Abstract
With the growing awareness of ecological crises, churches worldwide are integrating care for creation into liturgical worship. Such practices, however, remain scarcely researched. This study addresses this lacuna by conducting an ecocritical reading of some of the Church of Norway's liturgical prayers, generally known as “collects.” These concise, yet theologically dense prayers set the tone and encapsulate the theme of the service. This article focuses on selected collects specifically crafted for services that emphasize care for creation, and addresses the question: How effective are these collects, both as liturgical prayers and in incorporating ecological concerns into Christian worship? Using an ecological hermeneutic, three lenses were developed through which prayers are read: prayer and instrumentality, immanence and transcendence, and the relationship between humanity and non-human creation. This study highlights the significant variations revealed employing these three lenses, offering valuable insights into both liturgical and ecotheological discourses.
Keywords
Introduction
The public's growing awareness of ecological crises has spurred interest in ecotheology, a sub-discipline of Christian theology that explores theology and ecology's intersection. 1 Although the broader field of ecotheology has garnered attention, the specific intersection between liturgy and ecotheology remains relatively unexplored. 2 Discussions within this intersection have focused on theoretical considerations 3 or liturgy's (especially the sacrament's) ecological potential. 4 There exists a noticeable gap in the systematic analysis of actual or lived eco-liturgical practices. Thus, investigating these practices from a theological perspective can offer insights into how Christian worship engages with and responds to the pressing issues of our time. Such examination could be conducted either through an examination of unpublished data or the hermeneutics of published sources. This study focuses on the latter.
This article aims to fill this gap by conducting an ecocritical reading of a specific aspect of liturgical practices, namely, the collect. In most Western liturgical traditions, the collect is the prayer that concludes the opening rites. It has a particular literary form and is usually related to the scriptural texts and the church year which have an important role in setting the theme for the service. Three “green” collects—i.e., collects written explicitly for use in worship services that emphasize care for creation—are examined. These collects are drawn from various publications containing resources for congregations in the Church of Norway; in this context, they seem to be the only examples of such collects.
By delving into these collects’ linguistic and structural dimensions and employing an ecological hermeneutic, the theological intricacies shaping contemporary Christian eco-liturgical practices are examined, thus revealing the evolving relationships among theology, liturgy, and ecological consciousness. The question addressed is, “How successful are these collects as liturgical prayers that integrate ecological concerns into Christian worship?” In doing so, this research contributes to the scholarly discourse on the liturgy–ecotheology intersection and addresses the practical implications for faith communities navigating ecological responsibility's complex terrain within the context of worship.
I begin with a brief deliberation on ecological hermeneutics, the main analytical tool used to analyze the collects. Additionally, three ecocritical lenses through which the collects have been read are presented. Next, a brief overview of the collect as a form of prayer is provided as well as how it is structured in terms of form. The relevant collects are then analyzed in view of these three ecocritical lenses. In conclusion, a judgment is posited regarding the success or otherwise of the collects drawn from the official Church of Norway missal as opposed to those taken from an activist context.
Ecological Hermeneutics and Liturgy
Churches worldwide are striving to rediscover liturgy's inherent potential to promote ecological awareness and create new and more ecologically sensitive liturgies. These new practices, however, remain scarcely researched. Such practices, it is suggested, should be read critically using an ecological hermeneutic as a lens.
An ecological hermeneutic, as defined by Norman Habel, comprises a three-fold process similar to other comparable models, such as feminist hermeneutics.
5
The steps of this process include:
* hermeneutics of suspicion (assuming and revealing the text's inherent anthropocentricity), * identification (realizing one's own connectedness to Earth and its inhabitants), and * retrieval (recovering and highlighting Earth in the text).
6
While ecological hermeneutics has been mostly employed within the field of biblical studies, it is methodologically suitable for liturgical studies. Reading liturgical texts ecocritically reveals their anthropocentric nature.
7
This allows us to recontextualize liturgy in such a way that the earth is considered not merely as an object but a subject, of which human beings are a part and with whom they have a mutual dependency.
8
An ecocritical reading of the three collect prayers involves the use of three specific lenses: prayer and instrumentality, immanence and transcendence, and the relationship between humanity and non-human creation. These lenses will be used to explore the theological nuances of prayers and evaluate how well they achieve their goals. The observations noted in using three lenses are discussed in the following sections.
