Irish Religious Conflict in Comparative Perspective

Catholics, Protestants and Muslims

John Wolffe

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137351906
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: History of Religion

By setting the Irish religious conflict in a wide comparative perspective, this book offers fresh insights into the causes of religious conflicts, and potential means of resolving them. The collection mounts a challenge to views of 'Irish exceptionalism' and points to significant historical and contemporary commonalities across the Western world.

Part I

Ireland

1

‘A Solid and United Phalanx’? Protestant Churches and the Ulster Covenant, 1912–2012

Nicola Morris and David Tombs

The return of Irish Home Rule to the realm of practical politics in 1912 after the passing of the Parliament Act the previous year stimulated a massive popular response across Ireland. In Ulster, the determination of Unionists to resist the imposition of Home Rule was epitomized by the signing of the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant on 28 September 1912. The images that flooded the press of Unionist leaders signing the covenant at Belfast City Hall and the huge crowds of Ulstermen queuing to pledge their support for the Unionist cause were, and have remained, some of the most iconic representations of Unionist resistance and have been consciously mimicked in more recent times, notably for the marking of the centenary.¹ Alvin Jackson argues that the images taken from the dome of Belfast City Hall in 1985 of Unionists demonstrating against the Anglo-Irish Agreement consciously mimicked those of 1912. Political leaders were shown to be invoking the men of 1912 and that ‘Ian Paisley plays Carson to James Molyneaux’s Craig’.² Similarly, the official images of the centenary commemorations were deliberately staged by the Loyal Orders to invoke the past, and indicate the unanimity of the Protestant people in support of the Union.³

Notable, however, was the absence of the churches from the centenary commemoration, in sharp contrast to the prominent involvement of church leaders in 1912. This chapter explores the support of the Protestant churches for the 1912 covenant and the absence of the churches from the 2012 anniversary. It reviews the biblical dimensions of the covenant tradition and the religious resonances of the Ulster covenant. It examines the support the Protestant churches gave to the signing of the 1912 covenant, and argues that a more detailed analysis of this support shows some striking variation between different Protestant denominations in their support for the covenant. The final section reflects upon the absence of churches from the anniversary events in 2012, and notes some local initiatives to offer new and alternative covenants to repudiate the sectarian dangers of the 1912 covenant.

The biblical covenants

The text of the Ulster covenant relied heavily on religious language and imagery, deliberately reinforcing the notion of a ‘common Protestantism’ as the defining feature of Ulster Loyalism.⁴ The language of covenant deliberately invoked a sense of the historic embattlement of the Protestant people in Ulster, stretching back to the days of Plantation in the seventeenth century. It consciously invoked the historic myths of Protestantism, particularly the Presbyterian defence of Reformed religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Inspired by earlier Scottish covenants, which included the Solemn League and Covenant signed in 1643, the Ulster covenant was a reclaiming of the biblical tradition of a covenant as a sacred bond. The religious symbolism of covenant gave its defiance of the authorities a positive and powerful religious identity.

In the Bible, the term ‘covenant’ typically refers to the pact between God and the people of Israel as God’s chosen people. This divinely sanctioned relationship between God and a chosen people was the central message behind the language of the Ulster covenant. In addition to the covenantal relationship between God and a chosen people, the Bible also speaks of covenants that can be entered into between individuals or groups. For example, the covenant between Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:44–54) was between individuals, and when the tribes appointed David as king (2 Sam. 5:3) it was a collective covenant.⁵ Covenants could also be agreed at a higher level between nations. For example, the prophet Hosea criticized the covenant between ‘Ephraim’ (representing the northern kingdom of Israel) and Assyria (Hos. 12:1). Covenants between nations were a common arrangement in the regional politics of the ancient Middle East. They were well known in Hittite culture and would have been inherited by the Israelites. Usually such covenants were not between equal parties, but between powerful states and their dominions. In the eyes of Hosea, the alliance with Assyrian power was a bond of violence and falsehood. In a different context, the negative consequences of covenants with foreign imperial powers led the prophet Isaiah to talk of the covenant with Egypt as a covenant with Sheol, or death (Isa. 28:15 and 28:18).

