or her mother would grieve for her. Such a sentimental and subjective personal motivation has little power to confront injustice and no power at all to make us act justly towards our enemies.

Rather Keller argues, the Bible gives two powerful and deep motivations to action:

1. The doctrine of creation

Humankind made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-7). If humans are not accidents but creations, and without this belief there is no compelling reason to treat people as having innate dignity and value. ‘The image of God carries with it the right not to be mistreated or harmed.’

An aside here – someone said in the public Q&A the other day on John Mitchel’s attitude to slavery, that the bible has nothing to say against slavery and even seems to legitimise it. That’s simply mistaken: sure the bible can be misused (to support apartheid or slavery) but the doctrine of the image of God fatally undermines such scripture twisting. As Keller points out it lay at the heart of the battle for Civil Rights in the USA. Martin Luther King said

“Every man from a treble white to a bass black is significant on God’s keyboard”

A second reason creation leads to doing justice is that all we have belongs to God. And if this is true, then

“if you have been assigned the goods of this world by God and you don’s share them with others, it isn’t just stinginess, it is injustice.”

2. Response to the grace of God

The second motivation to justice stares out at us from the pages of Scripture. Repeatedly in the OT and NT God’s people are called to do justice, to love their neighbour, to look after the weak, poor and marginalised because they have been recipients of the boundless love and grace of God.

– As we have experienced undeserved forgiveness and grace so we are show it to others

– Such awareness of God’s grace leads to humility and compassion, not judgemental attitudes to the poor

– How we treat others in need (in the OT and NT) is evidence that faith is not just external but authentic internally as well. It is a sign that our hearts have been softened and changed. Indifference to and, even worse, maltreatment of the poor is a cause of repeated judgement on Israel.

James repeats this in the NT

Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. [James 2:15-17]

Keller makes a telling point – those with a middle-class spirit (I’ve earned what I’ve got) are most often indifferent or hostile towards the poor.

Yet the more someone knows and has experienced the grace of God the more they tend to be attracted to and have compassion on the poor.

And God’s grace gives a new identity to the poor – their identity does NOT lie in their lack of money or social marginalisation – it lies in the acceptance and unconditional grace of God and their identity as his children.

Attitudes towards the poor and towards our money change not by lectures or guilt but by grasping the sheer depth and wonder of God’s grace.

Comments, as ever, welcome.

Will the Irish economy ‘die’ trying to appease the god ‘Market’?

Quantitative easing, senior and subordinate bondholders, moral hazard, global bond markets, European Union Stability Facility, property bubbles, budget deficits of over 30% of GDP, 4 year austerity plans – we are all economists now.

Perhaps never before in living memory has money and the way the capitalist system functions been so analysed, discussed, dissected and exposed. And the more we have learnt the more horrified many have become at how the system works or, more accurately, has spectacularly failed to work.

Government in a Republic is supposed to be there ‘for the people and by the people’. The government is meant to govern for the good of all citizens. Yet successive Fianna Fail governments have failed to rule for the common good, but have been actively complicit in facilitating a small network of elite politicians, bankers and property developers to devastate the economy, bankrupt the banking system on an unimaginable scale and put the country in unsustainable debt for many many years to come. Politics, especially in the form of leaders like Haughey and Ahern, has betrayed the ideal of an Irish Republic.

Perhaps the greatest injustice has been how monumental amounts of private debt accrued by reckless banking practice has become public debt owned by the state (you and me). Those that took the risk to lend money to the banks (those senior and subordinate bondholders) seem to be untouchable or ‘trust in the system’ would collapse.

Meanwhile, governments like ours (and Portugal and Spain) desperately try to appease the unmerciful and unforgiving god ‘Market’ regardless of the social and human cost.

And god it is – before which propitiatory sacrifices of people’s jobs, homes, services, must be offered in order to avert its displeasure. It is sobering to see how governments are fearful of and bow before this god – they are its servants not its masters. It is as if this god is not a human creation that can be reformed and brought under control but is a deity owed unquestioned allegiance.

The current discussions agreed yesterday with the EU / IMF have saddled Ireland with more vast (and very probably unpayable) debts at high interest rates of 5.8%.  I’m no economist, but from reading people who have been mostly right over the last 2 years, it looks like the upcoming brutal austerity packages will do nothing to close the annual budget deficit but just continue a downward spiral.

It is all about appeasing the markets and saving the Euro and it simply loads even more debt onto future generations while at the same time probably killing off what is left of the Irish economy with all the associated social and personal costs.

The plan is obviously unrealistic in its fanciful projections of growth over the next 3 years, in its omission to factor in the huge cost of servicing the EU/IMF loans, and in the very large millstone of the black hole of the Irish banking sector debt.

And those very same markets don’t even believe that it will work – hence the cost of  Irish bonds has gone up to over 9% since the ‘rescue plan’ was published. They simply believe it is still only a matter of time until Ireland will default despite the EU and IMF.

And is it only me, or is there something deeply ironic in a free market capitalist system resulting in Ireland’s entire banking system now being virtually all in the hands of the state? We are also all socialists now.