Prayer and Instrumentality
The first of the three ecocritical lenses addresses the purpose of prayer, that of liturgical prayer. When working with prayers composed for specific purposes—e.g., worship services aiming to bring attention to ecological crises—it is imperative to consider whether such prayers can affect the congregation's views and attitudes concerning ecological matters such as climate change.
Collects in the Lutheran tradition exemplify this well. Some Lutheran churches, including the Church of Norway, base their collects on those of Veit Dietrich, a German reformer and a friend of Martin Luther's. Dietrich's collects were originally published as part of a collection of homilies and were not intended to be recited at the altar; however, because of their clear reformation theology and close relationship with the lessons, they started to spread throughout Lutheran churches. After being introduced as alternatives to traditional collects, Dietrich's collects became popular in the churches of Denmark and Norway, eventually replacing traditional ones. 9 They remained in the Church of Norway until new collects were composed in 2014.
However, Dietrich's collects have faced criticism. Norwegian liturgical historian Helge Fæhn considers them to contain “pedantic allusions to the Gospel,” 10 and the Danish fellowship Theologisk Oratorium considered them “unfit for prayer” due to their considerable dogmatic character. 11 These critiques highlight the issue of the liturgical use of prayers that are strongly dogmatic, even pedagogical, in character. As a result, that prayer is essentially instrumentalized, taking on a teaching role rather than a devotional one.
The significant emphasis on doctrine and proper reformation theology found in the Dietrich tradition could lead to an understanding of prayer such as the one expressed by Kierkegaard, who once wrote that “prayer does not change God, but it changes the one who prays.”
12
While liturgy can certainly function as an agent of change
13
and bring forth social justice,
14
this cannot be its primary purpose.
15
As Griffiths points out, [L]iturgical work … is done without interest or concern for outcome. We do not receive the body and blood or hear the word or sing praises to the Lord because we think that doing these things improves us morally, makes us healthier, provides us material blessings, or conforms us to Christ—even though it may do some or all of these things.
16
Immanence and Transcendence
The second ecocritical lens relates to the issues of immanence and transcendence in divine representations. Christian theology has often been accused of maintaining a transcendent view of God, which, in turn, has led to Christian neglect of nature. Lynn White claimed that in Christianity, “Man [sic] shares, in great measure, God's transcendence of nature.” 17 The transcendence of both humanity and God in relation to the created world is one with which ecotheology has struggled since its conception.
Emphasizing God's immanence, however, has problematic implications. While emphasis solely on divine transcendence leads to a distant God, emphasis solely on immanence leads to a lack of distinction between creator and creature.
18
The solution, therefore, must lie in preserving both transcendence and immanence as vital characteristics of the Divine. According to Moltmann, the solution to this conundrum can be found in Trinitarian theology: The trinitarian concept of creation binds together God's transcendence and his immanence. … In the panentheistic view, God, having created the world, also dwells in it, and conversely the world which he has created exists in him. This is a concept which can only be thought and described in trinitarian terms.
19
The Relationship between Humanity and Non-Human Creation
The final ecocritical lens examines the relationship between humanity and non-human creation. Within Christianity, the dominant approach has been anthropocentrism which focuses on human superiority over non-human creation, and is considered to have primarily instrumental value insofar as it benefits humanity. This is commonly supported by the appeal to imago Dei and the command to rule over creation given in Gen 1:26–28. White points to the development of an anthropocentric view within Christianity during the medieval era as a root cause of modern ecological crises and claims that “Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” 20 A central task suggested for ecotheologians is to offer an alternative perspective. 21
Tomren posits four perspectives on environmental ethics: anthropocentrism, biocentrism, ecocentrism, and theocentrism. 22 Biocentrism and ecocentrism both consider non-human creation to have intrinsic value but for slightly different reasons. Biocentrism considers living organisms to be valuable, either as individual beings or as entire species, whereas ecocentrism more broadly prescribes value to ecosystems or the whole of nature. 23
Theocentrism, the final perspective, grounds the value of non-human creation in God. Thus, non-human nature is considered valuable insofar as it is created by God, while humanity is given a divine responsibility to care for it. This perspective is often combined with one of the other three and can be considered a meta-perspective. 24
This distinction succinctly describes the main tendencies in justifying non-human creation's value and is useful in reading liturgy ecocritically. These perspectives, however, are not mutually exclusive, and one will often find that the same text can appeal to several different justifications.
