A week with two good prayers and one bad one

I’ve just returned from a fantastic CMF National Conference at Swanwick on the theme 'heroes of faith'. One of the talks by Pablo Martinez focussed on the three friends of Daniel the prophet who were thrown into a fiery furnace by the King of Babylon for refusing to bow down to a statue he had made.

Three chapters later Daniel himself was cast into a lions’ den for persisting in public prayer to Yahweh after it had been made illegal.

Prayer can be a dangerous pursuit but has been featuring again in the media this week.

I’m grateful to Douglas Noble for drawing my attention to the recent Huffington Post article on the ‘Serenity Prayer’. Adopted by Alcoholics Anonymous as their theme back in the 1950s it was originally written a decade earlier by an American pastor called Reinhold Niebuhr (above).

The words are very familiar – in fact it would be fair to say it is one of the best known prayers in the English speaking world outside the Lord’s Prayer:

‘God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can;and wisdom to know the difference.’

What I did not appreciate, however, is that freedom from substance abuse was not the prayer's original intent. The Serenity Prayer was originally prayed at the height of the war against Germany in the summer of 1943 at a morning service at Union Church in Heath, Massachusetts where Niebhur was a seasonal pastor.

His daughter, Elisabeth Sifton, author of The Serenity Prayer, Faith and Politics in Times of Peace and War wrote:

‘The Serenity Prayer addresses the inconsolable pain, loss and guilt that war inflicts on the communities that wage it; it goes to the heart of the possibilities and impossibilities of collective action for collective betterment—that is to say, to the heart of the possibilities for peace.’

Sifton told The Huffington Post that her father’s political concerns were the same as his spiritual ones:

‘to pray for the strength to change unjust, illiberal, selfish policies which gave rise to war, social unrest, and economic woe; to pray for the strength to help fashion a more fair, just, and peaceful world, and to work for that end.’

Furthermore, the original prayer was longer and contained a second verse with more explicitly Christian references:

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him Forever in the next.
Amen.

Also in the news this week is David Drew, a Christian doctor, who was sacked in 2010 after emailing a prayer to colleagues at Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall.

He has just lost his claim for unfair dismissal after a tribunal judge ruled that there was no place for religious references at work.

Dr David Drew, 64, told an employment tribunal that he was made to feel like a ‘religious maniac’ after sending out the prayer by St Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, to motivate his department.

Again, St Ignatius’ prayer is one of the world’s most famous, and as Dr Drew suggested in his email, a helpful one to pray in the context of the difficulties faced by those working in the NHS:

Teach us, Good Lord
To serve you as you deserve.
To give and not count the cost.
To fight and not heed the wounds.
To toil and not to seek for rest.
To labor and not to ask for any reward
Except that of knowing that we do Your Will.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord,
Amen.

So that’s two good prayers. And the bad one?

Well that’s the new politically correct prayer of the Gloucestershire County Council, which has had all references to God removed after just three councillors objected.

‘May we find the wisdom to carry out our duties, the humanity to listen to all, the courage to do what is right and the generosity to treat each other with respect. Amen’.

Well the sentiments are OK I guess, but a prayer that is directed to no one is not a prayer at all.

As for me, I’ll use Niebuhr’s prayer with more vigour now I know its context and ending, pray Ignatius of Loyola’s prayer with more devotion and encourage those who work in the NHS to do likewise, and skip altogether the empty platitudes of Gloucester Council.

General Medical Council and Medical Defence Union endorse 'tactful' offers of prayer by GPs

The GP magazine Pulse reports in an exclusive this week on new guidance from the Medical Defence Union saying that GPs can pray with their patients as long as they ensure patients are ‘receptive' to the offer.

The guidance quotes a letter from Jane O'Brien, GMC Assistant Director for Standards and Fitness to Practise, published in the Daily Telegraph in 2009 suggesting that a ‘tactful' offer to pray could be appropriate. O’Brien’s letter in full read as follows:

‘Nothing in the GMC's guidance Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice (2008) precludes doctors from praying with their patients. It says that the focus must be on a patient's needs and wishes. Any offer to pray should follow on from a discussion which establishes that the patient might be receptive. It must be tactful, so that the patient can decline without embarrassment – because, while some may welcome the suggestion, others may regard it as inappropriate.’

Although Pulse does not mention it this guidance from the MDU is not actually breaking new ground. Their last guidance in 2009 made the same points and quoted the same letter.

The development is highly significant in that it follows a statement by the GMC’s Chief Executive Niall Dickson who in a recent Radio Four interview confirmed the appropriateness of sensitive faith discussions with patients.

