• How shall we pray for our elected representatives?

    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.

     

     

15 responses to “The Scottish Episcopal Church and the upcoming Primates’ Meeting”

    1. Andrea Maier Avatar
      Andrea Maier

      Concur!

  1. Lionel Deimel Avatar

    We can hope that new primates will change the ethos of the Primates’ Meeting. I’m making no bets on it.

  2. Phil Groves Avatar
    Phil Groves

    100% agreement.

  3. Eamonn Avatar

    Beautifully balanced – and witty, too! Well said!

  4. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
    Meg Rosenfeld

    It’s happening here in the USA and unless you believe that our current president represents God’s punishment (personally, I think God wouldn’t be so tacky) we haven’t blown up yet. As you say, it’s about goodness and love–how radical can we get?

  5. Wayne Kamm Avatar
    Wayne Kamm

    Thank you for an excellent statement!

  6. Tobias Stanislas Haller Avatar

    Well said. Most of the Primates have only limited authority even within their own provinces, and absolutely no authority outside them. Trying to turn international Anglican conferences and meetings into disciplinary bodies is the stuff of fiction. All of that sort of pre-meeting hoopla makes the real work of the meeting, in terms of open dialogue and interaction, much more difficult.

  7. Drew_Mac Avatar
    Drew_Mac

    Well said! There’s been lots of blogging recently about the sensitive consciences of those who inexplicably claim they will be ‘forced’ to marry same-sex couples. At the same time I’m being forced to send loving committed and legally married same-sex couples away without even a formal blessing. Respect for conscience should cut both ways.

  8. Andrew Bowdler Avatar
    Andrew Bowdler

    Kelvin, listening can – and often does – result in disciplining. To try to separate them, as you have in your original piece, is therefore to miss the point. With the enormous divide that exists on this particular issue, one or other side is ultimately going to have to be ‘disciplined’ – and, no, discipline doesn’t have to be harsh or violent. It can equally be gently persuasive.

    1. Jo Avatar
      Jo

      Isn’t the lesson from both TEC and the SEC is that no-one need be disciplined for following their personal conscience; the issue only arises when one side seeks to force the other to act against their conscience and only one side is doing that.

    2. Cynthia Katsarelis Avatar
      Cynthia Katsarelis

      There’s no “gently persuasive” way to say that my spouse and I aren’t loved by God and our sacramental marriage deeply infused with God’s grace.

      Discipline should be to those who have supported criminalization of LGBT people.

    3. Richard Ashby Avatar
      Richard Ashby

      Why should ‘listening’ result in disciplining? It should lead to understanding of an opposite point of view and respect for another’s conscience. Neither the primates nor Lambeth nor the Communion has any power to ‘discipline’ anyone and neither should it. We aren’t Roman Catholics and we don’t have a
      Pope. The Scottish Episcopal Church allow the exercise of conscience on both sides. The problem is that too many Christians want to impose their rules over against another persons conscience. That’s just not right.

      And what’s the point anyway? The ‘consequences’ haven’t changed the mind of the America Anglicans, the prospect didn’t stop the Scottish Church, it’s not going to stop Canada or South Africa.

      1. Andrew Bowdler Avatar
        Andrew Bowdler

        No society or organisation can allow diametrically opposing opinions on the same issue to be held with the same validity, Richard. They can, and often will allow for debate and ‘listening’ but in the long run, one opinion of the other has to be accepted over and against the other. Those who continue to hold the unsuccessful opinion will then have to accept the other, or face ‘discipline’ in one of a number of forms. When said society allows meaningless phrases such as ‘hate crime’ to brandied about with no legal or linguistic definition to support them, that society opens itself to a form of anarchy.

        1. Richard Ashby Avatar
          Richard Ashby

          But I thought that that the CofE has ‘two integrities’ on women as priests and bishops. What about ‘mutual flourishing’. In your view this is obviously impossible in long term (actually I happen to agree with you on that.) but what’s sauce for the goose etc

          We are supposed to be living side by side with these tensions. The Scottish Church has said that no one is to be forced to marry or not marry same sex couples. I know some people think that is impossible, I’ve been told so by members of ‘Christian concern’ etc. But we cannot allow these people to dictate to us what we hold by our consciences also to be true.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • We believe – a Christian LGBT creed

    Things are changing so fast – it became socially unacceptable some time ago in many circles to give voice to prejudice against LGBT people. It is becoming unacceptable to reject marriage for same-sex couples. And now it is becoming a religious act to oppose the criminalization of gay folk. Perhaps we need a short summary…

  • Review – Don Pasquale – Scottish Opera

    Rating: This review also appears at Opera Britannia Obviously intended to be another populist crowd-pleaser, Scottish Opera’s new production of Don Pasquale is visually gorgeous but sabotaged from the pit by conducting from Francesco Corti that is bold, daring and utterly insensitive to the fact that anyone is singing. Things began well. On entering the…

  • The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Pope

    There’s currently a petition doing the rounds demanding that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York make some kind of statement deploring the support the Church of Nigerian (Anglican Communion) has given to recent anti-gay laws. Similar calls have been made in regard to Uganda. I’m refusing to sign it. We should not…