• How to write the intercessions

    This coming Sunday, I’m going to be doing the intercessions on Sunday morning. That’s unusual, as for no particular reason, the normal pattern is that clergy here pray at Choral Evensong and lay members of the congregation normally pray at the Sung Eucharist in the morning.

    So, as I sit down to think about the intercessions for Sunday morning, it may be worth jotting down here a few pointers which I might use if I were doing an intercessions training course this week.

    1. Try not to treat God as either your best mate or as Queen Victoria
    2. One sermon is enough and it has already happened
    3. Don’t tell God the blatantly obvious
    4. You don’t have to pray for everything in the world at every service
    5. God is not to be inveigled – we pray because we care not because God doesn’t

    Let’s take those one at a time.

    1 – Try not to treat God as either your best mate or as Queen Victoria

    Now listen up, we’re about to do some serious theology in an entertaining way. (Or maybe some entertaining theology in a serious way).

    How we think of God in private makes quite a difference to the way we pray in public. The task of the intercessor in a church service is not particularly to express their own spiritual journey but more to give voice in the simplest possible way to the need that the people of God in that time and place have to pray. For we are a praying people – that is who we are.

    But what about God. How are we to address God?

    We might well ask, “God? Who He?”

    To which God in Her infinite mercy and grace might well respond, “Well….”

    There are twin dangers in preparing the prayers of the people of God. The first is to presume that God is one’s best friend to whom we might chatter away as though God were a beloved friend (or a beloved beloved) on the telephone. The truth is, we are dealing with the creator of heavens and the earth. Chattering away may seem presumptive.

    “And Lord, just bless Betty and Flora and Lullabell. And just fill them Lord, fill them Lord with your blessings, just touch them Jesus, yes Lord, yes, yes. yes.”

    God is more than merely our best mate and we’re not in bed with God when we’re doing the intercessions either. (And that’s for another blog post anyway).

    However, lest we think that there are easy answers, another danger is of treating God as though God were Queen Victoria, crawling towards God through a morass of language which puts God far distant. If we spend our time only thinking of the Majestyness of God, the Mightiness of that Majestyness, our Unworthiness as Creeping Subjects to enter into the presence of the Awesome Holiness of the Utter Mightiness of the Complete Majestyness of God and begging for Mercy then we’re in danger of mistaking the God who loves us for the Empress of India.

    The theologians out there have spotted what’s going on here already. It is that old immanence-transcendence dichotomy. Christians have indeed believed that God is as close as our next breath and also that God is the creator of heaven and earth. Christians believe both these things simultaneously – for nothing is impossible with God.

    What we’re trying to do in the intercessions is to hold before God aspects of the world which need God’s love and there are many appropriate ways of addressing God.

    It is clearly silly always to speak to God as though God were an old man or a father figure. Clearly silly, because we’ve got God’s great gift of scripture in our hands and we know that the people of God have used all kinds of interesting language to speak of the divine and to address God too which go beyond only using the image of a male father figure. Scripture won’t let us make God into daddy and I’m unconvinced that Jesus was in that business when he taught people the Lord’s Prayer. More likely I think, he was using a form of addressing God which made them think, made them wonder, moved them and formed them in faith.

    At a workshop on intercession a couple of years ago, I asked people to come up with biblical titles or attributes of God which we find in the bible. We listed dozens and it is exercises like that which can deepen our faith and make intercessions incredibly rich. If you doubt this, ask a Muslim friend about the ninety nine names of God in their tradition and see how many you share in common. If you are lazy, you can find them in wikipedia – but go on, have that conversation it might change your life and that of your friend.

    2 – One sermon is enough and it has already happened

    You know what? One sermon is enough for just about any service. Sometimes even the sermon that has been preached feels like one too many. However, even if that is so – no, especially if that is so, don’t feel that your job as the intercessor is to preach another one.

    Let red flags wave and danger klaxons sound in your mind if you find yourself for even a moment telling the congregation anything during the intercessions. Remember, you’re not speaking to them anyway.

    We encourage intercessors to take a look at the bible readings before writing the intercessions. However, it is terribly tempting to pay too much attention to the readings. Particularly in St Mary’s, you never know whether the preacher will pick on the particular reading that might strike you as important and there’s a strong change that they’ll have a completely off the wall reading of a text anyway. That’s what we like here and intercessors are in grave danger if they think they know what the preacher is going to say. They are in mortal danger if they think they know what the preacher should have said. And in any church, if the intercessor appears to be trying to use the intercessions to correct the preacher, there will be teams of trained facilitators and peacemakers heading your way before the blood can dry on the carpet.