A different response to our financial crisis is:

– a cry for justice for people who are going to pay unfairly for the actions of remote politicians, bankers and markets;

– facing up to the reality that those global investors who lent recklessly to reckless banks need to pay a price rather than Irish taxpayers who did not have anything to do with the whole affair; –

– action for radical political reform leading to a renewed Republic by the centenary of the Rising in 2016;

– support for ‘taming’ the uncontrollable god ‘Market’ and putting him in his proper place where he serves people, not the other way around.

Comments, as ever, welcome.

Sundays in Mark (39) The parable of the tenants

Continuing our simple Sunday reflections in the Gospel of Mark. This week Mark 12:1-12 and the parable of the (defiant) tenants.

A sense of mounting confrontation pervades this parable, located as it is within a series of conflict situations in Jerusalem. The context is absentee landlordism, a common reality in Jesus’ day. The careful description of the construction of the vineyard echoes The Song of the Vineyard in Is 5:1-7. The story of Israel is in mind here – as becomes more and more apparent with the clear allusions to Israel’s consistent rejection of God’s prophets.

The sending of the son fits within the structure of the parable. The distant owner assumes that his son will command more respect compared to the servants. Yet he is murdered and dumped outside the vineyard wall, not even given the dignity of a proper burial. It’s likely that in the story the tenants assumed the owner was dead since his son had come. So in killing him they claim rights over the ownerless land.

But their assumption is fatally wrong. The owner would use his power to forcibly subdue the rebellious tenants [the leaders] and the vineyard [Israel] would be passed on to others [the new community of the kingdom, Jesus’ new Israel].

The consequence of the tenants’ killing of the son is catastrophic judgement. And the link to Ps 118:22f and the rejected cornerstone of the Temple makes explicit the full polemical power of the parable. Jesus is the son who, like the stone, is rejected, only to be vindicated and appointed to an exalted position.

The parable is a devastating word of judgement on Israel’s leaders. Their rejection of Jesus stands in line with Israel’s resistance and unfaithfulness despite continuing divine grace. The Messiah is unveiling his true mission and identity, and the reaction of the listeners shows that they have understood the parable all too well.

Reflection: Here is God’s confrontation with violence, evil and sin, through the giving of his own innocent Son. Here is the victory of God in Jesus foreshadowed, the rejected cornerstone who would be vindicated and exalted. And here is judgement on Israel with her Messiah forming a new Israel around himself, a continuing act of redeeming grace.

The Parable of the Tenants

1 Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.

6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven’t you read this passage of Scripture:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
11 the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

12 Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

Christians in a consumer culture

I came across a book by Jonathan Bonk called Missions and Money: affluence as a missionary problem.

Here are some quotes on consumerism and money that may give pause for thought as the Irish economy (and political landscape) continues to implode – with subsequent pain for all for years to come. But a big cause of that implosion has been uncontrolled greed, debt and apparently limitless credit fuelling a consumerist binge of gigantic proportions …..

Comments and conversation, as ever, welcome.

“It is clear that Christianity was never designed to make people comfortably at ease with wealth and power. Nor, predictably has genuine discipleship ever been widely popular among the rich.”

“For Christians born and bred in a culture that all too blithely substitutes legality for justice, and consumption for fulfillment, and acquisition for happiness, living as “people of the Way” will not come naturally or easily. But it is essential.”

“Wide scale repentance in North America would undoubtedly have severe economic and political repercussions. Nothing could more quickly undermine our way of life than an outbreak of widespread contentment, or conversion to our Lord’s teaching on mammon and the poor.”

“Even the least self-examined person cannot but feel uncomfortable when confronted with the Scripture’s plain teaching on [money]. One is left with recourse to one of three possible options: (1) ignore the teaching altogether, (2) employ a self-justification hermeneutic that satisfactorily explains why such uncomfortable teaching cannot apply to one’s personal situation, or (3) repent and be converted.”

John Mitchel 1874-5

OK – this is the last post on John Mitchel!

On Tuesday night I was part of a 6 person panel in an event  in Newry focused on two local Young Irelanders John Mitchel and John Martin.

The panel included Dr Willie Nolan of UCD, Dr James Quinn of the Royal Irish Academy, author Tim Pat Coogan, Marjorie Harshaw from the USA (relative of John Martin), Rev Nelson of the non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church (who spoke on Mitchel’s father the Rev John Mitchel) and me (as a relative of John Mitchel).

[Update – heres a pic]

There was a good exhibition about Mitchel and Martin and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Newry, where the event was hosted, was well filled.

Great hospitality included a wonderful meal in the Canal Court Hotel – thanks to Anthony Russell for being the main organiser of the week long commemoration.

Much discussion followed six (!) short papers – much of it trying to reconcile Mitchel’s unashamedly active support for slavery with his passion for justice in Ireland.

For anyone interested here’s the wee paper I gave … and here’s my favourite quote concerning the campaign to get Mitchel elected as MP for Tipperary in 1875.

A pledge by the women of Tipperary: ‘we will never walk with, talk with, cook for, wash for, court, marry, or countenance, but let live and die as they like any man who will not vote for and support John Mitchel for Tipperary’

Now women of Ireland – how’s about trying this strategy for reforming our bankrupt and the broken political system?!