Dickson amplified his comments further this week. ‘Conversations about faith should not be a starting point. Doctors can however sensitively explore whether a patient may wish to discuss their own faith when it is appropriate to their care and then provide spiritual support if this is what the patient wants.’

Clare Gerada, Chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, largest Royal College in UK, with 44000 members, tweeted on the new guidance that it was ‘good that sense is prevailing at last’. Other high profile doctors have also recently endorsed the importance of spiritual care.

Professor Mike Richards, national clinical director for cancer and end-of-life care, said at the launch of the new RCGP end of life charter that it was important that patients at the end of their lives should be offered spiritual support from GPs if they wanted it. He added that studies in other countries, such as Canada, had shown that spiritual assistance – such as that provided by hospital chaplains – was very valuable.

And RCGP clinical champion for end-of-life care Professor Keri Thomas said that spiritual care was 'essential' for end-of-life care.

The latest advice follows the case of Dr Richard Scott, who made national headlines in May when he said he would formally reject an official warning from the GMC for discussing his faith with a patient. Dr Scott told Pulse he received, and rejected, the official warning this week, and now ‘fully expects' to face a public hearing. I have previously argued that the GMC had overreacted in this case by jumping to conclusions without a proper investigation on the basis of a complaint from the patient’s relative.

Pressure is now intensifying on the GMC to offer more definitive guidance on the issue. Dr Andrew Freeman, a GP in Mossley, Greater Manchester, is reported by Pulse as calling for greater clarity: ‘The guidance isn't clear enough. We are told to judge the patient's receptiveness to religion, but in the Dr Scott case it was not the patient, but their family, that took exception. If GPs are given better guidance and more help where to draw the line, it will improve care for patients, their relatives and doctors.'

The current GMC guidance gives considerable latitude for faith discussions. It recognises that ‘all doctors have personal beliefs which affect their day-to-day practice’ and that these principles apply to all doctors whatever their political, religious or moral beliefs. It emphasises that ‘personal beliefs and values, and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of doctors and patients’ (p4); that ‘patients’ personal beliefs may be fundamental to their sense of well-being and could help them to cope with pain or other negative aspects of illness or treatment.’ (p5) and that ‘discussing personal beliefs may, when approached sensitively, help you to work in partnership with patients to address their particular treatment needs.’ (p9)

Faith discussions are not normally part of the consultation, but there are occasions when they were appropriate. The World Health Organisation’s definition of health includes physical, mental, social and spiritual dimensions and part of practising whole-person medicine means addressing all issues that have a bearing on a person’s health.

Let’s pray that the GMC handles Dr Scott’s case wisely and let’s continue to encourage Christian doctors to practise medicine that addresses the needs of the whole person, to take opportunities to address spiritual issues impacting on health, and to share their faith sensitively when it is appropriate to do so.

As Christian doctors today let’s, like Nehemiah, be people of prayer and perseverance

Nehemiah was the key figure, along with Ezra, who was used by God in the fifth century BC to help bring about one of the most profound revivals in biblical history.

He was a skilful politician, a clever strategist, a brilliant manager, a social reformer who championed the rights of the poor and an intransigent visionary who never gave up despite threats and opposition from those in high places

His achievements were monumental. He rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem in 52 days when it had lain in ruins for 150 years. He re-established full employment in a climate of economic recession. He reconstructed an effective social welfare system for the marginalized and reintroduced Bible exposition resulting in nationwide repentance and revival. He reinstated public worship and rooted out heresy and idolatry.

He was used by God to put a whole nation back on its feet.

But first of all Nehemiah was a passionate man of prayer. When he was told that ‘those who survived the exile…are in great trouble and disgrace’ and that ‘the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire’ his response was to weep, fast, pray and then offer himself to God as part of the solution.

When opponents tried to discourage him by pointing out his meager resources, small progress thus far, strength of the opposition and size of the task he asked God to ‘turn their insults back on their own heads’. And when he felt his strength was giving out he called upon God to ‘strengthen my hands’.

When his perseverance was rewarded with the completion of the wall we read that his enemies ‘were afraid and lost their self-confidence, because they realized that this work had been done with the help of our God.

As Christian doctors today we are involved in a similar task of rebuilding in a similarly broken society. Our consulting rooms, clinics and hospital wards are filled with people who have physical, social and spiritual needs. Some are reaping the consequences of poor life-style choices. Others are there through no fault of their own or because they have been sinned against.

Every day we are sent like the first disciples to preach good news, heal the sick and be advocates for those who have no voice. The task is huge. The progress is slow. The resources seem inadequate. The opposition is strong.

Let’s also, like Nehemiah, be people of prayer and perseverance.