On the Collect
The collect is a characteristic liturgical feature found only in Western liturgical traditions. 25 The word “collect” derives from the Latin “collecta,” and refers to “a gathering up of the prayers of the community by the presider.” 26 It also may signify the gathering of the assembly, 27 as in most liturgical traditions it concludes the introductory rites. Additionally, the collect introduces themes of the present liturgical season and readings in the Liturgy of the Word in broad theological terms. 28
Due to their close relationship with the liturgical season and lessons, collects composed for specific purposes are rare. The collect has a very specific structure and may even be considered a literary form; thus, it is well suited for literary-critical analysis. 29 Fortescue describes the collect as fourfold in structure, consisting of invocation, reasoning, petition, and adjuration. 30 Similarly, Lathrop identifies the structure as twofold, highlighting praise and petition, “surrounded by a formula address and a concluding doxology.” 31 In this investigation, I have also added a purpose clause that has been employed previously. 32 In this study, the collect's structure is considered to comprise five parts: invocation, acknowledgment, petition, purpose, and adjuration.
Invocation
The invocation or address opens prayers by calling upon the divine name. In classical collects, the invocation is always to God the Father, and, in more modern usage, occasionally to the Son. 33 The evocation can be simple (i.e., “God”) or composite (“Almighty God,” etc.). 34 Composite invocations often contribute significantly to the prayer's tone, as they single out specific divine attributes.
Acknowledgment
This acknowledgment expands upon invocation, further reflecting some divine attributes related to the petition. 35 According to Dudley, the acknowledgment is “the reason God should hear and answer the prayer.” 36 Meanwhile, De Zan refers to this as an extension of the invocation in the form of an apposition or a relative phrase. 37 For Lathrop, the sequence of acknowledgment and petition is akin to that of “praise and beseeching,” which he sees as a fundamental juxtaposition in the liturgy. 38 Barbee and Zahl note that in some cases, “what is acknowledged is our weakness or frailty or sinfulness.” 39 In these cases, the acknowledgment serves the function of preparing for the petition; however, rather than expanding upon the invocation, it emphasizes humanity's need for God's intervention. In this way, prayer becomes a juxtaposition of lamentation and praise, followed by beseeching. 40 This gives these prayers a different tone from that of traditional prayers.
Petition
This is the main section of the collect in which specific requests or intentions are expressed. In traditional collects, the petition is short and simple, asking for “one thing only.” 41 In modern collects, the petition is occasionally more extensive but usually focused on one or a few points.
Purpose
The purpose is an articulation of the intended outcome of the prayer. It is commonly introduced by a subordinating conjunction such as “[so] that” 42 or similar. This clause highlights that the “petition … is not an end in itself but claims a higher purpose.” 43 As such, the petition is more precisely understood as a means to some greater end, as expressed in the purpose clause.
Adjuration
The adjuration concludes the collect, normally with a traditional trinitarian formula. According to De Zan, the adjuration is “the most obvious structural element which distinguishes the collect from other formulae.” 44 While variations in the adjuration are exhibited in the discussed prayers below, the variations are not sufficiently significant from the traditional formula to warrant any discussion here.
Analysis
Responsibility and Hope, 1992
The aforementioned “green” collects of Norwegian liturgies are now analyzed. The first prayer examined was published in Ansvar og håp (Responsibility and Hope), a resource book intended to stimulate environmental engagement in local congregations.
45
This book was an important pioneering work in the Norwegian context. It contains a breadth of liturgical resources but only one collect, which is analyzed here using the five-part model described earlier. It reads as follows:
4.1.1. Invocation
The prayer opens with a composite invocation, “Merciful God.” Highlighting mercy as a significant divine attribute in an ecological context reveals a focus on the need for God's compassion and even intervention in the face of grave ecological crises. Mercy is intimately tied to salvation, implying that ecological issues are of such importance to humanity that they may be deemed soteriological in scope. The description of God as merciful implies that God is actively engaged with and concerned with the well-being of individuals and creation. This intimate involvement denotes a sense of immanence, as God is present and compassionate towards the struggles and shortcomings of humanity.
4.1.2. Acknowledgment
The acknowledgment of this prayer focuses on humanity's failures in relation to non-human creation. It begins by stating that the earth is given by God and should be protected and stewarded according to God's will. Notably, while a typical acknowledgment focuses on divine attributes, the focus shifts to divine commands. Therefore, this section does not functionally serve as an acknowledgment; instead, it suggests that the prayer's intention is to teach the congregation of this divine command. This prayer thus serves as an instrument of theological ethics rather than an act of devotion and worship.