John Mitchel’s Return to Ireland 1874-5

For much of the 1990s I lived in the tiny village of Coalbrook, Co. Tipperary. Our view looked out on the rolling landscape of the Slieveardagh Hills, and, by remarkable circumstance, in the distance we could see the Widow McCormack’s house, scene of the 1848 rebellion. John Mitchel, imprisoned in his hulk-ship cell as prisoner 2014 en route to Van Diemen’s Land, with typical outspokenness, called it a ‘poor extemporised abortion of an uprising in Tipperary [at] this cursed Ballingarry’.[i] It was strange, as a Mitchel 150 years later, to wander around that deserted shell with all its associations with the Young Irelanders.

When, in 1998, different events were held in the area to commemorate 1848, I was honoured as a relative of John Mitchel to be asked by Dr William Nolan of University College Dublin to give a lecture on ‘the Patriot’ at the Slieveardagh Summer School. On its conclusion, Mr William Corbett of Drombane, Thurles generously presented me with a bound edition of a John Mitchel Scrapbook 1874-75 that he had purchased at auction in 1976. Within its covers, an anonymous hand has assiduously cut and pasted eighty pages of newspaper clippings containing a mine of information relating to the events of the last year of Mitchel’s life. Reading the Scrapbook I was struck by the details of a fascinating and (in true Mitchel style) gripping story in its own right. It appears to me that the events surrounding his double return, double election and death have often been telescoped into a brief addendum in accounts of his life, overshadowed perhaps by the intense drama of his earlier adventures. It is these events on which I wish to reflect in this essay.

Mitchel set out from New York on 14 July 1874 on the Idaho, accompanied by his daughter Isabel and a Dr. Carroll of Philadelphia, and arrived in Queenstown (Cobh), largely unannounced, eleven days later. It was twenty-six years since he had seen the Irish coast. Evidently ill, his friends in Cork were struck by his prematurely aged appearance. Newspaper reports described his health as fragile, ‘He looks careworn, and his voice is far from robust, while a hollow asthmatic cough falls occasionally and disagreeably on the ear.’[ii] Sentiment was largely sympathetic to the old rebel, now a naturalized American citizen, apparently back on a personal visit. The Freeman’s Journal opined that ‘After the lapse of a quarter of a century – after the loss of two of his sons … John Mitchel again treads his native land, a prematurely aged, enfeebled man. Whatever the opinions as to the wisdom of his course … none can deny the respect due to honest of purpose and fearlessness of heart.’[iii]

After large public demonstrations of support in Cork and Dublin, he arrived in Newry on 28 July, unhindered by the forces of the state. There he was welcomed by his brother-in-law, Mr Hill Irvine, and so returned once again to his boyhood home of Dromolane. After a stay of some weeks, he left Newry for Dublin on 8 September where he was met by John Martin and others. Then on 25 September, he continued to Killarney and thence on to Cork for departure back to America on 1 October 1874 on the steamer Minnesota. The visit was low key throughout, but Mitchel was never a man to go quietly. The scene was set for his second return.

Back in America on 8 December 1874, Mitchel lectured on ‘Ireland Revisited’ at the Cooper Institute in New York. The event was organized by the Clan-na-Gael Association.[iv] Its size and long list of prominent nationalists (including O’Donovan Rossa)[v] in attendance, spoke of Mitchel’s undimmed charisma and political influence. The Irishman noted that ‘his love of Ireland, if possible, seems to have increased, while his hatred of the oppressor has unquestionable suffered no mitigation.’[vi] Certainly Mitchel displayed no softening of his zealous desire for independence. His speech is worth commenting on in detail in that it reveals much of his thinking as he entered the last tumultuous year of his extraordinary life. In it he spoke with characteristic flamboyance, nationalistic optimism and a fair degree of prophetic foresight. He outlined three specific reasons for re-visiting his homeland. These were thoughts he had kept largely private until this point, ‘you may suppose that while in Ireland, though my mouth was shut, my eyes and ears were open’.[vii] The first motive was that he wished to visit his relations in the North. His second was more political, ‘knowing that Irish history is not yet concluded, that it is not a book that is closed and sealed – knowing that a high destiny is inevitable to Ireland, that she is indestructible and immortal – I desired to see “How fares it with old Ireland, and how does she stand (loud cheers)”.’[viii] Although these reasons were persuasive, the third was clearly the catalyst for his voyage. Mitchel had been nominated (unknown to him) by citizens of Cork and Tipperary in a general election of early summer of 1874 when still in America. However, it was the reaction to his nomination that galvanised him into action. His words reveal a man with undimmed political passion. This was no purely private return.

