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

7 responses to “The BA Cross Story”

Tim

25/11/2006

Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

Reply
kelvin

25/11/2006

As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

Reply
Anonymous

26/11/2006

Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

All the very best,

Clyde Lad

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

Reply
Ali

26/11/2006

I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

“A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

Reply
Mysterious stranger

27/11/2006

I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Reply