SOLIDARITY: BLESSING OR CURSE?

"Solidarity" was a watchword of the Trade Union (for Americans "Labour Union") movement long before a very special kind of trade union began to challenge Communist oppression in Poland and catapulted its leader, Lech Walesa, into international recognition and a key role in governing his country after the demise of the Communist Party. "Solidarity" was indeed a key word for Communists, who spoke of the "solidarity of the working class". Today nearly everyone uses the word, not least the Church. We are urged to show solidarity with our fellow-Christians who live under persecution (no, it didn't stop with the fall of Communism), with the poor and needy in our own society, with those living in under-developed countries whose economies and lives are blighted by the unfair trading policies of the wealthier nations, with the victims of racial abuse, of domestic violence, of torture and oppression of various kinds. The one question no-one asks is: is solidarity a good thing? Everybody assumes that it is. The only room for discussion concerns the matter of with whom we should be showing solidarity.

  Perhaps this is even more so today, because Mrs Thatcher's oft misquoted phrase, "There's no such thing as society" still rings in many ears, and many suspect our society is fragmented and selfish largely because many of her hearers interpreted Mrs Thatcher more literally than she may have wished. No-one seems to look out for their neighbours any more. I visit old ladies who seem never to see the people who live next door. Not that the folk next door are hostile. They are commuters, who leave home early in the morning, get back late at night, and are too busy at weekends doing all the things they have not had time to do in the week. No-one is prepared to offer voluntary service to uniformed organisations or youth clubs, no-one is prepared to give of their time to keep local customs going, or to help run local facilities which do not make a profit. People seem to be focussed on themselves and their families and hang the rest! Not a few voices have been raised suggesting we need to be more "communitarian", which would seem to entail some sense of solidarity. But is this "solidarity" all it is cracked up to be?

  There are solidarities which are, if not harmful, at least of dubious benefit. Masonic Orders have a very highly developed form of solidarity - as do other exclusive clubs. Actually, I believe the Masons have a worse press than they deserve. At a time when there was much discussion in my denomination as to whether a Christian could be a Mason, I reflected that I had more trouble with a certain local Amateur Operatic Society than with the local Lodge. Many of my members were members of that Society, they discussed church business with each other in my absence, and the informal bond of fellowship they built up in that activity meant they were almost always likely to vote the same way in any meeting. My point is not that membership of the Lodge is not problematical, but that membership of almost any club can pose similar problems.

  There are also tribal loyalties. In certain area of our cities, and among certain racial and social groups, the police experience great difficulty in pursuing their investigation of crime, because loyalty to the group demands you do not "grass up" your fellow group members. So brutal gang leaders in Birmingham and Belfast go unpunished because no-one will testify against them. Sometimes potential witnesses are threatened with violence. Sometimes the unwritten social code of the neighbourhood causes people to remain silent. The result is that selfish, greedy, violent people are allowed to terrorise a whole neighbourhood, because no-one is prepared to betray the "solidarity" of the neighbourhood or group

  There are national solidarities, though these more usually go under the name of "patriotism". Citizens of the United States are some of the most patriotic around. Their flag flies everywhere, they sing their national anthem at every available occasion. Their school children pledge allegiance to the flag. And times of national grief, like September 11th 2001, can send the United States into a flurry of patriotic fervour. British patriotism was once legendary, but has now somewhat decayed. But British people still feel a great solidarity with each other. They will support the cause of a British citizen over against that of a "foreigner", almost despite the merits of the evidence - especially so if the "foreigner" comes from mainland Europe. They still feel only they know how to do things properly, and how to run the world properly - despite the fact that they have not done so for a very long time and did not make such a good job of it when they did. The French, of course are equally proud of their institutions, their language, their culture and education. Time would fail me to discuss the Russians, the Chinese, and many other nations who feel themselves to be one nation and one people, and who will always stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their fellow-countrymen and women.

  But however laudable this may seem, does not this very solidarity cause us to be arrogant and condescending to our neighbours? Have not similar patriotic sentiments been at the root of nearly every war in history? Do they not prevent many advances in knowledge which would benefit mankind enormously, because they prevent people of one country from working happily with, or even fully trusting, those of another country. Our academic research (even our medical research!) gets bogged down in considerations about which country will get the credit. And how many courses of action which would have benefited the whole world, have been bogged down in diplomatic discussions because one nation or the other (or maybe more than one nation) thought it was in their national interest to do so.

