What is in Kelvin's Head?

10 Thoughts on the Blessing of Asparagus

25/04/2017
It seems that Worcester Cathedral recently had a service for the blessing of asparagus.

As this is a matter that might be seen to have consequences for the wider Anglican Communion, I thought I’d offer a few thoughts.
1. There can be no justification for blessing asparagus as asparagus is never mentioned positively in the bible. There is simply no biblical case for blessing asparagus. None at all. If God had wanted asparagus to be blessed, then surely Jesus would have blessed asparagus at the last supper. (1 Corinthians 15:3)
2. In fact, we know that asparagus should not be blessed because Genesis says so. “In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, [asparagus] and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.” (Genesis 4: 3-4). You can’t pick and choose what the bible says. God’s holy word is clear and lasts forever.
3. The blessing of asparagus promotes and validates the asparagus lifestyle. How will the church as a whole be able to maintain moral standards in one part of the world if asparagus is blessed in another? (Matthew 5:48)
4. If we start blessing asparagus then it automatically follows that people will demand blessings for other kinds of vegetables. Although one might not personally object to the blessing of asparagus, one must take into account where this might lead. God will not be faithful to those who bless asparagus. (Amos 5:14)
5. It would be entirely acceptable to offer a Thanksgiving for the Picking of Asparagus provided there are no rings used to hold the asparagus and any blessing must be upon the asparagus pickers and not the asparagus itself. (Ezekiel 44:30). The blessing of asparagus itself is sinful.
6. The Archbishops have issued the following statement: “No asparagus is a problem, or an issue. Asparagus is made in the image of God. All of the asparagus, without exception, is loved and called in Christ. There are no ‘problems’, there is simply asparagus. (Romans 8:28) However, in order to maintain the unity of the church, it remains the case that asparagus blessings fall outside of that which is permitted for clergy of the Church of England following the last agreed Lambeth Conference statement on the matter. Clergy should continue to explore the maximum freedom possible when encountering asparagus whilst remaining within current guidelines. (Philippians 4:5)
7. It remains the case that we all strive towards good disagreement (Philippians 4:2) about asparagus blessings whilst forbidding entirely the actual blessing of asparagus
8. You cannot serve God and asparagus. The love of asparagus is the root of all evil. Do not associate with other eaters of asparagus. (1 Corinthians 15:33)
9. There is an additional argument against the blessing of asparagus which stems from tradition. There should be no blessings of asparagus until the major churches who have the apostolic succession make an agreed statement on asparagus. This might be achieved in the form of an Ecumenical Asparagus Council of the Church however there remains some disagreement about who has the authority to call such a Council. (1 Corinthians 11:2)
10. Always remember that God loves asparagus and that there have been some fine and courageous examples of self-giving asparagus throughout history. Many people are able to testify that some of their best friends have even eaten [unblessed] asparagus. So long as the church exercises gracious restraint in blessing asparagus, it will be possible for people to hear about the unique gifts that asparagus brings to the world. It may even be that God has a purpose for asparagus. (Exodus 9:16)
Save

Save

Save

Save
asparagus, biblical attitudes to asparagus

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

ryan

11/10/2010

Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  11/10/2010
  
  No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.
  
  Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

Reply
ryan

11/10/2010

No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

Reply
Peter

12/10/2010

Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

Reply
Simon

29/10/2010

I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

Reply
Melissa

15/11/2013

About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Reply