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

7 responses to “The BA Cross Story”

Tim

25/11/2006

Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

Reply
kelvin

25/11/2006

As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

Reply
Anonymous

26/11/2006

Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

All the very best,

Clyde Lad

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

Reply
Ali

26/11/2006

I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

“A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

Reply
Mysterious stranger

27/11/2006

I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Reply