The clearest biblical expression of the covenant between God and Israel as the chosen people is the ‘Mosaic covenant’ at Sinai (Exod. 19) and the Ten Commandments which follow from it in Exod. 20. However, the Mosaic covenant is not an isolated event. It should be viewed as the culmination of the ‘covenant of life’ made with Noah (Gen. 6:18 and 8:20–9.17) and the ‘covenant of land’ made with Abraham (Gen. 15:18). The Bible presents the Mosaic covenant as the people drawing together and building upon earlier covenants with individual patriarchs. The Mosaic covenant understood the Israelites as a special and holy nation, a collective priestly people (Exod. 19:5–6).

The sacred nature of these biblical covenants is signified in the blood sacrifices which accompanied them. Exod. 24 describes the sealing of the Mosaic covenant with blood sacrifice (vv. 4–8). The covenant with Noah was preceded by sacrifices and offerings by Noah (Gen. 8:20) and so was the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15:9–11). Likewise, each of these covenants was accompanied by a distinctive sign: the rainbow as a sign of the covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:8–17); male circumcision as a sign of the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17:9–4); the Law as a sign of the covenant with Moses (the two stone tablets of the law are referred to as the ‘tablets of the covenant’, as in Deut. 9:9).

Because the Mosaic covenant represented a sacred agreement between the people and God it provided a claim beyond normal politics for people’s allegiance and faithfulness. However, at critical points the Mosaic covenant was renewed: for example, the dedication of the Temple under Solomon (I Kgs 8), the reforms under Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1–3) and again under Ezra after exile in Babylon (Neh. 8–10). Some scholars believe that in addition to this the covenant may also have been renewed in an annual ceremony.

Among other stories, the Hebrew Bible tells of the cycle of covenantal aspiration and the subsequent failure for the people to live up to their side of the agreement. Prophets decry the people’s failure to live a life of collective holiness, prompting a cycle of crisis, repentance and renewal in the covenantal relationship. However, when the prophet Jeremiah took up the covenantal idea in the sixth century BCE, he offered a paradigmatic transformation to the relationship. Jeremiah foresaw a ‘new covenant’ written on the hearts of the people rather than on stone tablets (Jer. 31). Jeremiah both individualized the covenant agreement and interiorized it. Jeremiah’s vision of a new covenant pointed more to the faithfulness of each individual in the relationship rather than to the collective; and the touchstone of the covenant would rest within each one of them, rather than in external symbols.

In the New Testament, the covenant tradition is picked up again and further reinterpreted in connection with the life and death of Christ. Jesus’ blood is called ‘the blood of the covenant’ (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24), and faith in the death and resurrection of Christ becomes the focus of a new covenantal relationship with God.⁶

The 1912 Ulster covenant

The text of the 1912 covenant interwove the need to defend Ulster from the political and religious menace with which it was threatened. It was an assertion of political power couched explicitly in terms of holiness, empire and violence and called on God’s favour for the faithful. In signing the covenant, Ulster Protestants reinforced their self-identity as a ‘chosen people’ who were acting in accordance with divine will rather than submission to worldly authority.

The covenant read:

Being convinced in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of his Gracious Majesty King George V, humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant throughout this our time of threatened calamity to stand by one another in defending for ourselves and our children our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right we hereto subscribe our names. And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this covenant.

The above was signed by me at ___________________
Ulster Day, Saturday 28th, September, 1912.
God Save the King⁷

Affirming their reliance on God, Ulstermen declared their willingness to use ‘all means which may be found necessary’ to defend themselves from the threatened calamity.⁸ Referencing previous political crises, Ulstermen exercised their religious convictions, pledging that ‘humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted’ they would ‘stand by one another’ to defend their position within the United Kingdom. The covenant ended with the statement that the act of signing was taken in ‘sure confidence that God will defend the right’, deliberately invoking the deity in support, a move that has been described by one historian as a traditional Presbyterian tactic of ‘reminding God whose side He’s on’.⁹ With its strong religious resonance, it is not surprising that broad sections of the Protestant churches in Ireland were uncritically supportive of the 1912 covenant. Both the political sentiments behind the covenant and the religious garb in which they were presented were appealing to the Protestant churches of the day.

