Feast of Christ in all Creation

November 18             NOTES FOR REFLECTION             Feast of Christ in all Creation

Texts:   Genesis 1:26-2:3; Romans 8:18-27; John 1:1-14

Theme:  The title of the Feast is the obvious choice.  An alternative may be "All in All", in which case a better choice of epistle reading might be something from Colossians, perhaps 1:15-20.

Introduction.  This is a fairly new "Feast", and for some reason there are no "official" readings prescribed for it in the Lectionary.  It is offered as an option for each of the last three Sundays of the Liturgical Year, but is not considered essential.  All in all my suspicion is that this is a compromise between the Green advocates and the not so keen within General Synod, leading to a rather half-hearted compromise.  The readings set are suggested on our Diocesan Website.  The selection of the two lessons seem explicable if not exactly creative (excuse the pun), but the selection of the gospel passage is more intriguing.  Given the theme we might have expected something from the Genesis creation narrative, although perhaps not the particular passage chosen: it seems to make the case for the domination of nature by our species, and has a strong bias in favour of a vegetarian diet.  The reading from Romans commends itself as a reminder that human salvation does not take the form of a dramatic rescue from a doomed earth; the whole of creation (of which we are but one species) awaits redemption.  Christ is as much, therefore, the redeemer of mosquitoes and moss as he is of the human species.  As for the gospel passage, it may be that verse 3 was considered a sufficient reason for its choice, but perhaps there is more to it than that.

Background.  We are reminded from time to time that the Anglican Church is committed to a five-fold mission, the last 3 of which all tend to attract devoted followers, and all three of which bring with them a similar danger.  The danger is that each can become an end in itself, severed from the central core of the business of the Church which is to worship God and give him the glory.  The care of those in need, the fight against social injustice, and the care of the environment are all important elements of the mission of the Church, but unless they arise from and are rooted in our love of God, they cease to be Christian ministry.  They all too easily become the outworking of political and ideological commitments, rather than part of our loving response to the love God gives to us.

Perhaps, therefore, part of what we are about today is to reflect on what we mean by "Christ in all Creation", and why that is essentially different from the thinking, policies and programmes of the Green Party or the Environmental Defence Society.  A good starting-point might be to reflect on the terms "Creation" and "Nature".  We tend to use them interchangeably, but as people of faith we shouldn't.  "Nature" seems to be something in its own right, something that is what it is, and perhaps always has been.  "Creation" is not something that just is; it means something that has been created, by a Creator.  Creation is a religious term in a way that "Nature" is not.  Nor is "Environment", come to that. 

That takes us part of the way; but now what do we mean when we acclaim Christ "in all Creation"?  People often tell me that they don't need to attend Church – they meet God in the natural world, the great outdoors.  But I don't think anyone has ever told me that they don't need to attend church because they meet Christ in that way.  Yes, I know, we're all Trinitarians – but the people I have in mind probably aren't.  Certainly the natural world CAN speak of God – as the psalmists amongst others testify – but when it does it usually omits any reference to the doctrine of the Trinity.  How, then, are we to know which god is being spoken about?  In other words, as Christians we care for the environment, not because it is beautiful, and not because it supports life, but because it is the handiwork of the same God who made us.  It is holy, sacred, because it is God's creation, not because it is the playground of Pan and his mates, nor because it is our "Primeval Mother".  The natural environment is NOT the source of all life: God is.

And before we go any further perhaps we need to get a dose of realism into our reflections.  Watch any documentary by the great Sir David Attenborough and it won't be long before something is catching and eating something else.  That's the world as it is, not as devotees of Walt Disney might prefer.   There might be coming a day when the lion will lie down with the lamb but it's probably not going to dawn in Sir David's lifetime.  And perhaps another way of saying all this is that, whatever term we use, "Nature", "Creation", "The Environment" or Even "Gaia", they are all inadequate if we tend to think in terms of a noun rather than a verb.  The key reality lies in "becoming", not "being".  God is making the heavens and the earth: as someone has said, we are still living in the sixth day of Creation.

So back to the question, what do we mean when we speak of "Christ in all Creation"?  Are we saying anything more than what we say in the Nicene Creed: "through him all things were made", taken perhaps from John 1:3?  And if we are saying more than that, is the key to be found in the very next verse of that gospel: "In him was life"?  That seems to be getting us somewhere, at least in respect of all living things.  If Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and if all life is one, then Christ is the life made manifest in all living creatures.  In that sense St Francis' habit of calling other creatures his brothers and sisters is profound theology, not sentimental twaddle designed to appeal to free-spending tourists heading to Italy.