There was a class of newspapers in Ireland which said that I was ineligible; that my sentence of felony was not yet discharged; that if I went there I should be arrested; that a vote for me was a vote thrown away; that I dared not set foot in Ireland at all. Well I would not be dared (loud and prolonged cheering). I said to myself, ‘One of these days I intended to go, and as friends are desirous of my presence I may as well go now’. I felt offended by the assumption on the part of Irish gentlemen that I was a proscribed man; that I was legally exiled from my country and dared not go back; that Cork and Tipperary could not elect me to represent them … Of course, I was well aware that in landing I was placing myself in the power of mortal enemies. It was nevertheless my intention, if any vacancy should occur, to offer myself as a candidate – not to test the question of eligibility, but to get the Irish members to put in operation the plan suggested by O’Connell at one time, of declining to attend in Parliament altogether (enthusiastic applause) that is, to try to discredit and explode the fraudulent pretence of representation in the Parliament of Britain.[ix]

In the same speech, Mitchel dismissed the Home Rule movement, despite the best intentions of it members including his closest friend John Martin, as hopelessly naïve. On Martin, Mitchel commented, he ‘now attends Parliament like other good Irishmen, a demoralising practice’. Mitchel argued that the fruitless experience in Parliament of even someone like Thomas Francis Meagher demonstrated that ‘the fact that this Home Rule League goes to Parliament and sets it hope therein, puts me in indignation against the Home Rule League … they are not Home Rulers but Foreign Rulers. Now it is painful for me to say even so much in disparagement of so excellent a body of men as they are … after a little while they will be bought.’ As with O’Connell’s constitutional reform, Mitchel’s impatience with the Home Rule League lay in its unwillingness to resort to physical force. He argued ‘One would suppose that the affair of keeping the peace within the borders of Ireland would be an Irish affair. But no Home Ruler has claimed that in Parliament. That is left out of Home Rule policy. Not one of them has ventured to say they want to arm themselves and become volunteers. They have not breathed so Irish a sentiment.’[x] The only way England would ever surrender was if she were ‘beaten to her knees’. He contended that Home Rule candidates were not representing their own constituencies but in reality ‘they are representing the I. R. B. (loud cheers). Yes there is a great mass of silent, quiet power now holding itself still, collecting itself together – making itself ready should an opportunity present itself.’[xi]

When no vacancy arose in 1874 Mitchel returned to Brooklyn with the clear intention of returning in the spring of 1875 ‘if I could see my way of doing good there’. His hopes were fulfilled perhaps more quickly that he imagined following the resignation of Colonel Charles White MP for Tipperary in January 1875. Almost immediately, on 3 February, Mitchel set sail from New York once again. Somewhat ironically, it was John Martin who wrote to the Fenian activist C. J. Kickham announcing his friend’s candidature and promising that Mitchel ‘will immediately come to Ireland and present himself before the electors of Tipperary.’[xii] Martin’s awkward position was highlighted by his own ambivalence over Mitchel’s quest. He hoped that Mitchel would be elected since ‘no living Irishman better deserves the highest political honour that his country can bestow’. This despite Martin’s view that Mitchel’s New York speech judged ‘the Home Rule movement in particular and the policy of the Home Rule party in a spirit that seems to me neither impartial nor friendly.’ In what can only be described as supreme optimism, Martin concluded that after Mitchel’s election ‘the Home Rule movement will not suffer, but will prosper and advance all the more.’[xiii]

His benign hopes were not shared by other Home Rulers. Rev. Thadeus O’Malley, in a letter to the electors of Tipperary, passionately warned them not to do ‘an extremely foolish thing’ in returning Mitchel who was ‘utterly unfit’ to be the member for Tipperary. Martin had made a ‘grave mistake’ in backing Mitchel ‘blinded by too intense an admiration of Mr. Mitchel’s rare abilities and his close affinity for him.’[xiv] Mitchel had given ‘gross personal insult to the sixty gentlemen representing the League in the House of Commons.’  How could the electors of Tipperary send to Parliament ‘its avowed enemy’ who, in light of his ‘expressed contempt for their cause’, would find it impossible to co-operate with the Home Rule movement? O’Malley developed his case against Mitchel at a more profound level with an argument that continues to reverberate down the generations through contrasting figures like O’Connell and the Young Irelanders; Redmond and Pearse; Collins (post-Treaty) and de Valera; Hume and Adams; and now Sinn Fein and the Real IRA. In short, it revolved around the divide between those holding to the effectiveness, morality and electoral validity of constitutional nationalism as against the ineffectiveness, immorality and electoral invalidity of physical force republicanism. O’Malley argued that Mitchel’s ‘insane notion’ of revolution in 1848 destroyed the chances of the National Confederation of ‘achieving something great for Ireland’ at a time when they were poised to do so. Most damning of all in O’Malley’s eyes was Mitchel’s arrogant disregard for democracy and the assumption that his path was the only legitimate one despite the absence of popular support within the National Confederation. He wrote that although Mitchel ‘had a perfectly free debate upon his motion for three whole nights and was utterly defeated by a large majority, instead of loyal obedience to the verdict he broke away from the Confederation altogether, putting himself at the head of a little clique or coterie of his own.’[xv] Seen from this perspective, Mitchel’s imminent election put the Home Rule movement neatly on the horns of a dilemma. To oppose Mitchel was to be seen to betray an Irish hero. To welcome his renewed political role in Ireland was to invite criticism from an unbending and formidable foe. In the end, it was to be Mitchel’s failing health and the actions of the British Government that resolved their quandary.

