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 “Where does the Church of Scotland stand?”

Robin

21/05/2013

I understand your sentiments, but both on this issue and on the ordination of women in the Church of England the weary words of Mrs Boyle in Sean O’Casey’s ‘Juno and the Paycock’ in reply to her son, who scorns the Irish Free State and wants an Irish Republic or nothing, are inclined to come to mind:

“To be sure, to be sure — no bread’s a lot better than half a loaf.”

Reply
Nick Brindley

21/05/2013

I think you’re right to think this is a disastrously wrong-headed attempt to avoid having to think the issue through, although we may not agree on what would be involved in such thinking (almost nobody agrees with me!)

I think we need to revisit some pretty fundamental problems on the nature of the moral authority of the Bible, the meaning of “salvation” and what ministry is to make any real progress with this issue and there appears to be depressingly little appetite to do this in a spirit of mutual trust and of trust in the leading of the Spirit guiding our interpretation of scripture

http://loveswork.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/failing-to-be-biblical-reflections-on-church-of-scotland-sexuality-debates/

Reply
Frank keefe

21/05/2013

This is what happens when you water down Gods truth so the secular world will think what a progressive church you are.When a small secular wedge is pushed under a church door you can bet a larger one will be pushed under it in the not to distant future.I believe a liberal minded church like the Church of Scotland is more dangerous to the Christian faith than atheists like Richard Dawkins and his followers. Jesus found it hard to convince the Pharisees of their misguided beliefs if He walked our earth today He would find those modern day Pharisees in the Church of Scotland even harder to convince.

Reply
1. Rosemary Hannah
  
  21/05/2013
  
  Well, there you go – I think the exact opposite – that Jesus, who plucked corn, and healed, on the Sabbath, would be out partying tonight with all sorts of disreputable people. The Pharisees were the people who stuck rigidly to the law, breaking it even as they kept it. Jesus was the one who re-interpreted it.
  
  Reply
  1. Frank keefe
    
    21/05/2013
    
    I find it amazing how those who look for sin to be accepted would try and use Jesus to back them up.First Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.The Pharisees abused Gods law with their legalism.Its why He said about the rescue of a sheep on that day.He didnt re-interpret it He was showing them how it SHOULD BE KEPT as God ALWAYS intended it.Its the church who is doing the interpretation and Jesus certainly wouldnt be “out partying” such disrespect of our Lords holiness is often the way with liberal ” Christians” Instead of the church being a light to the world that worlds darkness is putting out that light.
    
    Reply
    1. kelvin
      
      21/05/2013
      
      Bless you for your faith, Frank. May it bring you happiness and joy.
      
      Reply
Graeme Cowie

21/05/2013

It’s a fudge, no doubt. And one which, far from preserving the “traditional” Kirk actually serves to undermine it in a number of ways, particularly concerning the status of “doctrine” and who gets to determine what it is, or at least what practical meaning it is for something to be “doctrine” rather than merely a personal religious sentiment. Explicitly to permit complete deviation from “doctrine” by congregations is not very Presbyterian, and the “traditionalists” either didn’t seem to realise that, or they care about preserving substantial doctrines at the expense of, well, what makes the Kirk the Kirk.

To an extent, though, you could see it coming. I think the traditionalist wing sensed they would lose if it was a straight choice (unfortunate phrase) between 2A and 2B, and so tried to push for something that retains a symbolic attachment to historical doctrine whilst letting liberals have the lion’s share of the cake they want, which is to be able to ordain those in committed same-sex relationships and to be done with it. I know for a fact that a fair whack of liberal commissioners were swayed by 2D (not including my parents, who are CofS ministers who voted with option 2A), many seeing it as a way of letting the traditionalists have some sort of phyric victory whilst in fact enabling ministers to be in civil partnerships without any lasting problems. It is much more likely that 2D will make it through Barrier Act procedure now that it’s got the traditionalists’ name on it, and notwithstanding the extra year it’s going to take to turn it into a proper overture, I think the consensus of the Kirk is that they really want to stop talking about this.

The new system ought to be fairly robust once the Legal Questions Committee have had their teeth dug into it. The clear intention was conceded by the movers that they did not intend for Presbyteries to be able to discipline or annul decisions made by Kirk Sessions seeking to be allowed to appoint ministers in civil partnerships, and for a lot of liberals (and actually, a lot of those on the conservative wing too) this will be seen as a critical part of the compromise if it is to be laid to rest. My only real concern is that if the traditionalists are for any reason unhappy with the implementation by LQC it could lead to the whole debate re-opening in GA 2014.

It’s clearly not enough for many liberal ministers, elders and members of the Church of Scotland, for whom this still presents a partial sense of “separate not equal” for congregation and minister alike, and it probably makes it more difficult for the theological position of the kirk formally to be moved away from same sex relationships being sinful, now that the “practical harms” are in a significant sense out of the way, but by Church of Scotland standards, it’s a major step forward for a very broad church, and one which has probably saved it from a major schism (though a handful of churches may still leave over and above The Tron and Gilc South). For those of us in the Kirk 5 years ago, this would have been virtually unthinkable, and momentum has picked up since the Rennie case 4 years ago. The good fight goes on, and hurdles remain, but if it gets through Barrier Act procedure I think the practical objectives, in a Kirk which already offers substantial liberty of personal opinion in matters of doctrine which do not enter into the substance of faith, have largely been met, albeit in a roundabout way.

For more of my thoughts on this matter, see:

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/church-of-scotland-religious-progress.html

and

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/presbyterianism-cracking-at-seems-cost.html

Reply
Margaret of the Sea of Galilee

22/05/2013

And it still does not properly address how LGBTQ people (single or in civil partnerships) will be dealt with (dealt to?) when they offer themselves to Presbyteries as feeling called to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. Will they be asked about their orientation? Questioned? Interrogated? What responses will allow them to or prevent them from pursuing that call?

Who is this Albert Bogle anyway – is he about to become the first to be beatified by the Kirk and for what exactly? By-passing (even disregarding) Kirk “Order”, convincing his important friends to let him bulldoze ahead and his less important friends to print off 700 and something copies of a Deliverance which is incoherent and unimplementable.
Off to read Revelation for other signs of The End Times…
.

Reply
Peter W Nimmo

25/05/2013

Kelvin, you make lots of good points in your post. But just to clarify- what is the doctrine and practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church on this issue? Does your doctrine approve of persons in civil partnerships being clergy, and is that put into practice?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  25/05/2013
  
  Yes – there are quite a number of clergy in civil partnerships. In England, Anglican clergy in civil partnerships are supposed to declare that they are “celibate”. That isn’t the case in Scotland.
  
  The pension scheme in Scotland recognises Civil Partnerships by giving such partners the same benefits as wives or husbands in marriages. Civil Partners also are treated in the same way with regard to housing as a straight spouse if a relationship breaks down.
  
  Any candidate for ordination who is in a Civil Partnership is expected to be honest about that at selection.
  
  The bishops of the church announced a few years ago that they would not consecrate anyone as bishop who was in a Civil Partnership. They were clear at the time that this was a moratorium. However it is not clear to me whether that moratorium still stands. I do expect there to be questions about that at the coming Synod.
  
  Reply