That still leaves the "inanimate" part of Creation; but can we say of anything comprised of atoms and sub-atomic particles and all the rest of the amazing inner life of stone, metals, and every other material thing that they are inanimate.? Are they not alive with the energy of their Creator, and is that not life as surely as we live?

One more heresy before turning to the readings.  Evolution seems to be heading in a specific direction, from simplicity towards ever greater complexity.  It is surely not too anthropocentric to think that perhaps evolution has always been and is now a process designed to produce consciousness, and through consciousness, awareness of God our Creator.  In which case, is Christ not the master/conductor of the whole evolutionary process, leading all things to a final consummation in God??  Is that at least part of what we mean when we worship Christ in all Creation?

Genesis.  This is the passage that is so often slated by the Green Movement for appearing to give biblical authority for what is perceived to be an exploitative attitude towards the earth and all that lives in it.  We can see something in that criticism if we assume that words like "rule over" and "subdue" are to be read in an ordinary secular way.  But, of course, that is not how they are to be read in the bible.  God has created all things, not just humankind.  God is love.  God looks and sees that all he has created is good; indeed, after he has created humankind, his verdict is raised from "good" to "very good".  But we need to be very careful here.  I've seen it suggested in some commentaries that "good" applies to the rest of creation, and "very good" applies only to humankind.  The text clearly does not support that view.  Creation without humankind is good; with humankind included it is very good.  And a second point is this: biblical rule is quite different from the usual run of worldly rule.  Among people of God rulers do not exploit those whom they are ruling – they serve them.  The Lord himself said, "I am among you as one who serves."  To rule over creation, in biblical terms, is to care for it, safeguard it, promote its health and well-being, as a shepherd cares for the sheep.

Taking It Personally.

·        What sort of "rule" do you exercise over any part of creation over which you have authority, such as your garden?   Is your approach to dominate and subdue, or to revere and govern wisely?

·        In what way might your understanding of this text govern your gardening practices?

·        Spend time meditating on verse 27.  It's very familiar, but have you ever really taken its meaning and its implications to heart?  Ask the Holy Spirit to take you deeper into the truth of this verse.

·        What do you think about the idea that Creation is an ongoing process – that we are still in Day 6?  Could that provide some basis for a re-think about issues of faith raised by earthquakes and other catastrophic natural disasters?

Romans.  St Paul has a new take on the "no gain without pain" principle; and he applies it across the whole of creation.  Just as humankind, fallen from grace and in the process of being redeemed through the saving work of Christ, experiences pain and suffering along the way, so, too, he says, the rest of creation is being brought through a similar process of pain and suffering to salvation in Christ.  We sometimes want to draw a distinction between human evil, for which we are responsible and natural evil (disasters) for which we are not.  But St Paul does not see things like that.  For him the whole of Creation was affected by the Fall, and the whole of Creation is in the process of being redeemed.

Taking It Personally.

·     Reflect on St Paul's approach: does it change your view in respect of natural disasters?

·     St John the Divine in the Book of Revelation talks about a new heaven and a new earth.  How does that fit with St Paul's idea of the present creation being redeemed, set free, or restored?

·     Ponder especially verse 22.  Is this mage helpful or unhelpful in helping to "understand" why earthquakes, volcanoes, etc, seem to be part of the natural order of things?

·     What is the ambit of the "hope" we have as Christians?  Do we hope for our salvation (humankind only) or do we hope for the redemption of the whole of Creation?

John.  It is widely agreed among scholars that the wonderful Prologue (verses 1-18) is a meditation on the Creation narrative in Genesis re-visited in the light of Christ.  Notice, for example that according to the author of Genesis 1 the first thing that God spoke into existence was light; so the first act of creation was to bring light into the darkness of the chaos that preceded Creation.  So Christ 's coming into the world is seen as the true light coming into the darkness of the world.  And notice too he brings light to all people (verse 4), and not just to a chosen (religious or faithful) few.  Compare that with verse 12, where only those "who received him, [... ] those who believed in his name" are given "the right to become children of God". 

Taking It Personally.

·     Meditate on the passage as a whole, slowly, phrase by phrase.  Try to be open to whatever the Spirit is telling you as you do so. 

·     Notice the intertwining of "light" and "life", as much a fact of the material world as the spiritual one.  And ponder especially verse 5.  What do you take from the phrase "but the darkness has not understood it"?

·     Is verse 10 making the same sort of point? 

·     Are things any better today?

·     This week, every time you turn on a light, say to yourself (or be really brave and say it to anybody else who might be present) "Jesus is the light that shines on in our darkness."