• We are not stewards


    waves and rocks

    A long time ago, back in the mists of nearly twenty years ago, I started to think that it was important that there was a liturgical celebration of creation. I thought long and hard about it and decided that instead of celebrating that modern invention the Harvest Festival, we would celebrate Creation instead, rolling a sense of thanksgiving into that but praying too for the wellbeing of the created world.

    That is the way that it has been for quite a while now. We usually keep it on the first Sunday in October, around the time of the Feast of St Francis. We even sometimes throw in an animal blessing service that weekend, despite the fact that Francis himself wouldn’t allow members of his order to keep pets.

    As time has gone on, the climate crisis has become more obvious to more people and the churches have been looking for ways to think about creation. Thus the idea of Creationtide – a month long celebration of creation has started to be marked in different ways in different churches.

    Now, I’m a bit of a cynic when it comes to churches declaring new seasons. When the Church of England and those who follow its mysterious ways decided that Kingdom Season was a thing, I wasn’t impressed. Similarly, when in the Scottish Episcopal Church, the bishops started talking about a Season of Christian Living or a Season of Discipleship I was more inclined to be a disinterested observer than an active participant. The biggest problem, it always seemed to me, with new Seasons in the Calendar was that the worldwide church hadn’t made its mind up.

    And yes, I know that there are those who will think that it is odd that I thought we could move ahead with the marriages of same-sex couples or the ordination of priests who happen to be women without the enthusiastic agreement of the whole church but that we couldn’t have a new season without universal agreement but there we are. We all have our red lines.

    The surprising thing about the Season of Creation though it that it is attracting considerable interest across different denominations. Churches of the Orthodox tradition, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism are all pondering what it means to keep a season or a feast meditating on creation. Significant elements of the world church do seem, this time, to be on their way to creating a new season or feast.

    I’d be happy with a feast rather than a season, but that’s not the principle point that I’m interested in right now.

    The thing that bothers me more than anything about this isn’t the intention to mark Creation in the calendar. It is how we mark it and what we say about it.

    In particular, it troubles me considerably that the language that we use to mark the feast might be contributing to damaging ways of thinking about the created order in the face of the climate crisis. Our words form our thoughts and I’m not convinced that declaring a Season of Creation without thinking hard about what words we will use is really going to help.

    I struggle most with the notion that it is a positive thing for human beings to be seen as Stewards of Creation. This idea inhabits many modern liturgies.

    We currently have the following as a prayer offered for experimental use during the Season of Creation.

    God give you grace to be faithful stewards of Creation,
    rejoicing that you are made in God’s image,
    and seeking justice for those who do not share in the earth’s bounty,
    and the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
    be upon you, and remain with you always. Amen.

    This is by no means unusual. The idea that we should become better stewards of creation comes at us in hymns and in prayers and, I suspect, in sermons preached around this time.

    The trouble is, I think that human beings being stewards of creation is part of what has got us into the mess we are in globally.

    It posits a God who has gone away, leaving creation to be managed (stewarded) by human beings.

    Firstly I don’t think that God has gone away. And secondly, the trouble with a management model is that it imagines our role in creation to be primarily that of taming it, controlling it. It is as though we are here to turn creation into a park fit to live in.

    That very idea of human beings being created themselves in order to manage the rest of creation seems to me to be deeply problematic. It puts human beings at the centre of the created order when all that we can see around us tells us that this is not so. Who stewarded the dinosaurs? Who stewards Alpha Centauri?

    Placing ourselves at the centre of how we think about the world isn’t surprising. It may even, with a little side order of repentance be something that is forgivable. I think therefore I am very quickly turns into I think therefore I am right here at the centre of things and morphs into I think therefore I am in charge, all too easily.

    Here in the Scottish Episcopal Church we’ve also been experimenting with the idea of being “priests to creation”.

    …you formed humanity in your own image,
    and entrusted us with the priesthood of your Creation.

    It is a poetic image which comes from some serious theology but it is theology that predates the Climate Crisis.

    And anyway, I have more of a sense that creation is a priest to me, mediating my relationship with God than that I am a priest to creation, somehow standing between the created order and divine love.