Mitchel was elected unopposed on 16 February 1875 while still a day off the Irish coast. With unprecedented haste, within two hours of receiving the news by telegram and before the House of Commons had even received formal confirmation of the result, Disraeli gave notice of a motion for 18 February to declare the result invalid and to move a new writ for the county of Tipperary. His actions divided opinion and over the next few days there followed a rather torturous legal debate on Mitchel’s eligibility and fact that a decision of the House was being used to disqualify him rather than a judicial decision. In the event the motion was passed by 269 votes to 102. Even The Times said ‘it seems most difficult, if not impossible’, to support the conclusion reached by the Crown. ‘To say that John Mitchel is a “felon” so far that he is incapable of being elected … but for all other purposes is as free as air, is to enunciate a proposition belonging rather to the domain of scholastic divinity than that of right human reason’.[xvi] Other London papers however were scathing in their dismissal of ‘a score of Tipperary nobodies’ who ‘render themselves again and again ridiculous if only they can vex the “enemies of the country”.’ The Daily Express caricatured Mitchel as a ‘form of Tipperary caprice [that] savours of Donnybrook Fair or the traveling show-box. The ringmaster, the punster, the posturer – somersault, grimace and grin, all are present in all their comic integrity’, such activities are ‘the refuge of imbeciles.’[xvii]

Meanwhile in the midst of this controversy, John Mitchel had arrived at Queenstown on 17 February, accompanied by his only surviving son, Captain James Mitchel. That afternoon he traveled by train to Tipperary Town and then on to Clonmel. Crowds of thousands greeted him in both places and he vowed to contest Tipperary as often as a vacancy arose and ‘would go before any Irish constituency that would return him.’[xviii] Mitchel was back to stay – but surely no one realised just how short that stay was to be. His appearance was described without sympathy by a Daily News correspondent, ‘He is physically a wreck; pale, wan, feeble and emaciated … he has almost wholly lost the Irish accent, and there has been substituted for it what I may call an American intonation.’[xix] Mitchel returned to Cork to rest as his supporters considered their next move. Meetings were held all over the county during the weekend of 20-1 February, the most important being a conference in Tipperary. In Thurles, ‘grave doubts [were] expressed as to the propriety of renominating Mitchel’ but the overall mood was one of bullish determination that renomination should proceed, not least in protest at the disenfranchisement of the voters of Tipperary. Interestingly C. J. Kickham advised against this, arguing that, after much effort, Mitchel’s re-election and inevitable expulsion would not add to the cause and it would be more effective to propose James in John’s place. Perhaps if his words had been heeded, John would have lived longer – a second election was to cost him his life. His rapid decline was made evident by his failure to deliver a lecture ‘On Tipperary’ in Cork’s Theatre Royal on 26 February. Mitchel had to be helped from the stage ‘looking very ill’. Mr. John Dillon (son of John B. Dillon Young Irelander) read the text to a large audience in which Mitchel had concluded ‘To elicit from Tipperary the magnificent declaration of faith in the National right of Ireland, I consider that it was well worth my while to cross the ocean.’[xx]

Events proceeded apace towards the second election on 11 March. Heavyweight political voices spoke out for Mitchel, not least Issac Butt[xxi] and Charles Stewart Parnell. The latter wrote a letter to The Freeman stating ‘On broad constitutional grounds it must become everyone to protest against the decision of an obscure legal question by a party vote, in hot blood, of the House of Commons … I beg you to put down £25 as my contribution to Mr. Mitchel’s committee.’[xxii] Then, on 5 March, the worst fears of Mitchel’s supporters were realised when Stephen Moore of Barne, Clonmel, a wealthy Conservative proprietor, put his name forward to contest the seat. Mitchel would not have a second walk-over and his opponent would likely be declared the winner in light of Mitchel’s inevitable disqualification. Canvassing for the two candidates was ‘conducted with energy and determination’ all over the county in the days running up the election.[xxiii] One correspondent was even shown a remarkable document entitled ‘A pledge by the women of Tipperary’ that promised ‘we will never walk with, talk with, cook for, wash for, court, marry, or countenance, but let live and die as they like any man who will not vote for and support John Mitchel for Tipperary’![xxiv]

The result, announced on 12 March, declared that Mitchel had polled 3,114 votes to 746 for Moore. Unsurprisingly, the result elicited radically different political interpretations. English papers like the Morning Mail pointed out that only one third of the 9,246 registered voters had exercised their franchise and concluded (with remarkable logic) that this level of abstention entitled Moore ‘morally as well as legally to the seat.’[xxv] Mitchel, in a letter to The Irish Times indicated he would not attempt legally to defend his seat against Parliament’s decision to declare him ineligible.[xxvi] By this time he was already confined to his deathbed in Dromolane. His last letter was published on St. Patrick’s Day, 17 March 1875. In it he expressed his gratitude to the electorate of Tipperary and answered calls for him to ‘carry on the war at the bar of the House and before the judges.’ He wrote

If … any friend of mine in Tipperary thinks he has reason to be surprised at my manner of meeting the present emergency, or that I have, ever, at any time or in any manner, led him or others to suppose that I should act otherwise than I am doing, I can only refer him to my whole past political career and to all my published speeches and writings so far as they relate to this subject of Irish representation.[xxvii]

By this he meant that the matter was ‘now complete’ in that no more could be done to expose Tipperary’s effective disenfranchisement and the ‘fraudulent’ system of Irish representation in Parliament. He concluded with his last published words, ‘So now, my friends of Tipperary, I ask your favourable construction, and bid you farewell for the present, with God save Ireland.’ He died on 20 March at 8.00am, surrounded by family, but far from Jenny his wife of 38 years and son James who had returned to New York a week before.

