THE TABLET


THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY Founded in 1840


CHURCHES’ MISSION STATEMENT H


aving arrived at what they described as a “broad consensus”, representatives of 90 per cent of the world’s Christians have published guidelines on how to conduct relations with each other and with mem-


bers of other faiths. It is an important step forward in relations between different Christian denominations, but its real sig- nificance may lie elsewhere. In many parts of the world Christians live cheek by jowl with other religions. Often they are a minor- ity group. Violence is sometimes stirred up by troublemakers when Christians are accused of evangelising and seeking to convert others to Christianity. This has happened time and again in the Middle East and the Asian subcontinent. In most cases the troublemakers are militant Islamists, but


in India it has also occurred with militant Hindus. Such charges will be much easier to refute now these guidelines are in exis- tence. They also provide ammunition for church authorities seeking to restrain the more zealous of their own members. Long periods of peaceful coexistences have on occasion been jeopardised when evangelists arrive on the scene from out- side, insensitive to local traditions of live and let live. There are signs amid the events of the Arab Spring that mil-


itant Islamism may be on the wane, and in Egypt there were heart-warming moments of solidarity between Muslims and Coptic Christians as the crisis there unfolded. On the other hand, the military dictatorships which are being rejected across the Arab world did also offer a measure of protection to minor- ity groups. It remains to be seen how minorities will fare under more democratic regimes.


Moderate Muslims anxious to spread the message that


Christians are not a threat will find the guidelines helpful. Indeed, they echo the Qur’anic declaration that “there should be no coercion in religion”. They rule out misrepresentation, exploita- tion, inducements or rewards; and stress that religious conversion, to be real, requires full consent, and time to reflect. The guidelines are insistent, however, that Christians have a right to preach their message. It follows that so do others. Missionary rivalry between Christian Churches is largely a thing of the past, though in Latin America conservative Protestant, especially Pentecostal, evangelists have made huge inroads in what was once an almost exclusively Catholic con- tinent. It is significant that some Pentecostal groups have signed up to the guidelines through the World Evangelical Alliance, which took part in the conversations alongside the Vatican and the World Council of Churches. The Catholic approach was shaped by the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, the terms of which are reflected in the text. In past centuries the Catholic Church has been one of the main offenders against the principles of religious freedom, though it has also been one of the princi- pal victims when this freedom has been denied it by others. The guidelines remain to be translated into detailed policy by the Churches represented in the negotiations. That process needs to be more than lip-service. A good grassroots debate as the guidelines come to be applied would help to educate many of these unwittingly intolerant Christians that due respect for members of other faiths is a requirement of the Gospel.


A FINELY BALANCED DISPUTE T he fact that many teachers and other public servants


are prepared to withdraw their labour in defence of their pension rights presents the Government with a dilemma. If the issues cannot be quickly resolved


it risks making a great many enemies, and it is far from clear on which side public opinion will eventually settle. On the other hand the case for lowering expectations and


future entitlements is strong. People are living longer. There is no doubt that the whole community has an interest in see- ing that retired people stay out of poverty, into their advanced old age. But it is no longer guaranteed that the present sys- tem can go on delivering that in perpetuity. At the root of the issue is the need to find a fair balance between the interests of present and future generations. But what does fairness mean, in such circumstances? How can present and future genera- tions negotiate with one another to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome? In Britain until now, the balance has been achieved by a mod- est state pension backed up by benefits, paid for by the taxpayer, together with employment-related pensions funded by con- tributions from employee and employer –the latter, in the public sector, also being funded by the taxpayer. This system is only a partial success, however, as poverty remains a reality among a significant number of pensioners. Without substan- tial changes such as raising the retirement age, that number will increase in the long term. The trade unions in negotiation with the Government, rep- resenting the public-sector paymaster, do accept that something


2 | THE TABLET | 2 July 2011


must be done. They have abandoned their initial insistence, for instance, that public-sector pension rates must be linked to final salary. Indeed some of them have held off using the strike weapon as they thought the negotiations were making progress. The Government’s own tactics have been to strike an uncompromising note and appeal to union members not to strike in the name of the public interest. On both sides there has been intransigence, while the public wants to see a will- ingness to reach agreement, not a war to the death. Strike action is not illegitimate if it is intended to apply pres- sure on the other side to make further concessions. The very idea of a one-day strike is recognition that public sympathy may turn against the unions if they are seen to be too mili- tant, concentrating only on their members’ interests and disregarding the common good. The Government will have room to manoeuvre once it senses where the unions’ negoti- ating bottom line may lie when the dust has settled over the industrial action. This is a chance for the Coalition Government to show that it is not in thrall to anti-union ideology, and respects the right of workers to organise and negotiate collectively. This is also an opportunity for the Opposition to show that


it recognises the strength of the Government’s case, and that, were it to be in government, it too would have had to take firm action to ensure the nation’s public sector-pension arrange- ments were solvent and sustainable for the foreseeable future. If that means a slight reduction in the living standards of current state employees, then so be it. The only outstand- ing issue is – by how much?


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36