On 28 September, religious services were held across Ulster, giving the impression that it was a ‘province at prayer’.¹⁰ Many of these services were interdenominational, with local Protestant ministers jointly contributing to the service, although in a number of locations two or more different services were held.¹¹ The Bishop of Down issued guidelines for services taking place in parish churches, advising clergy that they should ‘consist of the Litany, preceded by Psalm 46 and one or two lessons, with appropriate hymns, and followed by special prayers and a sermon’.¹²

The use of the Litany and Psalm 46 injected a solemn and penitential note to the proceedings. Psalm 46 speaks of a world shaken by cataclysm, where the ‘waters thereof rage and swell’ and ‘the heathen make much ado, and the kingdoms are moved’.¹³ In the midst of this turmoil, the psalmist emphasizes that for the faithful ‘God is our hope and our strength, a very present help in trouble’ and recalls God’s promises to his people Israel, ‘the God of Jacob is our refuge’.¹⁴ Thus the choice of psalm echoes the religious and political themes of the covenant. It stresses that Ulster Protestants should rely on God in their time of national upheaval, and invokes the biblical covenant made with Jacob. Jacob, who usurped his brother’s birthright, was nevertheless blessed for his faithfulness by God by receiving land and pre-eminence as the Patriarch Israel. The penitential tone of the suggested service gives the sense of a covenant unfulfilled, that atonement was required to avert disaster. This conveniently meshed with the political emphasis of the covenant that utilized the political contract theory advanced by the philosopher John Locke.¹⁵ Both assumed the reciprocal contract for civil society and governance, whereby both parties (the people and God/the state) must fulfil the set terms, and both forms of contract clearly underlay the Ulster covenant of 1912.

Many employers (including the shipyard in Belfast) were closed for the day, to allow workers to attend church and then sign their names at Belfast City Hall. The church services ended at midday and Edward Carson¹⁶ led Unionist leaders from Ulster Hall to City Hall. Inside City Hall, a Union Flag covered a circular table holding the covenant. Carson signed first, then Lord Londonderry,¹⁷ then representatives of the Protestant Churches followed by James Craig.¹⁸ The Church of Ireland was represented by the Rt Revd Charles D’Arcy Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore and the Dean of Belfast Cathedral the Very Revd Charles Grierson, the two most senior Anglican clergymen in Belfast. The Presbyterian General Assembly sent the Revd Henry Montgomery and the Revd Dr W. J. Lowe, the Moderator and Clerk to the General Assembly respectively. Methodism was represented by their most senior Irish cleric, the Vice-President of the Conference, the Revd George Wedgwood, while the ex-chairman of the Congregational Union, the Revd William Harrison, signed on their behalf.¹⁹ All proudly entered their ecclesiastical position in place of an address.

‘A Solid and United Phalanx’?²⁰

While it is clear that the leaders of the Protestant churches were prominent in their support for the Ulster covenant, no denomination could boast unanimity of political opinion, nor was the necessity for a new covenant undisputed. The three largest Protestant denominations, the Church of Ireland, Presbyterian and Methodist, had 1225 active clergy ministering within the nine counties of Ulster, who were thus entitled to sign the covenant. Of these, the signatures of 798 are clearly identifiable on the covenant, an apparently low figure of 65 per cent of those eligible. A further analysis by denomination is revealing, showing significant denominational differences.

The Church of Ireland had 532 ministers resident within Ulster, of which 392 elected to sign the covenant. This represents a significant 74 per cent of those eligible. Of those who signed, 118 (30 per cent) chose to indicate their profession by using titles such as ‘Rev’, ‘Dean’ or ‘Canon’, or by appending ‘clerk in holy orders’ (frequently abbreviated to ‘clk’) to their signatures.²¹ Moreover, 64 per cent of those Anglican cle...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Analysing Religious Conflict
• Part I: Ireland
• Part II: European Comparisons
• Part III: Anti-Catholicism, Muslims and Islamophobia
• Conclusion: Overcoming ‘Religious’ Conflict: History and Practice
• Select Bibliography
• Index