John Mitchel was buried in the peculiar family graveyard in Newry, originally connected to the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of which his father had been minister, but now completely surrounded by a convent of the order Poor Clares. Revd. Craig Nelson gave the address from a pulpit from which Mitchel’s father had often preached. In it he revealed something of the ambivalence that many felt as they reflected on Mitchel’s flawed legacy,

But I may freely and candidly state, that as much as I loved and admired the man, I had no sympathy with his political views, nor with the means and measures by which he proposed to carry them out. But his most decided, and even his bitterest antagonists must and do admit his honesty of purpose, his self-sacrificing devotedness, his consistent and faithful adherence to his convictions, and his unswerving and untarnished truthfulness.[xxviii]

During the procession, John Martin had been unable to continue and had retired to one of the following carriages. In a bizarre twist of fate, during the graveside oration, he collapsed was carried out by mourners. He was never to recover and died a week later, also in Dromolane. The two old friends, united by ideals, transportation, and family ties were now joined in death.

Tributes and biographies poured in for Mitchel, reflecting his ability to divide reaction in death as in life. Some from a nationalist outlook were overblown and sentimental. The Freeman’s Journal was more measured, ‘we may lament his persistence in certain lines of action which his intelligence must have suggested to him could have but been futile issue … his love for Ireland may have been imprudent. But he loved her with a devotion unexcelled’.[xxix] Others from a British perspective were scathingly critical. The Morning Mail described Mitchel’s defense of slavery as his ‘prostituting great talents to a very low end’.[xxx] The Standard concluded, ‘His powers through life, however, were marred by want of judgment, obstinate opinionativeness, and a factiousness which disabled him from ever acting long enough with any set of men’[xxxi] The Daily Telegraph argued with some persuasiveness that Mitchel’s political ambitions had failed because

he had no taste for the practical part of war. He was a solicitor and a journalist and knew nothing of that most elementary kind of insurrection, street barricades, and was utterly unsuited by temperament or power to organize a real revolt. His sole idea was that the whole people should rise one day, and that, after a brief fight, the soldiers would fraternise with the populace and a Provisional Government replace the Lord Lieutenant.[xxxii]

However, in another sense the act of failure itself contained the seeds of later triumph. A few decades later Patrick Pearse was to describe Mitchel as one of the ‘four evangelists’ of Irish nationalism who had left behind a holy and authoritative body of teaching to be obeyed by the faithful ‘calling’ every living Irishmen to a blood sacrifice for Ireland – a call fulfilled in the Easter Rising of 1916.[xxxiii] In the light of history, perhaps one of the most mistaken claims of the British papers was by The Morning Post that ‘we cannot believe that Mr. Mitchel’s opinions are shared by any considerable number of Irish electors. He was, we imagine, the last exponent of them that will attract any considerable attention.’[xxxiv]

The debate continues. The iconoclastic columnist Kevin Myers described Mitchel as the exhibiting ‘the psychopathology of the terrorist’ in his apology for political violence as shown in

the personalization of a political injustice so that ego becomes one with the nation; the demonisation of an entire species, in this case the English; vengence becomes a therapy and national requirement; and the transformation of political will into a weapon of punishment, designed to hurt people, and be morally sure of the rightness of that hurt.[xxxv]

Inspirer of hatred or inspiring idealist? Apologist for terror or freedom fighter? Opponent of democracy or man ahead of his time? Insufferably arrogant or bravely uncompromising? Wasted talent or glorious visionary? Naively out of touch with religious divisions within Ireland or non-sectarian hero? Armchair revolutionary or martyr for Ireland? Which way someone answers these questions will probably rest on their prior political assumptions. One thing is sure; John Mitchel stands out as one of the most dramatic, controversial and memorable figures of 19th Century Ireland.

Patrick Mitchel

[i] John Mitchel, Jail Journal (London: Sphere Books, 1983) 69. First published in Mitchel’s The Citizen newspaper in New York from 14 January 1854 to 19 August 1854.

[ii] ‘John Mitchel Arrives in Ireland’, unknown newspaper, 26 July 1874.

[iii] Freeman’s Journal. 27 July 1874.

[iv] An oath bound organisation which recognised the Supreme Council of the IRB as the rightful ‘government’ of Ireland. The term IRB stands for Irish Republican Brotherhood, a secretive militant otherwise known as the Fenian movement.

[v] Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa (1831-1915): member of the IRB; manager of the Irish People, 1863; imprisoned 1865-71; exiled to the USA where he edited the United Irishman; died in New York.

[vi] The Irishman, 2 January 1875.

[vii] The Irishman, 2 January 1875.

[viii] The Irishman, 2 January 1875.

[ix] The Irishman, 2 January 1875.

[x] The Irishman, 2 January 1875.

[xi] The Irishman, 2 January 1875.

[xii] John Martin letter to C. J. Kickham, unknown newspaper, 30 January 1875.

[xiii] John Martin letter to C. J. Kickham, unknown newspaper, 30 January 1875.

[xiv] Thadeus O’Malley, ‘John Mitchel’s Candidature’, The Freeman’s Journal, 12 February 1875. Mitchel and Martin were of course brothers in law after Martin’s marriage of John sister Henrietta.

