What is in Kelvin's Head?

How shall we pray for our elected representatives?

18/01/2019

Last Sunday morning there was a service from St Mary’s Cathedral on Radio 4. It was my job to write the script for the service.

To many people’s surprise, the service goes out live, meaning a very early start.

One of the features of doing a live broadcast like that is the necessity of listening to the news at 7 am and 8 am before the service starts at 8.10 am. Should something significant have happened, it is not unreasonable for that to be reflected in some way in the service.

We had a really tough one a few years ago when we were doing the same live broadcast on the weekend on which there was a terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport. This had taken place just before we had a rehearsal on the Saturday and it meant rewriting the service throughout the evening to reflect the unfolding news story. One of the clear things that I remember was that I wasn’t allowed to use language to describe what had happened until the newsroom had used it. Throughout a long evening, we went from “unexplained incident” right through to “terrorist attack”.

I also remember a time when the choir had rehearsed the South African national anthem before a broadcast as it seemed entirely possible that Nelson Mandela might die at that time and we had to be ready.

This week there were no sudden incidents. There were no unexpected deaths announced on the news and no particularly shocking incidents in the 24 hours before we went on air.

The script was unchanged – though a huge amount of thought had gone into how we were to pray at this time.

How are we to pray in any religious community at a time when the country is divided and our elected representatives are thrust so entirely into the spotlight?

How do we pray about Brexit at all?

It seems to me that one of the characteristic things that Christians do is to pray for those whom we have elected.

I suspect that this means very different things to different people. For me, I think I’m holding them before God and hoping that they will be blessed with wisdom, generosity and understanding. I know others who pray that God with cause elected politicians to implement particular policies but I don’t really see God doing that much so that’s not for me. It does seem reasonable to pray for the places that we are associated with and again that seems a very long tradition indeed. The book of Jeremiah seems to give a strong steer:

But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.
Jeremiah 29:7

I rather like that – seeking the welfare of the city seems practical and active alongside the injunction to offer prayers for the city too.

But we don’t always know or agree about where or who we are.

Last Sunday for the radio, I wrote a prayer which went:

Saviour of the world,
we remember all who have decisions to make which affect the lives of others.
We pray for elected representatives in our parliaments in
Strasbourg, Westminster and Holyrood
as decisions are made which will affect all our lives.

We pray too for this great city and pray that you will let Glasgow flourish.

God in your mercy

ALL: HEAR OUR PRAYER

Now, that’s a fairly uncontroversial prayer to pray here in St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow but it is entirely possible that a Brexiteer might have spat out their morning cup of Earl Gray with something of a splutter to hear our European politicians being prayed for.

I think it is significant that Europe has been rather absent from the intercessions of a great many churches. After all, I often hear people in churches praying for the Queen, Ministers of State, the Government, MSPs at Holyrood, the First Minister, the Prime Minister and so on but I don’t ever remember hearing anyone pray in a church in the UK for Donald Tusk.

If collectively, as a people, we had been more thankful for the EU, would we have prayed more for its welfare?

Praying for leaders can be controversial too. Within the history of Episcopalians in Glasgow there were those who very much didn’t like the Hanoverian monarchs to be prayed for. It was said that at one time people snorted snuff in order to provoke a sneezing fit at the weekly mention of one of the King Georges in the intercessions. In other places, people slammed shut their prayer books at that point.

I don’t really know the historical truth about this, but it was said in Perth when I lived there that St John’s Episcopal Church still regularly prayed for the Queen on a Sunday as they had essentially been a Qualified Chapel, whilst St Ninian’s Cathedral did not normally pray for the Queen on a Sunday as its congregation was formed from the Jacobites (and wannabe Jacobites) of the town who refused to Qualify.

[Please sprinkle a load of Scottish Episcopalian Rose Tinted History Petals upon the last couple of paragraphs as you read them]

Prayer is a complex way in which we define ourselves, even as we couch our prayers as supplications to God.

I remember being in the Middle East in a large congregation once and someone nudged me and pointed to a couple of well dressed men wearing sunglasses. “Look,” I was told, “the secret policemen – they are here every week to make sure we are still praying for the President”.

Prayer – or lack of prayer, can be dangerous.

I like to know my Member of Parliament and other elected representatives. I know what it is like to stand in elections after all. I’ve done it.

When I meet politicians, I sometimes say to them – “Don’t forget we pray for you”.

Generally speaking they seem grateful.

I suspect that thinking thoughtfully, carefully and kindly about our elected politicians right now might be a rather important thing to do.

