What is in Kelvin's Head?

Jericho, Berlin and what wall next?

10/11/2014

I remember going on a school trip to Germany when I was a young teenager. I don’t remember that much about the visit to be honest, but I do remember the wall.

We were not in Berlin but we were staying near enough to the border between East Germany and West Germany to warrant a visit. Indeed the teachers organising the trip clearly thought that it was something that we all needed to see.

It made a big impression. I can still remember being told that we all had to behave – no larking around and no running into the grass near the wall lest we risk being shot.

That in itself was shocking.

I remember the stillness around as we climbed up a lookout tower to look over into this other country – a strange place which you could be shot at for meddling with.

And looking into the other side, we could see members of the military looking back out at us in the West.

What were we really each looking at?

In many ways I think that the anniversary this weekend of the fall of the wall should have been more of a celebration for the whole of Europe. Even those tiresome Eurosceptics in the Tory party might have been expected to have got on board for a celebration of the end of the Cold War and the fall of repressive communism.

The incredible thing to my mind is that something which seemed so fixed, so immovable has gone. How often we need to be reminded that things can change.

The Berlin Wall wasn’t just a physical wall, it was something which existed in the politics of Europe and something which existed in our minds too. The physical represented something much more.

So, what walls need still to fall. Where does Joshua’s trumpet still need to sound?

Inevitably, thinking about the Berlin Wall one’s mind turns to the wall separating Israel from Palestine and cutting right through people’s lives. Thoughts turn too to Korea.

Berlin reminds us that such divisions are not eternal and that things can change utterly.

And there will be mental walls which we can barely recognise that will yet fall too.

Freedom isn’t just a passport to the West.

[Photo Credit: Gavin Stewart – CC Copyright Attribution 2.0]

Berlin Wall

17 responses to “Praying for the Powerful”

Robin

18/01/2017

Those Scottish Episcopalians during the Penal Times who refused to pray for the Hanoverian monarchs did so not because they thought the Hanoverian monarchs were people too bad to be prayed for, but because they thought that they weren’t monarchs at all, but usurpers. The parallel in the case of Trump would be if Trump had fraudulently acquired the Presidency in some manner contrary to the US Constitution, and so was not, properly speaking, President at all. I suppose the nearest comparison would be if a citizen of one of the Confederate states in 1861-65 had refused to pray publicly for Jefferson Davis as President because she believed that Davis was a usurper and the constitutional President of the whole United States was Abraham Lincoln.

BTW if you want to see snuff-taking and sneezing at the prayers for the Sovereign, come to the Royal Martyr Church Union celebration next Thursday at 11.30 in St Mary’s Cathedral, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh . . .

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  18/01/2017
  
  One of the two things that I remember from Fr Gian’s teaching on the Eucharist in my TISEC days was his enthusiastic snuff habit.
  
  Reply
2. Grace Burson
  
  19/01/2017
  
  Well, given that Trump “won” only by the skin of his teeth and likely because of foreign interference and partisan meddling by the head of the FBI, the parallel may be pretty close, after all.
  
  Reply
Whit Johnstone

18/01/2017

Kelvin, my objection is not to the continued tradition of the post-inaugural prayer service, but to the Cathedral Choir’s willingness to be part of the entertainment at the inauguration itself. Many entertainers have chosen to boycott the inauguration because they disapprove of the President-Elect. Many opponents of the President Elect have decided to boycott any performer who performs at the inauguration. Indeed, acts who perform at the inauguration may be subject to a no-platforming campaign. This was the threat that forced Andrea Botichelli to withdraw from Trump’s inauguration. Therefore, performing at the inauguration will be construed as a partisan gesture of support for President Trump. Of course, refusing to perform would have been construed as a partisan gesture of opposition to President Trump. And since the Trump inaguration team approached the Cathedral about performing, the Cathedral had to say yes or no. There was no neutral, nonpartisan answer. The National Cathedral seeks to be neutral and nonpartisan, and since it had been perceieved as a Democratic institution while Fr. Gary Hall was dean, I understand why Dean Hollerith felt he had to say yes, to say to Republicans, “yes you are still welcome in TEC”. But that welcome will come at the price of making opponents of Trump feel distinctly unwelcome in the National Cathedral for as long as Fr. Hollerith is dean. Yes, he’s between a rock and a hard place on this one.