    There’s a time and a place for disagreeing with the preacher. However, it ain’t in the intercessions and, trust me on this one, the church door isn’t the most fantastic place for it either.

    It is worth reading the bible readings beforehand simply to see whether that informs the language that you use in putting the prayers together. Your task is not to explain these readings. Nor explicate these readings. Nor even to argue with these readings. Your task is to hold some of the concerns of the people of God in prayer in public.

    3 – Don’t tell God the blatantly obvious

    One of the naughtiest but most entertaining half hours that I’ve ever enjoyed on a clergy conference was with a group who were posed the question – “What is the most ridiculous intercession you have ever heard?”

    (You can play a similar game with sermons if you are in the mood).

    There were quite a number of strong contenders but there was one knock-out winner:

    “And Lord, we pray for Beirut….which is in the Lebanon”.

    Don’t tell God things that God knows already. You are no more trying to educate God than educate the people.

    4 – You don’t have to pray for everything in the world at every service

    Just as new preachers often try to fit everything that they’ve ever hoped to say in the pulpit into their first few sermons, so it is the case that inexperienced intercessors can get frightened that they will miss something out and include everything that they can imagine that they or anyone else might want to pray for on the day.

    We’re not there to remember everything. We’re there to give voice to the deep dreamings of the people of God for a world where there is no pain, no suffering and where God has wiped every tear from the eye.

    When we remember those suffering in one part of the world we are by implication remembering those who suffer elsewhere. Sure, it can be a good thing to remember places and situations which are often easily forgotten (“….oh Lord, #bringbackourgirls…”) but we can’t name every need.

    There’s danger in being too specific too. “And Lord we pray that this country be delivered from the evil heresy of the European Union…” may be how you are feeling and may be how you are going to vote, but the intercessions are not really the place for that kind of thing.

    We’re giving voice to the prayers of the whole people of God, not any sectarian minority.

    5 – God is not to be inveigled – we pray because we care not because God doesn’t

    I think this is important. I don’t believe God is there to be inveigled into doing things. It is my view that God is not particularly likely to change his mind as though upon a whim, because a certain number of the people of God happen to pray one way. God loves us anyway, whether we pray or whether we don’t.

    We are not in the business of trying to sway God’s mind.

    This will come as a bit of a surprise to some and something that will be eagerly debated by others – don’t we find God changing God’s mind in scripture after all?

    Well, yes, and that’s what life often feels like. We can as human beings often feel as though god is capricious. But that is not the truth we live by. We live by the truth that God utterly loves us. We live in the knowledge that God’s love is here and now and everywhere and that God’s love is with us and with all people.

    The point of the intercessions is not to change God’s mind about things. This is not a parliamentary lobby nor is it a demo though there’s a place for prayer in both these fields without a doubt.

    We do not pray to change God’s mind. We pray because it is our vocation to hold our concerns in the presence of God. We pray because we love the world and want to love it more. We pray because prayer changes us and we change society. We pray because we care about things and people and not because we suspect God’s doesn’t care about some things and will have a change of mind because we implore and beg and inveigle.

    It just doesn’t work that way.

    We pray to hold the world before God because we love it.

    That is all in all.

     

7 responses to “Whither the Kirk?”

  1. Pausing Place Avatar

    I missed last night’s programme, but I thought your comments were interesting.

    In a sense, perhaps it’s unsurprising if the SEC is inwardly more positive about itself than the CofS. My take is that in the recent past, at least, the SEC started from a lower common denominator, not being the “local” church in the same way as the Kirk, and so it doesn’t have to contend with others saying of it “look how the mighty have fallen” in quite the same way.

    As to the health of the Kirk (and the SEC for that matter), I think we need to reflect on our self-perception and to consider carefully the points and places in which a dying church (congregation or denomination) should be allowed to die gracefully, and the ways in which we might see new life emerge from the rubble.

    As a young(ish!), relatively new Christian I have seen examples of (both urban and rural) SEC and Kirk congregations where there are few signs of new growth, little to draw in younger (under 50 year olds, to pick a random-ish number) new folk, and much to sustain negative preconceptions of church as boring, irrelevant and so forth.

    We as a faith community need to get much better at stepping up to the mark in our creativity and engagement with our society. The sad truth is that most young adults do not know and have not heard about Jesus Christ, and unless we engage with them in ways culturally relevant to them, and which do not presuppose previous knowledge (too often taken for granted) they never will.

