A Net friend wrote:

With the theme of this coming Sunday being “Sustaining Creation” my mind has turned to a little philosophising about the subject – helped always of course by the events in my Congregation.

On the one hand, I am delighted to be able to provide those environmentalists in the Congregation with a biblical and theological foundation for their activism.

On the other hand, I am wondering about the value-laden descriptions we use. It seems that the word “natural” has almost become an attribution of goodness. A congregant who is pregnant, and thus cautious about the effect of chemicals on her rapidly developing unborn child, pointed out that just because a chemical was “natural” didn’t make it safe. (We were talking about pyrethrins in insecticides as I comtemplated a spider in the manse.)

At the moment, the church grounds are an exhibit of nature. Some ducks have claimed the church as their own and are waddling around with a brood of chicks in tow. Some plovers have also brought their young to the church grounds for sanctuary during these early months and viciously strafe anybody who comes close. (Except for me. After several seasons they seem to regard me as part of the environment.) At the same time, some boys in the children’s club of an afternoon take great delight in chasing the plovers who chase them. I’ve often wondered if I should take a greater role in stopping them, BUT, are not their actions also a part of nature? Talking with young parents there seems to be a realisation that the release of testosterone in boys has a real and powerful effect on their behaviour. Are testosterone laden boys chasing plovers any less an aspect of nature than hormonally laden plovers chasing them?

Of course, Creation cannot simply be equated with nature; there is a ssense of bringing order out of chaos. But whose order?