What is in Kelvin's Head?

I believe in Europe

21/05/2014

I believe in the European Union as a great positive in our lives because it is in the process of minimising two things – roaming charges for mobile phones and war in western Europe.

And a whole lot more of course too. But that seems to encapsulate why I care about Europe. I want forms of good governance which can benefit the citizens of these countries and I also want these countries, which have historically been at war to put that behind them and live at peace.

Now, in saying that I want good governance in Europe, I’m not of a belief that we’ve got that right yet. (Nor am I of the belief that government at Holyrood or Westminster is perfect either). It seems clear that there will, for a long time, be the need for reform of the European institutions. However, that is a process that is not merely worth being a half-hearted part of but worth making commitments to, in order to be able to shape and mould things as they change.

I’ve been wrong about some things in Europe. I thought the Euro was a good idea and though I still like the notion of a single currency, I’ve also seen very clearly that independent nations cannot realistically share their money without having a common economic policy. Having seen it go spectacularly wrong in Europe, it seems obvious to me that the same mistakes can’t be allowed to come to pass within these islands. States which have economic independence need their own currency for their own good.

However, I’m suspicious of the nation state itself. It seems to me to be a positive good that the nation state (The United Kingdom) that I live in, is part of a multiple set of identities in which British nationalism is compromised from both within and without. Nationalisms frighten me. I want them to be compromised by other commitments.

So, I’ve voted in the European Election. (I had a postal vote this time). That I had some enthusiasm for voting was tempered a little by my having little enthusiasm for any of the options on the ballot paper. I did manage to cast a vote and I think that it is important to do so even if one has to hold one’s nose whilst voting, either metaphorically or physically.

I believe in Europe and Europe needs us to believe in it. It isn’t just mobile phone charges that matter, of course. Things like global warming need much stronger action than they are currently getting and a European Parliament can and should be one focus for working to make the planet work. And our continent is far from free from conflict either. However the structures of the EU are part of a political settlement, unsure and vulnerable though it is, which have prevented the horrors of all out war that directly affected my parents and grandparents.

Vive L´Europe! Long live the European Union!

EU, European elections, European Union, mobile phone roaming charges

11 responses to “We should be wary of declaring martyrs”

Eamonn

08/04/2015

Agree totally. I find myself in a comparable position vis-à-vis the mass canonisations of the ‘martyrs’ of the Spanish Civil War, which assume that all those worthy of commemoration were on the same side.

Reply
Michael Russell

08/04/2015

Anyone killed for professing their faith is a martyr. ISIS is an equal opportunity martyring machine. The various faith communities targeted, including Islamic ones, should build common ground to dismember ISIS. I simply fail to see the point in quibbling about who is a real martyr and who is not.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  08/04/2015
  
  Is it your view that someone is a martyr for Christianity because they cannot recite a verse from the Qur’an?
  
  It seems to me that whilst some men and women of violence are being claimed to be martyrs if they should be shot by law enforcement agencies whilst pursuing paths of terror that there’s a huge amount to be gained by determining who is a martyr and who isn’t.
  
  Reply
  1. Bro David
    
    08/04/2015
    
    Not being able to explain a quranic verse was merely a way of discerning if someone was not Muslim. However, is it not just as great a presumption to think they weren’t martyrs, as to think that they were.
    
    The early church seemed to accept that all who were crucified or sent to the lions for their Christianity were martyrs. Perhaps not all did so as a statement of faith, but were nominal Christians caught up with the rest. But the church didn’t seem obliged to footnote who didn’t qualify.
    
    I’m not sure that I understand why your are hesitant. It seems a quibble. I don’t think anyone is leaning toward canonization here, just speaking of them as a whole.
    
    Reply
Jo

08/04/2015

The SEC still keeps the feast of Charles, King and Martyr. I don’t think we get to be too narrow in defining who is or isn’t a martyr.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  09/04/2015
  
  Actually, Jo – that’s not quite right. The SEC keeps the commemoration of “Charles I, King, 1649”
  
  There’s no mention of him being a martyr in the calendar (and the current calendar superseded and replaced the one in the prayer book). There are plenty of people who are named as martyrs such as Agnes the week before Charles or indeed “Charles Mackenzie of Central Africa, Bishop, Missionary, Martyr, 1862” the very day after Charles.
  
  It would appear that rather careful thought was given to whether to describe Charles as a martyr and though he is included in the calendar (not least for founding one of our dioceses) any notion of martyrdom is absent.
  
  Reply
  1. Jo
    
    09/04/2015
    
    Thanks for the correction, I hadn’t realised there was that detail of difference between the SEC and CofE.
    
    Reply
Father David

10/04/2015

Of course, King Charles was a Martyr and is commemorated as such on January 31st each year. The trouble is that Anglicans have no real mechanism for declaring people to be saints or martyrs. Having referred to two recent horrific incidents on the African continent where Christians were slaughtered simply for being Christians, I wonder what the Provost of Glasgow thinks about the Ugandan Martyrs of the 19th century and would you personally regard them to be martyrs? As you know 23 Anglicans and 22 Roman Catholics were killed by the Kabaka for refusing to submit to King Mwanga’s corporal intimacies. The Roman Catholics were beatified in 1920 and canonised in 1964 but what of our Anglican Ugandan brothers – where they equally to be regarded as martyrs, or would you deny them that honorific title?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  10/04/2015
  
  The Scottish Episcopal Calendar is again very clear: “Charles Lwanga and his companions, 1886, Janani Luwum, Bishop, 1977, Martyrs of Uganda”
  
  I have no idea why anyone would say that the SEC has no means of declaring someone to be a martyr. Not only do we have such a mechanism, we use it.
  
  Reply
Father David

10/04/2015

It would be interesting to know how this mechanism works in the SEC in deciding who is eligible to join the noble army of martyrs? Bishop Edward King of Lincoln is widely regarded as a saint South of the Border. I think it was Archbishop Lang who was asked how it was decided that Bishop King had reached sainthood status and the answer was that he was given a Collect, Epistle and Gospel to commemorate his saint’s day – 8th March, the day of his Heavenly Birthday.

Reply
Harry Campbell

19/04/2015

“We strongly condemn such atrocities, whether they are Ethiopians are not,” the Ethiopian communications minister Redwan Hussein told AFP.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/19/isis-video-purports-to-show-massacre-of-two-groups-of-ethiopian-christians

What a shame the Archbishop couldn’t have said something similarly inclusive about the victims of the Kenyan massacre, and all such massacres, without caring about what their religion affiliation may or may not have been.

Reply