I've been fascinated by the pirates/orthodox heretic debate that has been happening online. See Kester's original posts, then Richard's response then Pete's response and now Richard's second response. I'm going to wade into this, slightly late, but I've appreciated the space to reflect on the ideas raised. This motley crew are all friends of mine and writing can often polarise, so thanks for the debate!
My first response is to recognise my own starting point. I work for the institutional church, I am deeply connected to it and yes, I believe in it. I believe in it quite simply because it puts money, people and resources into the poorest and most marginalized areas in the country - a piratical, subversive act! - I minister in one of these areas, an area where the church is the centre of the community and sign of hope for the future. This is relevant because Pirates essentially attack, rape and pillage that which is perceived to have power, and the institutional church is perceived to be a place of power. A pirate therefore to me is a threat personally and a pirate also threatens the poorest and weakest in our communites. This is my own starting point, and I am not saying that this is Kester's point, all I am identifing is that I am threatened by the language. I'm also aware that a lot of the criticism about this has been written by Anglicans or people working for the Anglican church, perhaps people also threatened by the use of language.
I'm also wondering what Kester and Pete's starting point is in this. Are they the Pirates? Orthodox Heretics? If so I am concern about the self-selecting and self-defining nature of this. It's essentially the role of the prophet, and my thinking is that the language of prophet is overused and has a romantic notoriety about it. I've recently read some books by Bryn Hughes, Terry Virgo and people involved in the restorationalist movement, people who are still seen as prophets and arguably pirates or orthodox heretics but to those looking in for the outside they are not seen in a different way. I think that we need to be cautious with this use of language and aware of the sub-cultural credibility associated with it.
I warm to and like the idea that pirates serve to change the status quo by exposing injustices within in, however, I don't think that the motif pirate is the right one. When I first read Kester's article in Third Way I thought to myself this is a reworking of Trickster, which I prefer probably because it's less aggressive. Pirates are essentially self-serving, they're not challenging the status-quo they're trying to get rich quick. They're not challenging the notion of the capitalism itself they're a by-product of it.
Whilst we may romantically look on and see the wider global concerns that pirates alert us to, we need to first see the pirates in our back-yard and then the romance will be removed. The pirates who steal our cars, break into our houses, mug us in the streets largely due to the fact that there is great social inequality in our country. Are 'hoodies' pirates because they expose a wider social problem? Yes, romantically but no when it involves the shooting of innocent people due to drug addiction that has been brought about by a network of international criminal gangs that could be linked to international piratical activity.
I'd like to have seen napster, pirate radio stations, Somali pirate's be more like Robin Hood. Where the wealth is distributed to the poor afterward. Pirate Radio stations and napster did not address the inequality in the music system that sees 90% of musicians earning less that £10,000 per year - they served the consumer, making music cheaper and meaning that it will be harder for those 90% to earn more than £10,000. Napster was consumer driven rather than having an wider egalitarian ethic. It did not have an altruistic vision, it had a consumer driven vision.
I'm also interested in the language that is being used in this debate. It's become quite an academic debate, and I'm aware that this is the language of power. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against academic debate I'm just concerned that it is not the language of the pirate but the language of power. Pirates subvert language, they do not default to the language of the academy, but create their own language.
Have Kester and Pete gone to far? No - thanks for stretching the thinking, but I don't think so I just don't agree with the pirate motif!
