Wars of the Roses
And here I prophesy: this brawl today,
Grown to this faction in the Temple garden,
Shall send, between the Red Rose and the White,
A thousand souls to death and deadly night.
Today's flower debate is not about red or white roses, but poppies. In London, and all around the country and the world people pause to reflect on the sheer horror and devastation of the 'war to end all wars' in November. Following the end of the war, poppies grew in abundance where the fighting was fiercest. In Flanders, along the trenches, whole fields turned bright red with the distinctive red and black flower.
For the two-weeks prior to Remembrance Day, the Royal British Legion holds its annual fund-raising appeal to support its work. People who give money are encouraged to wear a red paper poppy in remembrance of those who lost their lives in all wars, and to show thanks to those who risked their lives to protect their country, their family and their freedom.
Ekklesia, a website that describes itself as a 'think tank that promotes transformative theological ideas in public life', has this year suggested that people should wear white poppies instead of red ones. White poppies were introduced in the 1930s and are 'for peace'.
I have several problems with this approach.
Firstly, by saying white poppies are for peace, it appears as though Ekklesia is suggesting by implication that red poppies are for war. Which is pretty daft. An annual national commemoration, along with special TV programmes, newspaper articles and education materials in schools means that people are not really going to think about Remembrance Day with a pro-war attitude.
Secondly, the wearing of poppies is a fund-raising project of the Royal British Legion. Without financial support, they would not be able to do the work that they are there for. If people switch from red to white, then the Royal British Legion does not benefit, and is discourteous to those men and women who have served or who are serving their country.
Thirdly, both secular society and the Churches have already identified a day to focus on peace: the UN International Day of Peace on 21 September. I think that Ekklesia's views would lead to a hijacking of Remembrance Day for other purposes.
I'm also pretty annoyed at the way Ekklesia's views were reported in the media. One headline read something like "red poppies are 'less Christian' than white". I can't find where this appears in the Ekklesia article, but it is a completely ridiculous notion, and one that I'm now having to try to explain to my friends that is not true.
Overall I'm really disappointed in Ekklesia. Remembrance Day is almost upon us, a time of solemn and sober reflection. Yet now there is a political debate going on about it, which I think is really unfair. Many ex-servicemen and women will have been deeply offended by some of the remarks from Ekklesia. They may have provided a 'transformative theological idea' about poppies, but that's no excuse to be insensitive or to promote their own agenda at a time of national commemoration.
Please, think before you speak.
Lord Doo has a degree in War Studies from King's College London.
I think the post about
I think the post about symbols of sacrifice addresses the point well. Yes some of us have read the article properly. Yes we appreciate they were asking for a choice and the possibility of wearing both. But Ekklesia had missed the point. The white poppy is a political statement.
As for violence not being redemptive. Where on earth did Stanley Hauerwas get the idea it ever was considered such. Perhaps a misunderstanding of the doctrine of penal substitution? If so along with Steve Chalke, a very very bad misreading of it.
As for glorifying the dead? Not glorifying it but certainly honouring it. Yes we acknowledge that war didn't and can't provide a complete solution, no more than green taxes will put the environment of a fallen world to rights. But some things are right and good to do in the face of evil. Britain and much of Europe and East Asia would be very different places if those men and women from many different countries and races hadn't made the sacrifice that they did
Symbol of Sacrifice
I was at several of the Flanders memorial sites on Anzac day this year. A large group of older teenagers had come over from New Zealand for the occasion and it was a profoundly spiritual occasion without a white poppy in sight. In fact, a white poppy would have been seen as a political statement and detracted from the intense feeling that was generated of the futility of war and the immensity of the sacrifice of those thousands of young men.
The original article criticises the churches for not providing more white poppies as an alternative to the traditional red and states that this is out of political correctness. In other words, if the majority in the church do not comply with what the author wants, it is either out of political cowardice, or because they are choosing (willingly or in ignorance) to glorify war. The fact that some of us don't accept this proposition for one moment does not mean that we have not understood the article.
Red symbolises spilt blood. That's why red wine at communion symbolises self-sacrifice for others. Christ in the Isenheim altarpiece wears a vermilion red robe. There the red colour "symbolises martyrs' red blood and also stands for faith, fulfilment and love". This sense of self-sacrifice for others and faithfulness unto death is what I see symbolised in the red poppy. The article's claim that, "the red poppy implies redemption can come through war," I find frankly to be a distortion of how most people perceive it, including the war poets who introduced the symbol.
"The white poppy is much more Christian than the red variety," claims the original article. Setting aside my views on those who claim to be more Christian than everyone else, surely it is a perfectly reasonable Christian approach to show solidarity with the widows and orphans of current and recent conflicts and to support them in their grief. Suggesting through the wearing of a white poppy that you think their loved one's sacrifice was wrong or in vain is hardly supportive.
Surely, as an earlier contributor suggested, the time to sport a white poppy is on World Peace day.
CHOICE about poppies
Oh dear, this whole argument is being undermined by people not reading the original article!
Ekklesia are advocating people being able to CHOOSE to wear either red or white, or both. And Ekklesia does explain why the red poppy may be considered less Christian - and the article says something like, the red poppy is in contrast to the cross - the red poppy advocates redemption through violence, the cross states redemption through nonviolence.
Stanley Hauerwas on the DVD course 'Living the Questions' states that it is time for Christians to reject the myth that violence is redemptive. I agree.
The difficulty is keeping that fine balance between remembering the legions of dead, and making sure that we don't only remember our dead, but those of all sides of the many conflicts (ie not only the Euro-centric view we take of the 2 'World' Wars), and ensuring that our Remebrance Day thinking does not glorify the sacrifice. I find a reading from the War Poets tends to do the trick. We should remember and be horrified, remember and be glad that evil was stopped of course, but remember and be aware that violent solution to violent problems actually do not stop the problem. If it did, anti-semitism, homophobia and prejudice against travellers and gypsies would all be behind us.
Wars of the Roses
Why not wear a red and a white poppy together? I've done this for a number of years. I explain to people that the red one represents remembrance and the white one represents a desire for peace. I've yet to meet anyone who objected.
Poppy Colours
Surely the best way to promote peace is to focus on the terrible cost of war, which is what image conjured up by the red poppies does very effectively.
The white poppy movement may have intellectually justifiable explanations of why this different symbol should be introduced but Remembrance day is not about an idealised world but about what has actually happened in two world wars and in several conflicts since.
Making such pronouncements "on behalf of Christians" just gives the general public further cause to think that Christians are totally out of touch with reality.