    It troubles me, but I do think it’s true to say that in the SEC and in the Kirk we have a church sustained by the traditions and cultural reference points taught to a previous generation. Culture has shifted radically, with the result that the same will not be able to be said in 20 years time.

    Our challenge is clear. Whether the Kirk and the SEC can step up to the mark to address what it means to live out the Great Commission in the 21st century is less so.

  2. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    I didn’t really understand who this programme was aimed at, or even what its aim was.

    Yes, numbers have fallen, but perhaps the small number of people who remain are there because they actually want to be, not because it’s the done thing on a Sunday morning.

    And personally, I rather like the idea of a church “sustained by traditions”. Clearly the church has to be relevant to modern society, but in abandoning the traditions of worship then you lose the centre of why the church exists in the first place.

    There was something very Presbyterian about the programme with its “we’re doomed” mentality. I find the SEC generally more positive in outlook.

  3. John Avatar
    John

    The only book the presenter seemed to have used in his research was ‘The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000’ By Callum G Brown – indeed Callum Brown was one of the speakers. The thesis of this well argued sociological study is that “quite suddenly in 1963 something very profound ruptured the character of the nation and its people sending organised Christianity on a downward spiral to the margins of social significance”. That something he identifies as new media, new gender roles and a moral revolution which has dramatically ended people’s conception that they lived Christian lives.” It could be said to have happened as “sex began” between the end of the Chatterly ban and the Beatles first LP as the poet Philip Larkin so famously put it.”
    To balance this statistical decline the programme flagged up some of the “church without walls ” iniatives in a lame sort of way. All in all a most unsatisfactory programme that only told half the story.

  4. Kenny Avatar

    Good crit Kelvin. My reflection at the end of the programme was, “Lord, we visited this stuff over 30 years ago, and have come out of it stronger and better Church in the SEC.” Hopefully, we stopped longing for ‘the good old days’ a long time ago!

  5. MartinRitchie Avatar
    MartinRitchie

    I thinking “Pausing Place” makes a good point about needing to creatively engage with society. From my own experience of working with a CofS congregation, this creative engagement is a weak spot for many.

    As a counterpoint to the programme, interesting to note in the latest “Life and Work” a very positive article about a growing CofS congregation in Stornoway – and I mean really growing! So not all doom and gloom, and I’m sure there are many more examples of bright spots, just as there are in the SEC!

  6. Graham Vahey Avatar
    Graham Vahey

    If the C of S disappeared completely we would be at a loss. During the dark and bleak years of Thatcher’s reign she refused to visit Scotland for 5 years. When she did she expressed shock that we had Royal Regalia and ordered it to be removed immediately for safe-keeping to England. Her ‘Sermon on the Mound’ is now historical for its condescension to the Scots. She was none too pleased to be handed two reports on poverty in Scotland by the powerful Church and Nation Committee. Indeed, it was to this Committee that the population turned to for a moral lead during Thatcherism. When James VI (‘Jamie the Saxt’) became James I in England, the population turned to senior Scottish earls for a moral lead. Unfortunately, the Piskie Church does not give a moral lead in Scotland, apart from the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the recent past. The RC Church does pronounce on moral issues. Could it not be conceivable that all the major Churches could unite in a Committee to pronounce for Scotland on moral issues as the Church & Nation Committee once did?

  7. Aldous N. Gaiters Avatar
    Aldous N. Gaiters

    Speaking as a Nonjuror myself I am sure the SEC has a right to a moral voice in Scotland. Taking the US daughter church of the SEC as a model you could see where the fissures would appear. There is room for a modern liberal Christian voice, but even I an old Liberal myself, would have to fear that such a voice might appeal to only a select few.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • The use of the word Catholic

    A couple of weeks ago, I asked for suggestions as to what I might blog about. One of the suggestions was this: the use of the word “catholic” as opposed to what people think, which is “Catholic”, as is the Church of Rome. Well, OK. Why not? The word Catholic is one of the things…

  • Be the Gold

    Steven has left a comment for me under the the post with my Easter sermon in it. I think it is worth replying to it here in a new post. Steven said: I don’t get it. The Christian endeavour seems so bound up in bizarre and exclusive metaphysical claims that it is very difficult to…

  • Easter Sermon 2012

    [Video to follow] In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. A couple of weeks ago, I had an interesting encounter. It was a strange business really. It was with someone who had come from Edinburgh to Glasgow for a morning meeting and I was due to see…