Murals and Free Speech

From our website: ‘St John's has a history over more than thirty years of displaying murals on topical subjects. The intention behind our murals is to provoke thought and debate. To do that, it is sometimes necessary to raise questions, which some people may find uncomfortable, though it is never our intention to cause offence.'

I have pondered these words quite frequently over the last eight weeks because our last two murals, which were both conceived within the same couple of hours one evening, garnered a multitude of reactions.







I suspect many of you had had reactions too and had much opportunity to discuss these with family and friends. Let me just say: I do believe that there is no right or wrong reaction. Even the most vocal ones are part of a process that is doing exactly what the murals set out to do.

Our faith tradition is full of examples of prophetic voices that raised questions, and often raised them uncomfortably and for some even offensively. God’s prophet Hosea, for example, married a prostitute simply to make a point about the political situation. Nathan’s challenge of King David would have been understood as a serious lese-majesty in his and many other cultures. (And yes, the biblical prophets are very political indeed, as they deal with such topics as injustice, war, exploitation, and the treatment of orphans, widows, and aliens.) The separation of matters spiritual and temporal is really a rather recent development and confined to Western culture. Not too long ago, religion was very much intertwined with the polis, the state, even in the West. We can see vestiges of this reality in the very fact that twenty six Church of England bishops are still ‘ex-officio’ members of Parliament.

Thirty years ago the murals were created as a response to this prophetic tradition. Not unlike Hosea and Nathan they are at times rather uncomfortable and at other times really affirming. Most of the times they are somewhere in between. And sometimes they miss the target. It all depends on the subject matter and on one’s particular viewpoint. But all the time the murals strive to set a question mark amongst the indifference and the fears of our world. And at times these question marks have to be most powerful. This is why the murals are appreciated by many.

Our website states that ‘currently there is an active debate going on in Scotland and the UK as a whole around immigration and we hope that our contribution will stimulate people as they think about that issue’. The December murals indeed stimulated a lot of feedback within a debate that often leaves out the most vulnerable and most affected. They also resulted in interaction with national politicians, something I hope will bring about personal conversation, mutual challenges, and maybe even public debate.

Markus Dünzkofer

Free Speech

Being able to freely express our opinions and beliefs is fundamental to open and democratic debate. Respect for such views, even where we disagree with them, is an attribute of the mature and enlightened and, hopefully, increases mutual understanding. In the UK such articulation is something that we tend to take for granted. We can generally freely express ourselves safe in the knowledge that we will not be arrested, imprisoned, tortured, unfairly tried or murdered by state authorities and that the state is obliged to protect us from this happening at the hands of others. Moreover, such freedom of expression is reinforced by all international human rights treaties dealing with civil and political rights that most countries are parties to.



That is not to say that the right to freedom of expression is untrammelled. We may, for example, personally choose to self-censure out of respect and concern for others. International treaties also recognise that occasionally restraint may be required provided this is achieved legitimately by law, in a proportionate manner and only in very limited circumstances. These limited circumstances include the interests of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of the health and morals of others and respect for the reputation and rights of others. Of course, the right to freedom of religion is one of these other rights but, again, this can be similarly limited. A careful and often emotive balancing act must therefore take place.

However, it is important to emphasise that it is the state, encompassing democratically elected law and policy makers and an independent judiciary, who must determine the extent of such restraint which, we trust, is in a manner that is fair and respects the rights of all. This is not in the gift of others. We may feel hurt, angry, and offended by certain words, images and writings. Where these ridicule or attack our religious or other deeply held beliefs this can be particularly painful. This does not, however, place us above the law and justify killing and maiming of those who hold different opinions and/or the directing of partial or full blame onto these victims for such actions.

What happened in Paris in January was undeniably atrocious. Many of us undoubtedly have remembered in our prayers with very great sympathy those who died, those mourning their deaths and the people of France generally. Freedom of expression, like the British (perhaps even more so), is part of the very fabric of their society and is entrenched in their constitution, the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. At the same time, we must pray that those responsible will be guided away from their desire to harm and towards respect for others. Showing solidarity and refusing to bow in the face of despicable attempts to terrorise citizens and governments is a sign of strength and respect for humankind. Let us, however, equally also hope and pray that responses to such cruelties will be just and tolerant and not misjudge or misrepresent those who wish no harm. Ironically, at such times it is unfortunately all too easy to search for and then abuse the right to freedom of expression to vilify scapegoats.

Jill Stavert

Being a neighbour

Some years ago, St John’s adopted the following mission statement:

St John's, by the grace of the Spirit,
seeks to be an open community,
walking in the way of Jesus,
engaging with an ever-changing world and
living a faith that is timeless yet contemporary,
thoughtful and compassionate.

This sentence obliges us to not condemn the world and withdraw from our neighbour, but to follow Jesus into the world and among our neighbours, whoever they are. It is about becoming God’s agents of healing in the world, rather than either pulling up the drawbridge or assuming God’s wrath is on our side. God does not need us to avenge. God also does not need our protection.

A lot has been written in the last few weeks and lots of cartoons have been drawn and published in response to the assault on human life and the violation of God’s image in Paris.

Unfortunately, our fast-paced media-crazy world has often not much time for measured responses that go beyond headlines and buzzwords. Even more thought-through blogs often conjure up solutions that are not based in honest discernment, but in a need to react quickly and to hit as many clicks as possible.

Our mission statement remains most relevant in this context.

How can we be compassionate, yet thoughtful? How can we not give into easy stereotypes or quick condemnations? How can we do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with our God (cf. Micah 5:8)?

There are no easy answers. But we have the skills and means to explore answers both as a community of faith and also by interacting with the community around us through, for example, the just-Festival or Souper Saturday. I am looking forward to finding ways with you to tackle these questions faithfully and genuinely, so that we indeed become a place of healing for the world.

Markus Duenzkofer