  There are also international solidarities. The nations of Europe have formed the European Union, African nations have the Organisation of African States, and there is also the Arab League, and similar groupings of Pacific States and North and South American States. Again, one may argue that it is an entirely healthy thing for nations to co-operate with each other like this for the benefit of each other. But there is a downside. African nations have a tendency to coalesce around an African leader of dubious quality, just because he is African and his main critics are the old colonial power. And Arab nations tend to back each other when they are attacked from outside the Arab community. They may not all agree with each other; they may even attack each other; but if a non-Arab nation attacks, they all stand together - even if the Arab state being attacked is a rogue state and an international pariah. The other groupings do not act this way, because this type of solidarity is something they can only dream of. They are coalitions of convenience forged between old enemies - even at times between current rivals.

  There are also religious solidarities. Islam teaches that Muslims the whole world over belong to a community, the ummah, and that, after their loyalty to Allah and his prophet, a Muslim's first loyalty is to his fellow Muslims. This solidarity was vital in the establishment of the early Islamic community and the religion in general. It can lead Muslims to great acts of heroism and to humanitarian generosity. But it can also lead them to support unacceptable regimes, if that regime so much as professes to be Muslim or to support Islam. Similar things could be said of Christian solidarity. The Crusades were a particularly unlovely example. Many of the Crusader leaders were venial, power-hungry men, whereas men like Saladin were very much enlightened leaders. The motives of the Crusade were dubious in the extreme. Similar comments could be made of Hindu fundamentalism in the Indian subcontinent. Banding together to support suffering co-religionists is one thing. Banding together to cause suffering to believers in a different creed is quite another.

  Given the decidedly ambiguous nature of almost all solidarities, it could reasonably be argued that all solidarities should be broken. Most of them are challenged. The forces of law and order are continually challenging the solidarity of the communities who do not trust them. They are constantly appealing for one or other member to break that solidarity. Governments and employers often call their workers to break their solidarity with their colleagues. Those working for inter-communal integration in multi-cultural areas or in Northern Ireland are, in effect, appealing to people to break down their old solidarities and to create a new one. Calls to show solidarity with other nations in our region, or to a new internationalism, are in effect calls to abandon our old patriotism (commitment to the patria or fatherland), or our ethnic ties.

  What is often not sufficiently recognised by those who make these appeals is that to answer any of them involves an act of betrayal. It may be a matter of betraying a more minor cause for the sake of a more major one, or betraying a lower loyalty for a greater one. But in any case some element of betrayal is present.

  Must any idea of solidarity therefore be abandoned? Not necessarily. But true solidarity has to be solidarity with Christ. This means more than just the kind of Christian solidarity mentioned above. That just indicated a bond existing between people who claimed to be followers of Christ. Solidarity in Christ, however, implies that each individual is bound to Christ in a personal relationship, and it is that relationship with Christ that is the fundamental cause of that solidarity. It also means that Christ is personally in control of this "solidarity". Its members will not unite for unworthy ends, because the love of Christ controlling them will direct them towards worthy ends, and towards the good of all their fellow human beings, not just those who name the name of Christ. Paul spoke of this kind of solidarity when he said:

"For (Christ) himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God's people and members of God's household."

Here we see a "body", a solidarity of persons, but they are bound together by Christ's saving death and by their individual personal relationships with God ("access to the Father by the one Spirit"). Jesus makes the same point in John's Gospel:

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Here again, it is the believers' individual union with Christ which draws them into the unity which exists within the Godhead, which in turn draws them together. Indeed, Jesus implies in this statement that unity between human beings is so difficult to achieve that when "the world" (those around who do not believe in Jesus) see the believers' unity it will be seen as overwhelming proof of the power of God in their midst. Only God could produce such solidarity. And this solidarity can only be achieved and sustained if each individual has totally surrendered their lives to Christ.

  But it should not go unnoticed that this solidarity breaks down all other solidarities. Paul says: "you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God's people and members of God's household." This means the age-long distinction between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down. The Gentiles are now full members of God's people. Indeed Paul says in another place: "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." In other words, all national and tribal patriotisms are defunct in Christ, and all human solidarities are overtaken by the one overwhelming solidarity with Christ.

  Only this solidarity can provide the sense of community the world needs without the "side-effects" of human solidarity. Only the active control of the love of Christ, exercised in the hearts of every individual concerned can both provide the sense of belonging the world is crying out for, whilst preventing the abuses humans routinely make of the concept of solidarity. True solidarity can, of course, only be achieved in heaven. Paul says again: "he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfilment - to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ." We must seek to get as close to it as possible here on earth. And with Christ in control, we can get pretty close