Further, the acknowledgment contains a second divine invocation, “Lord,” indicating humility and a recognition of divine sovereignty and authority, juxtaposed with human limitations and fallibility. After this secondary invocation, two things are acknowledged: first, a fear for “the future of our earth,” and second, humanity's involvement in “destroying the earth.” This reads like a confession of what Deane-Drummond has called “anthropogenic sin,” 47 that is, acknowledging ecological crises to be caused in large part by the neglect of humanity to protect and steward. This section underscores the soteriological dimension revealed by this invocation, indicating that ecological crises are of grave spiritual importance.
This section also reveals, however, a distinct anthropocentric focus. Non-human creation is consistently referred to as the “earth,” rather than with theocentric language such as “creation,” or biocentric language such as “every living thing.” The fear of ecological collapse is the destruction of the earth, “both for ourselves and for those who come after us.” In other words, it is not primarily because it would be an offense to God nor because non-human creation is inherently valuable, but because of the dangers it presents to humanity that ecological crises matter greatly.
4.1.3. Petition
The petition, “Help us to find a solution to the pollution problems,” serves as a recognition of the urgent challenges posed by pollution to our planet. Singling out pollution as the major driving force in destroying the earth contrasts with the more general perspective on environmental issues earlier in the prayer. The petition acknowledges the limitations of human efforts alone in addressing complex environmental issues. Despite the gravity of the pollution problems, the petition carries an underlying sense of hope and optimism which suggests a belief in the possibility of positive change through concerted human action with some help from God.
4.1.4. Purpose
The purpose of the petition is that “we can have hope and a future,” possibly a reference to Jer 29:11. In the context of Jeremiah, the promise of hope and future in this verse is given to Israel in Babylonian exile. Thus, it reads as a promise of salvation, further emphasizing the soteriological dimension of the prayer. Hope and a future are also to be gained here “on earth.” It is, therefore, not an eschatological hope for a new creation, but a hope for the present world to be saved from the ills inflicted by humanity.
Green Church Book, 2007
The second prayer is taken from the book Grønn kirkebok, literally “Green Church Book,” which consists of resources and articles aimed to help congregations in the Church of Norway put a focus on ecological consciousness in their work. Among the resources provided in the book is a series of services celebrated at various congregations. One of them is a service celebrated in honor of the Kyoto Protocol,
48
and the following collect appears in this service:
4.2.1. Invocation
This prayer opens with the composite invocation “Heavenly Father” enhanced further by the appositional phrase “creator of heaven and earth.” The invocation “Heavenly Father” at the same time highlights God's transcendence vis-à-vis humanity, in being “heavenly” as opposed to “earthly,” as well as being the “Father” of humanity, thus emphasizing an intimate connection. By using the agent noun “creator,” the invocation focuses on God's capacity to create, rather than a specific act of creation at some time in the past, and as such suggests God being intimately and continually engaged in the act of creation. It highlights God's agency and involvement in bringing forth and sustaining the world, emphasizing a sense of vitality and ongoing creativity, and thus, a God who is immanent.
4.2.2. Acknowledgment
The acknowledgment begins with a lengthy thanksgiving for every living thing: the birds of the air, animals on land, and fish in the sea. This hearkens back to the creation narrative in Genesis, which also divides life into these three distinct spheres. It continues by emphasizing God's “goodness and creating joy that we encounter in … creation.” This reveals a view of creation as fundamentally good and acknowledges the importance of encountering God in nature in ecologically conscious spirituality. It is noteworthy, however, that the emphasis is on creation rather than the creator.
Two phrases in this prayer appear to have been borrowed from the Church of Norway's missal. First, the phrase “all that we have belongs to you” is taken from the thanksgiving prayer read after the offering. 50 In both contexts, this phrase reminds the assembly that God is ultimately the source and end of all things, and therefore that one has responsibility as a steward. The phrase “holy responsibility” appears in the baptismal liturgy. There, the responsibility of the parents, godparents and/or sponsors to the one being baptized is described as a “holy responsibility.” 51 The connection of this phrase to the eucharistic sacrament gives it a certain gravitas, and recontextualizing it in relation to ecological issues thus evokes a sense of importance and urgency.