[xv] Thadeus O’Malley, ‘John Mitchel’s Candidature’, The Freeman’s Journal, 12 February 1875.

[xvi] The Times, 20 February 1875.

[xvii] The Daily Express, 19 February 1875.

[xviii] The Daily Express, 17 February 1875.

[xix] The Daily News, 18 February 1875.

[xx] The Mail, 26 February 1875.

[xxi] Issac Butt (1813-70): Constitutional nationalist; Professor of Political Economy, Trinity College, Dublin, 1836-40; brilliant lawyer; tried to hold onto an identity that was Protestant, unionist and Irish; defended the young Irelanders in 1848 and the Fenians in the 1860s. Conservative MP for Youghal, 1852-65; Home Rule MP for Limerick, 1871-9.

[xxii] The Freeman, 5 March 1875.

[xxiii] Unknown newspaper, 5 March 1875.

[xxiv] Unknown newspaper, 5 March 1875.

[xxv] The Morning Mail, 13 March 1875.

[xxvi] The Irish Times, 12 March 1875.

[xxvii] The Freeman’s Journal, 17 March 1875.

[xxviii] Revd. Craig Nelson, funeral oration for John Mitchel, Morning Mail, 24 March 1875.

[xxix] The Freeman’s Journal, 22 March 1875.

[xxx] The Morning Mail, 22 March 1875.

[xxxi] The Standard, 22 March 1875.

[xxxii] The Daily Telegraph, 22 March 1875.

[xxxiii] Patrick Pearse, Political Writings and Speeches (Talbot Press: Dublin, 1952) 91.

[xxxiv] The Morning Post, 22 March 1875.

[xxxv] Kevin Myers, ‘The Physical Force Tradition’ in Kevin Myers: From the Irish Times column ‘An Irishman’s Diary’, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000) 31.

John Mitchel in America: champion of slavery and anti-evangelical

Continuing some reflections on my rebel relative John Mitchel (1815-1875) prompted by commemoration events in Newry this week.

John Mitchel escaped from Van Diemen’s Land in 1853 and spent most of the remainder of his life in America [he returned to Ireland in 1874-5, got elected twice, was declared ineligible by special Act of Parliament and promptly died but that’s another story].

In the States he was a staunch supporter of the Confederate cause. He believed the South was a superior society to that of the North.

“The South and the North are two nations and cannot go on long together. Every year widens the breach and reveals the incompatibility of the two sections. I prefer the South in every sense. I do really believe its state of society to be more sound, more just, than that of the North.”

For Mitchel, the South’s struggle against the oppressive and industrial North was like Ireland’s against England. And part of that way of life was slavery which Mitchel unashamedly championed despite the reactions from friend and foe alike:

We deny that it is a crime, or a wrong, or even a peccadillo, to hold slaves, to buy slaves, to keep slaves to their work by flogging or other needful coercion …, and as for being a participator in the wrongs, we, for our part, wish we had a good plantation, well-stocked with healthy negroes, in Alabama.

And this stance brought him into head to head confrontation with evangelical abolitionists. One was the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher (brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin).  For Mitchel, English evangelicals and American abolitionists were hypocritical in their concern for slaves but ignored the oppression of their own working classes. He despised their ‘cant’.

He also was deeply suspicious of Enlightenment confident hopes for a better future as expressed in the American Constitution.

“I am not aware that every human being, or any one, has ‘an inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness.’ People often forfeit life and liberty, and as to ‘happiness,’ I do not even know what it is. On the whole, I fear this is jargon.’

Cheerful fella, wasn’t he?

John Mitchel and the ironies of a 21st Century ‘economic Famine’

Continuing some reflections about my rebel relative John Mitchel (1815-1875) (sparked off by A Young Irelanders commemoration event in Newry this week)

The quote that John Mitchel is most remembered for is this,

‘The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the Famine’

He blamed the English for allowing the Famine to progress while Irish grown grain was exported to Britain. Mammon trumped justice. The only solution to Ireland’s ills was the violent removal of English rule. England took advantage of Ireland’s distress to develop large scale commercial agriculture

Historians like James Quinn judge Mitchel to have been mostly wrong in his invective and rhetoric.

But Mitchel’s damning assessment, combined with his famous polemic telling the story of his transportation, Jail Journal, powerfully shaped generations of Irish nationalists and their interpretation of the Famine.

It helped forge a determination that Ireland would be never again be at the mercy of bigger nations who would put their economic interests before hers. The ‘holy grail’ of Irish nationalism, espoused unwaveringly by de Valera in the 20th Century, was sovereignty, self-reliance and independence.

So to Ireland in November 2010:

Ireland once again is in crisis – this time not starvation but an economic one.

Ironies abound;

– The British Govt is offering billions to help bailout its nearest trading neighbour.

Potatoes, far from being scarce are being exported to Russia by the ship load.

– Ireland is once again at the mercy of bigger nations (like Germany), and organisations like the IMF, more concerned about the stability of the Euro than Ireland’s woes.

– After 90 years of independence, this time there is no-one else to blame. The fault lies with inept government, a Fianna Fail party led by a succession of corrupt or weak leaders, excessive greed in banking and property, and a culture which elected, tolerated and co-operated with all of the above.