    Creation is not ours to tame. The stewarding and priestly metaphors lead directly into a control mentality. And the outworkings of that are all too evident. At least one of the leaders of a political party in the UK came away from the Triumpian Banquet this week convinced that the best way forward was to extract all our oil and all our gas from the North Sea and use it. Note the possessive adjective used – our. In the face of the Climate Crisis, oil of ours might well take us closer to our destruction.

    Deep inside, I think that most Christians know that Creation is not ours to tame.

    There are currently many Christians coming on pilgrimage to Scotland. (When Jerusalem is closed, Iona is open). Many of them come via the church I serve either on their way to Iona or on their way back.

    There is a sense when you talk to them that they have an instinctive urge to get to a place where human beings have not tamed the created order. As though God will speak to them there. I have many problems with that as I think that God is as present in the city as in the country and in the New World just as much as the Old. However, that sense of the goodness of creation being found in the wilderness is instinctive in the minds of many of the pilgrims that I meet.

    Kierkegaard asked himself whether he should choose the monastery or the deer park – piety or pleasure. Our choice lies in whether we choose to see God in the crashing waves, the raging of the volcano and the struggle between the predator and their prey or whether we can only imagine God at work in some place where the wilderness has been tamed.

    We may have been created for a garden and we may end up destined for a garden of delights, but here, out of Eden, we neither live in parkland nor are called to tame, pillage or plunder the world around us.

    That notion of stewardship is trouble for it doesn’t allow us to think of ourselves as inherently creatures within creation. It always calls us to manage, interfere and control. It brings with it mentalities of harm.

    Jesus has harsh words to say about stewards. They are seldom, in his thought world intrinsically good.

    In Scotland, we use other vocabulary for stewards. Both in terms of managing highland estates or in terms of how we manage shared buildings in cities, the steward is called the factor. Factors are often disliked and often mistrusted. They are simply there to manage and steward property on behalf of others who are either absent or unable able to exercise the level of control that is needed to cope with property.

    Such an image is a terrible one for how we think about creation.

    Somehow we need language that stops us from thinking that human beings are in charge.

    Should we pray, “God give you the grace to be faithful factors of Creation?”

    Everyone who has ever had a factor will think we should not.

     

10 responses to “Blessings abounding”

  1. Dianne Pallett Avatar
    Dianne Pallett

    There really isn’t any argument left – discriminatory practice is not acceptable anywhere, least of all in our churches. There should not be any such thing as “gay marriage” as if it is something different, just “marriage” is fine – marriage for any who want to make that commitment regardless of their orientation.
    Can we turn our attentions to the awful things happening in the world now instead of making an issue out of something that shouldn’t be?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      The trouble is, I don’t think we can move on until those pesky laws (church and state alike) have actually been changed.

  2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    I think the reason we can’t move on until it is sorted is that real people actually get hurt. The message that ‘gay is second best’ is a deeply damaging one – and we should not put up with it, not while we are still having to produce videos which say ‘It gets better’. It should not have to get better, except in the usual way that being a teenager is a difficult thing anyhow. The clear message needs to be ‘There is nothing second-best about being gay for anybody.’

  3. Augur Pearce Avatar
    Augur Pearce

    The ‘Nigerian or Ugandan’ label is surely no worse than the ‘Catholic’ label. It gets laborious saying every time ‘the view of the Roman Catholic hierarchy’ rather than ‘the Catholic view’, even though we all know that plenty of good Christians in that tradition do not share all the beliefs of an elderly Bavarian sitting in a palace on the Italian peninsula. To my mind Andrew Brown’s punchline was trenchant and a jolt of encouragement.

    1. G Wright Avatar
      G Wright

      we all know that plenty of good Christians in that tradition do not share all the beliefs of an elderly Bavarian sitting in a palace on the Italian peninsula
      —-

      The Catholic opinion of homosexuality is that it is a disordered, (“confused / mixed up”), sexuality. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a 100% accurate statement. I appreciate that it is not an especially flattering term, but then the truth is not always an easy and cuddly thing.

      Homosexuality is not disordered simply because our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, says so.

      Rather, it is disordered – both physically and biologically – because biological science says so. That is not a bigoted statement, (references to bigotry are among the more desperate responses to the truth), but simply an acceptance of basic scientific knowledge, regarding human bodies, as taught in High School (usually 1st year) up and down the country.

