What is in Kelvin's Head?

Prayers for Remembrance

11/11/2014

Last Sunday evening we had an extraordinary Choral Evensong. The idea was simple – to mark the start of the First World War by singing some of the music that the cathedral choir was singing 100 years ago. The idea came from Pam Barrowman, one of the members of the choir whose historical research includes work on what the choir here used to sing. In the event, Sunday evening’s service was one of the most powerful remembrance events that I’ve ever been part of.

When that war was declared the congregation here responded on the next Sunday by singing four verses of the national anthem and the organist played the Elgar march which features Land of Hope and Glory. There clearly was a something of a gung-ho spirit around. That was in the August. By November, the news was arriving back in the cathedral and its daughter churches of lives already lost. There was, or course, no memorial to put their names on. There was just the news and the dawning realisation that it would not all be over by Christmas. The mood had changed by now and they were singing movements from Brahms’s Requiem (yes, German music, just as we used music by a German composer to end our two minutes silence yesterday morning) and the Russian Kontakion of the Departed.

Somehow the shadows drew close. I’m not sure whether I wanted to reach back through time to comfort those who were listening to the same music one hundred years ago or whether I wanted them to do the same to us. Anyway, prayer came easily. And compassion. And love.

Several people commented on my prayers. I don’t have a copy as I tend not to write them in advance and pray extemporaneously at Evensong. (Something I always teach people not to do when I’m doing workshops on how to do intercessions).

However, here’s the gist of what I said:

The stone walls of this church surrounded those who went off to war.
Hear us, O Lord, as we remember those who gathered here in in this place to sing and to pray before going off to war.
Help us to remember their sense of hope and adventure and the joy of human companionship.
We remember those who showed courage in leaving for war and also those who showed their own courage in refusing to fight.
Those who went to war went believing they were putting the world to rights.
Help us to try to do the same.
Lord in your mercy. Hear our prayer.

The stone walls of this church surrounded those who remained at home.
Hear us, O Lord, as we remember those who remained home, so many women waiting for news of their men, so many children waiting for news of their fathers.
As we remember them we remember those who went on waiting throughout all their lives.
Help us to pray for those who today wait for news of those whom they love who have gone to war.
Lord in your mercy, Hear our prayer.

The stone walls of this church have surrounded those who in this place have tried to bring peace.
They have surrounded those who have left this place to go on demonstrations.
They have surrounded those who have debated.
They have surrounded conversations and discussions and hopes and dreams.
Hear us as we pray for those who have decisions, important decisions to make which affect the lives of others.
Lord in your mercy, Hear our prayer.

And now the stone walls of this church surround us.
What will we make of the world that we have inherited? How will we live in the world of today?
Help us O Lord to seek out peace and build a world of justice.
Teach us what to do and how to live.
Lord in your mercy, Hear our prayer.

And here in this place, surrounded by these same stone walls, I hold in my hand a bible.
It was carried by a soldier in World War Taken from place to place and returning to this country when he returned at the close of the war.
And inside its tattered cover is a prayer that we may each make our own prayer this night.
Almighty and Everlasting God,
by whose Grace Thy servants
are enabled to fight the good fight of faith
and ever prove victorious:
We humbly beseech Thee so to inspire us,
that we may yield our hearts to thine obedience
and, exercise our wills on Thy behalf.
Help us to think wisely:
to speak rightly:
to resolve bravely:
to act kindly:
to live purely.
Bless us in body and in soul,
and make us a blessing to our comrades.
Whether , at home or abroad
may we ever seek the extension of Thy Kingdom.
Let the assurance of Thy presence
save us from sinning:
support us in life,
and comfort us in death.
0 Lord our God accept this prayer
for Jesus Christ’s sake. Amen.

[Picture Credit – Ruined church at Vie Chapelle, France Great War Primary Document Archive: Photos of the Great War – www.gwpda.org/photos]

Choral Evensong, First World War

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

Father Ron Smith

12/01/2015

Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.
  
  The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.
  
  I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.
  
  Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.
  
  Reply
2. Christine McIntosh
  
  13/01/2015
  
  Amen.
  
  Reply
Pam

12/01/2015

From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

Reply
Chris Hansen

12/01/2015

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.
  
  Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.
  
  Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.
  
  And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.
  
  Reply
FakePete

13/01/2015

I feel very angry reading that.

Reply
Steven

13/01/2015

Dear Kelvin

Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

What would you do if you were Primus?

The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

Steven

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  13/01/2015
  
  What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.
  
  The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.
  
  I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.
  
  The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:
  
  1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.
  
  2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.
  
  3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.
  
  4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.
  
  However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.
  
  I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.
  
  I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.
  
  I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.
  
  If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.
  
  If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.
  
  Does that answer the question?
  
  Reply
  1. Steven
    
    13/01/2015
    
    Yes, it does rather. Thanks.
    
    For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).
    
    We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!
    
    Steven
    
    Reply