I wonder what sort of speech Mitchel would be writing …

Generous Justice 3: Jesus and Justice

How important theologically do you see Jesus’ compassion on the poor, the ostracised, the vulnerable and the sick?

I suspect that for many evangelicals this might seem a bit of an odd question. Sure Jesus showed God’s love and grace to all, isn’t that what we are to do?

While this is right, it isn’t right enough. I suspect many of us ‘localise’ Jesus’ words and actions to his unique identity and mission. In other words, Jesus’ extraordinary focus on, engagement with and care for those on the margins of society flows out of his exceptional calling and character as God’s Messiah and Son.

And quite subtly we take the next step of assuming, almost unconsciously, that we, his followers, are not expected to do as he did. Jesus was Jesus after all! Those that do as he did in regard to the poor and marginalised are exceptional and are admired and respected as such.

And so it goes with most evangelical churches in the West – direct engagement with the poor and marginalised is itself a marginal activity. It can be put this way; being active in ‘doing justice’ is an ‘add on’ to the ‘core business’ of the Christian life.

Or to go back to our discussions about the gospel – if the gospel is only about the individual getting into a right relationship with God (dealing with the sin problem) then doing justice becomes a consequence of being in right relationship with God. It is good, but not essential; it is additional, not necessary.

If chapters 3 and 4 [Jesus and Justice & Neighbour Love] of Generous Justice by Tim Keller do one thing, they should show us that far from ‘doing justice’ being a desirable but peripheral aspect of discipleship, it is at the heart of the Christian life. It lies at the heart of Jesus’ ministry and this all reflects how it is central to God’s heart.

So after that long introduction here are the big themes of this and the following chapter – and of course it’s better read them for yourself.

– Far from ‘moving on’ from the OT’s concern for justice, Jesus stands in full continuity with the prophetic tradition in his passionate concern for justice for the vulnerable, poor and marginalised.

– His followers “should be profoundly involved with and generous to the poor”

– Like an OT prophet Jesus equates a concern for justice with the state of one’s heart.

“Anyone truly touched by the grace of God will be vigorous in helping the poor.”

– The new community of the kingdom is be marked by justice, equality, love of neighbour.

– Justice and Your Neighbour:

“Before you can give this neighbour-love you need to receive it. Only if you see that you have been saved graciously by someone who owes you the opposite, will you go out into the world looking to help absolutely anyone in need. Once we receive this ultimate radical neighbour-love through Jesus, we can start to be the neighbours that the Bible calls us to be.”

Sundays in Mark (38) 11:27-33 The authority of Jesus

Continuing some simple Sunday Reflections in the Gospel of Mark

Following from the cursed fig tree, the story links how the judgement to come will fall on Israel and her leaders – who have rejected both John and Jesus.

Here the chief priests, scribes (teachers of the Law) and elders confront Jesus about his cleansing of the temple. They represent three groups of Jewish leadership. Their question continues to bring to a head the underlying question of the whole Gospel – who is this Jesus?

The hiddeness of Jesus’ identity remains for those resistant to him. Jesus’ answer connects his and John’s missions within the eschatological coming of the kingdom of God. Just as John died at the hands of Herod Antipas, so Jesus would also die at the hands of those with political and religious power who rejected his message and mission. It is the tragedy of Israel rejecting her Messiah and his forerunner and in doing so, rejecting the authority of God in whose will and purpose both have come.

The Authority of Jesus Questioned

27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”

29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

Relationalism and the Irish bank crisis

Here’s a ‘relationalism’ take on the Irish banking crisis from Jonathan Tame who works with Michael Schluter of the Relationships Foundation and The Jubliee Centre.

what do you think?

The Euro has taken another knock this week as the Irish government is struggling under the weight of its ailing banks, having promised to guarantee all their debts in 2008 during the credit crisis.  This has left the country with the highest public deficit in the eurozone this year, at 14.3% of GDP, which may require an emergency loan from the European Central Bank.

Despite attempts in recent years to treat debt as a commodity, in reality any loan is a relational transaction: one person lends some of his or her money to another person, who promises to repay it by a certain date.  The bank is the go between, acting in the interests of both parties (and their shareholders).  There is trust involved, and risk and uncertainty with any loan; these issues can be assessed and monitored provided there is genuine knowledge and relationship between the banks and their customers.

However, when loans are commoditised and sold on, the connection between borrower and lender becomes remote and accountability falls away.  The less relational lending becomes, the higher the default rate tends to be: banks are more likely to make loans that haven’t been properly evaluated, and borrowers can more easily get away with defaulting on their debts.

When the boom years came to an end in the Irish property market, the credit which financed it still had to be paid.  The Irish government decided at the time to protect bank depositors from any loss, so the banks turned to the state; the government has underwritten the banks but now has an unsustainable deficit.  Who will pay for the Irish bad debts?  It appears, ironically, that those at the furthest distance relationally from Ireland – taxpayers from across the EU – may ultimately end up paying for the remoteness between borrower and lender in the Emerald Isle.

Dr Paul Mills is a senior economist in one of the international financial institutions; over the last 20 years he has studied alternatives to debt-based financial systems, including Islamic banking.  The following Cambridge Paper explores the reasons why interest was banned in Old Testament Israel, and what lessons can be drawn from this today.