      People can – of course – pretend to themselves that homosexuality isnt disordered, and that our understanding human biology is somehow wrong.

      But then, that is obviously an intellectually bankrupt position to take, isnt it?

      It is the truth that homosexuality is disordered. The role of the Pope is to have the courage to proclaim the truth, not to invent it. In contrast, both secular society and protestants dislike the truth; they prefer mental gymnastics and puerile pretence. For them, truth is a malleable concept, to be remade into whatever form suits them on this particular day.

      1. kelvin Avatar

        Can I suggest to regular commentators that we simply welcome Graham Wright to this blog but refrain from answering him point by point.

        He will learn much by reading along. We learn little here by getting involved in polemic debates and I think we’ve found previously that it is better to encourage people to have such debates on other sites.

  4. Mary Teresa Johnson-Symington Avatar
    Mary Teresa Johnson-Symington

    Hello Kelvin, just wanted to share with you the title of a novel I recently finished reading “Committed” by Elizabeth Gilbert. It’s an account of her journey to accepting marriage after going through a divorce some years before. It’s full of questions, historical info, research and different cultural approaches to marriage. It really helped me with my struggles in accepting being married (may sound a strange statement to make but for me it’s not and the book illustrates my thoughts very nicely – I just happened to do it the other way round – get married and then freak out!).
    Anyway she’s an American writer and it is very much a ladies book but I would recommend anyone read it and it be put on the reading list for schools. Yet to leave it by Neil’s side of the bed!! http://www.amazon.com/Committed-Skeptic-Makes-Peace-Marriage/dp/0670021652

  5. G Wright Avatar
    G Wright

    so as not to do things which make us, the gospel and Christ himself appear foolish
    —-

    What makes Christianity look more foolish?

    Option (1): Defending the natural, traditional and universal understanding of marriage, the fundamental building block upon which all societies depend.

    OR

    Option (2): Pretending that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are somehow comparable, and accomodating them despite Christ’s own view of marriage, which He personally described as a permanent bond between a man and a woman*.

    (*Is Jesus a bigot too?)

    Surely it takes a special kind of arrogance for ‘Christians’ to suggest that Christ got it wrong, gave erroneous teachings, or that the Episcopal Church somehow knows better than He?

    How does an Episcopalian reconcile their faith with the fact that they are essentially ignoring Jesus’ own words and simply making things up to suit themselves?

    Might this approach be somehow connected with the terminal decline facing the Episcopal/Anglican Churches globally?

    The demographics of Anglicanism in the US are particularly stark and prophetic. They are outnumbered by even Jews and, incredibly, Mormons these days.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Ah yes, proof of theological concepts by numbers attending church. That isn’t foolish at all, is it?

      Just as well my own congregation is booming these days.

      1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
        Rosemary Hannah

        Yes, it is a bit of a double-edged sword the numbers thing … I have always argued numbers tell one nothing important, but the fact is that both of the last two churches I was really able to call ‘home’ grew significantly in numbers. It is so sad that ones ideology prevents a little gentle boasting …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • David’s Lamentation – a sermon preached on 12 August 2024

    David the King, was grieved and moved He went to his chamber, his chamber and wept And as he wept, he wept and said… Oh, my son, oh, my son Would to God I had died Would to God I had died Would to God I had died For thee, oh Absalom, my son, my…

  • There is no shortage of grace – a sermon for 28 July 2024

    There lying in a kitchen cupboard they sit accusing me. I’ve realised that the time has come to throw them all away because it won’t work properly anyway any more. About a dozen small packets. Orange in colour. Each stamped with a best before date that is now about two years out of date anyway.…

  • Why I’ll be Marching at Pride (2024)

    I slipped into an unknown pub in Middle England to get out of the rain and have a pub lunch. It was welcoming and cosy. Steak and ale pie, since you ask. The part of the pub I was sitting in was right next to the bar. A small snug. The kind of room where…

  • A sermon for BBC Radio 4 – 7 July 2024

    We were asked to produce a service to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on 7 July 2024 a few weeks before the General Election was called. The service had to be recorded in advance as the date for the broadcast fell within choir holidays. Once the election was called, I soon realised that the…