What is in Kelvin's Head?

1066 And All What?

15/10/2016

This is an exciting moment for liturgists everywhere. It would appear that the Church of England has published a new prayer, this time commemorating the Battle of Hastings.

Following some discussion last night on social media, I’m pleased to be able to provide this study guide to the prayer for those thinking of using it, in the form of 12 questions. (The questions may be useful for discussion groups).

But first, the prayer itself.

God of justice and mercy,
whose Son came among us as the Prince of Peace:
look with grace on all who look back on the Battle of Hastings
as a defining moment in our history.
Guide our island nation, poised between Europe and Scandinavia,
and from the remembrance of defeat bring solidarity
with oppressed, subjugated and humiliated peoples today.
By your Spirit lead us to make the past our friend,
and to find our future in you,
that we may become a people of memory and hope;
through our crucified and risen Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.

1 – The prayer begins conventionally as an address to the God of justice and mercy. Looking back at the Battle of Hastings, which side represented the forces of justice? Which side was God on?

2 – In telling God to look with grace on all who look back on the Battle of Hastings does the Church of England suggest that those who do not look back on the Battle of Hastings will not experience that favour?

3 – What will be the measurable consequences of the favour of God being bestowed upon Battle of Hastings gazers?

4 – What nation is being invoked in the term “island nation”? (Groups may wish to make reference to #indyref, #brexit and #conquest in answering this question).

5 – Using a map and the description “poised between Europe and Scandinavia”, can you pinpoint

a) Europe?
b) Scandinavia?
c) This Island Nation?

6 – Given the phrase the “remembrance of defeat”, in whose voice is this prayer offered?

7 – Similarly, who is the “we” in the phrase “that we may become a people of memory and hope”?

8 – In what ways are the Saxon people of England today not a people of memory and hope? Give examples to demonstrate your understanding of this question.

9 – How would you lead a youth group towards understanding the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ through the death of King Harold? (Consider drama, storytelling and needlecraft based approaches)

10 – How can the oppressed, subjugated and humiliated members of the Church of England, acting in solidarity with all people of struggle, reach out to build a better world?

11 – Would the addition of Saint Harold the Good to the Calendar of the Church of England be a step forward for justice?

12 – In what circumstances will you use this prayer?

Battle of Hastings, Church of England

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

Christine

29/09/2017

Well said!

Reply
1. Andrea Maier
  
  30/09/2017
  
  Concur!
  
  Reply
Lionel Deimel

29/09/2017

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

Reply
Phil Groves

29/09/2017

100% agreement.

Reply
Eamonn

29/09/2017

Beautifully balanced – and witty, too! Well said!

Reply
Meg Rosenfeld

29/09/2017

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?

Reply
Wayne Kamm

29/09/2017

Thank you for an excellent statement!

Reply
Tobias Stanislas Haller

29/09/2017

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.

Reply
Drew_Mac

29/09/2017

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.

Reply
Andrew Bowdler

30/09/2017

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.

Reply
1. Jo
  
  30/09/2017
  
  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.
  
  Reply
2. Cynthia Katsarelis
  
  03/10/2017
  
  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.
  
  Reply
3. Richard Ashby
  
  03/10/2017
  
  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.
  
  Reply
  1. Andrew Bowdler
    
    11/10/2017
    
    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.
    
    Reply
    1. Richard Ashby
      
      11/10/2017
      
      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.
      
      Reply