Reply
Meg Rosenfeld

18/01/2017

Generally we say “Amen.” Speaking only for a small parish in San Francisco, depending on the celebrant’s choice of which prayer to use, we include in our petition, after mentioning the President of the US and the Governor of California, “all in civil authority” or “all leaders in the Bay Area.”

And why not? We are, after all, praying that those who have some responsibility for our well-being will be properly disposed to behave in a just and compassionate manner; their behavior has a great effect on all our lives. And this is wrong because–?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  18/01/2017
  
  I agree with you Meg – that’s exactly how I think of praying for those in authority.
  
  I also think the BCP collect that I quoted is a very good collect for praying for a president with whom one disagrees.
  
  Reply
  1. Meg Rosenfeld
    
    18/01/2017
    
    Absolutely! And that’s just what we’ll be doing for a few years now . . . .
    
    Reply
Gillian Barr

18/01/2017

You are, along w/ many others, conflating the prayer service at the Cathedral on the day after the inauguration with the choir singing in the prelude to the inauguration ceremony itself. Few are objecting to the former, though some are disappointed that the PEOTUS’s team was allowed to declare that there would not be a sermon in the service. No one is objecting to praying for Trump, either in the service or in our weekly parish services. Almost all the objections are to the performance by the choirs in the inauguration. The prelude has almost nothing to do w/ prayer, at least in the eyes of those who will witness the inauguration. They see it as a performance, not a sung prayer.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  18/01/2017
  
  Actually, I’ve seen a number of people complaining about praying for Trump in weekly parish services chatting about it on facebook.
  
  I do see that the inauguration is different to the service in the cathedral. However, I can still see this from both sides.
  
  Reply
Ronnie Smith

18/01/2017

Dear Father Kerlvin,

We do, indeed, all need prayer, with the bible advising that we should pray for our enemies as well as our friends. My heart goes out to you in Glasgow, when the conservative minority criticizes you for cooperating with the Muslim community in your city. Mistakes can be made with the content of prayers offered and statements made in God’s house; but God must by now be used to our mistakes and allows for them: “Where charity and love are, there is God”
Agape, Father Ron Smith, ACANZP

Reply
Robin

19/01/2017

On the Sunday after the Dunblane massacre in the church I then attended, the intercessions included a prayer for the repose of the soul of Thomas Hamilton, the gunman. To my horror and incredulity, one person vociferously objected to this. If you accept the propriety of offering prayers for the dead, surely it’s hard to imagine someone who needed them more than Thomas Hamilton?

Reply
Eamonn

19/01/2017

Perhaps the most appropriate prayer might be, ‘…ne POTUS noceat’.

Reply
Ann

19/01/2017

I can see both sides of this – but the hinge is where we have been praying by name for Barack and now won’t say Donald — a pick and choose – reminds me of a priest who when happy with you would press the wafer into your hand and say your name – but when mad would drop the wafer from about a foot over your hand and not say your name.
And the US Constitution says “Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” — different nuance from separation of church and state.

Reply
Martha Underwood.

20/01/2017

You get an Amen from this American Episcopalian.

Reply
John-Julian. OJN

25/01/2017

At the root of all this discussion is the unasked and unanswered question:”What does ‘praying for someone’ do for her or him?” I mean, do these people think our praying for (or against!) Trump will affect him in any way? Will he be happier, healthier, stronger, louder, less mean, less nasty if prayed for than if not prayed for? What is gained (or lost) by either praying for him or omitting prayers for him?
It seems to me that the issue here is not the actual prayers but our feeling ABOUT those prayers (or absence of them).
If we use Aquinas’s definition of love as “willing the good for the other” and apply it to prayer—it seems that we are unquestionably bidden to “will good” for our neighbor and so it seems that it doesn’t matter if we like her or him, we have a mandate to love—and intercessory prayer could surely be said to be a branch on the tree of love! Praying for Trump is not going to affect him at all—but it will definitely affect us who pray……..for the better.
(I quickly add that I believe Trump is a monster—but a monster who happens to be our neighbor!)

Reply
1. Ann
  
  25/01/2017
  
  Yes– keeps me centered and less reactive. Part of respecting the dignity of every human being (Baptismal Covenant – BCP) — hard as that is. Michelle Obama – they go low — we go high.
  
  Reply
  1. Kelvin
    
    25/01/2017
    
    Yes, I can understand that, even though we don’t have a baptismal covenant.
    
    Reply