God bless them.

praying for politicians

10 responses to “The Tim Farron Question and the Archbishop of Canterbury”

Bro David

09/05/2017

This brings up an interesting memory with the long-time leader of Changing Attitude England (CA). This leader was taken in by Andrew Marin, founder of the Marin Foundation (MF) when he visited the UK in conjunction with some big outdoor Christian festival you lot hold anually. Marin and his followers were attending Pride Marches/Parades around the US and getting their photos taken hunging GLBTQ folks in the marches. His foundation claims to be attempting to build a bridge between the LGBTQ community and conservative Christian communities.
Marin was invited to comment on the CA blog. He spouted his pablum message of love for LGBTQ folks. Then, in a comment, I point blank asked Marin if he believed that we LGBTQ folks were sinners and needed to repent and become straight. He refused to answer the question. He said that I was asking the “wrong” question. Then he gave this answer verbatim from the Marin Foundation website;
“We call these the “Big 5.” They are:
Do you think that gays and lesbians are born that way?
Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
Can a LGBTQ person “change?”
Do you think that someone can be gay and Christian?
Are LGBTQ people going to hell?
“The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the conservative or the LGBTQ community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.
“Rather than answering close-ended questions, The Marin Foundation seeks to elevate the conversation and continual fruitful dialogue, as tense as that may be. This is a model taken from Jesus throughout the Gospels. Of the 25 times Jesus was asked close-ended questions, only three times did he respond with a yes or no. These three times were only after he was arrested and admitting he was the Messiah. Prior to this, Jesus never answered close-ended questions with a yes or a no. Instead, he elevated the conversation.”
I spent the next three days searching the MF website and reading through articles and white papers. I realized that it was a ministry to the LGBTQ of wolves in sheep’s clothing. These people were trying to love vulnerable LGBTQ folks into their embrace, to slowly chip away at them until they had brought them to realize that their sexual/gender orientation was false, acting upon it was a sin and they needed to seek the help of Jesus to beome heterosexual and accept their gender assigned by birth.
I posted my findings on the CA blog and was promply chastized and barred from further posts. In a personal email from the leader of CA I was ripped a new arsehole and declared anathema. Sadly, even LGBTQ folks in prominent positions are taken in by these folks. I think that we need to continually ask the Big 5, of everyone, epsecially those non-LGBTQ folks who profess to be our allies and supporters, secular or religious.

Reply
Peter Davison

09/05/2017

Good column.
So who is entitled to express opinions on ethical issues? I’ve long understood it’s the duty of all of us to have INFORMED consciences and to obey them. We may wish to consult people we believe to be more informed than we are, such as our presumed leaders, but in the end, when asked, we should at least be ready to state, however firmly or tentatively, where we stand. As for our leaders, they may or may not be better informed than we are; but we also know that ‘experts’ may be people who know more and more about less and less – and that politics often intrude into our public morality. Much of ethics is situational. That said, Jesus seems to have had much more compassion for alleged ‘sinners’ than for those who chose to label them as such. And much of our present troubles seem to stem from our desire to label and scapegoat people who appear to be different. What would happen if we simply accepted people for who they are and learned to accept that love is indeed ‘a many splendoured thing’?

Reply
Graham Evans

09/05/2017

A very interesting new perspective and certainly a question that should be put to all the Anglican bishops who sit in the house of Lords.

Reply
The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB

09/05/2017

Absolutely spot on, Kelvin. The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer (whatever it may turn out to be) instead of the usual yards of ecclesiastical flannel.

Reply
1. June B Butler
  
  18/06/2017
  
  “The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer…”
  
  Justin Welby wails piteously: “I’m not the pope.”
  
  Reply
the Rev. Grant Barber

09/05/2017

I always wondered how the preachers in Pepys’ diary could preach such long sermons. I think I understand better now. So glad we’ve already settled the matter in the Episcopal Church. (Oh, the answer can be a succinct “no, not sin just by its nature).

Reply
Bernard Silverman

11/05/2017

if I asked an archbishop whether deliberately stamping on someone’s toe is a sin they would give a direct answer. So they should be asked the Farron question over and over again until they do similarly. If the Prime Minister can do that so can they. Indeed the question should be “the PM thinks that gay sex is not a sin. Was she right?”

Reply
Alan Wilson

17/06/2017

Spot On…

Reply
Kate Odling

10/01/2018

Very interesting. I always think that if someone does not give a clear answer to a question that they have something to hide or that their true belief/thought would be unpopular. I think the ABC has looked very uncomfortable when any direct questioning about LGBT issues are raised. So someone should ask & not accept anything but a straightforward answer. My final thought is that we are all qualified to have an opinion – what’s wrong with that?

Reply
Bruce Gulland

15/01/2018

Whatever I think about the answer to the question, I did rather enjoy the style of your post – you had me on the edge of my seat!

Reply