The “holy responsibility” is threefold, and involves fighting for life, stewardship of creation, and building community. These three dimensions of holy responsibility reveal different aspects of the role humanity plays in creation. The fight for life, juxtaposed with thanksgiving for every living creature, implies that all life is inherently valuable, not just to the degree that it is valuable to humanity. This points to an other-than-anthropocentric view of non-human creation. Stewardship of creation pertains to the relatively absolute power that humanity has over non-human creation, which entails the responsibility to be faithful stewards. Building community emphasizes the communal and ecclesiological dimensions of successfully dealing with ecological issues, and perhaps implies its social justice aspect. 52 This responsibility is also not one that humanity is given or does on behalf of, but that humanity shares in alongside God, again indicating an intimate relationship between creator and creation. Humanity's care for creation is thus a reflection of how God cares for creation.
4.2.3. Petition
The petition is essentially an epiclesis, asking for “the power of [the] Holy Spirit.” Invoking the power of the Spirit highlights divine action and immanence in the world as necessary components for combating ecological crises.
4.2.4. Purpose
The purpose of being granted the power of the Holy Spirit is that humanity should “live according to [God's] good will in harmony with the environment of which we are a part.” Living in harmony with the environment is God's good will, again revealing an other-than-anthropocentric view of creation. The phrase “of which we are a part” highlights that humankind is not wholly distinct from non-human creation. The prayer has previously highlighted the immanent aspects of God's relationship with humanity; now, it similarly emphasizes that humanity is immanent to non-human creation.
Collect for Creation—2014
The third prayer was taken from the missal of the Church of Norway. After the liturgical revision of 2011 in the Church of Norway, a new lectionary was released that included the “Day of Creation.” With the “Day of Creation” now an official celebration with its own designated readings in the lectionary, a collect with the title “For creation” was added in the 2014 revision of the collects.
53
This collect reads as follows:
4.3.1. Invocation
This prayer opens with the composite invocation “Eternal God.” In highlighting the eternal aspect of the divine, emphasis is immediately placed on God's transcendent and timeless nature in comparison to the created order.
4.3.2. Acknowledgment
The invocation is followed by a brief acknowledgment, “you created the heavens and the earth and all that lives.” Like the 2007 prayer, this phrase places an emphasis on God as sovereign and the source of all things, but with a slightly different nuance. While the second prayer took on an active form, the verb in this prayer is in the past tense, evoking the sense that the act of creating is somehow finished, rather than being a dynamic process in which God continues to be involved; in other words, God is transcendent to creation more so than immanent.
What God has created, is “the heavens and the earth”—again echoing the creation narrative in Genesis—and “all that lives.” Humanity is thus not singled out particularly. This hints at a form of kinship between every living thing, all having been given life by the same creator.
4.3.3. Petition
The petition consists of two components: “Grant us joy over your creation” and “Open our eyes to the wonderful life.” Both highlight the significance of experiencing joy and gratitude for non-human creation, with a clear emphasis on human experience. In this view, ecologically-conscious spirituality must be fundamentally rooted in a sense of reverence for non-human creation.
4.3.4. Purpose
The purpose of cultivating joy and reverence for non-human creation is twofold: first, to refrain from depleting nature, and second, to care for and share gifts bestowed by God in a responsible and just manner. In this way, the prayer advocates for a fundamental shift away from exploitative attitudes towards the environment, emphasizing instead stewardship and sustainability, and highlighting the intrinsic link between environmental sustainability and social justice.
Discussion
Prayer and Instrumentality
As previously discussed, in the Church of Norway, the collects of Veit Dietrich replaced the traditional missal collects. These collects, which were considerably more dogmatic than the missal collects, remained in the church's missal until 2014. This means that the 1992 and 2007 collects were both formulated during a period in which the Dietrich collects formed the basis for the collect prayer in the Church of Norway. This might be why these collects also seem to take on a particularly instrumental role: in this case, not to teach the congregation proper reformation theology, but rather sustainability and environmental responsibility. In the acknowledgment of both prayers, emphasis is placed on a divinely given command to care for earth. The 2014 collect, however, has a short and succinct style that more closely resembles traditional missal collects. This difference was to be expected, as the 2014 collect was produced by church officials, while the 1992 and 2007 collects emerged from more activistic contexts.
Given the issues facing the world today, the ability to balance liturgical innovation—in a way that allows the liturgy to remain relevant to contemporary Christian communities without reducing it to a means to an end—is indeed a difficult endeavor, and yet it remains an essential task for the liturgist. The 2014 collect managed this fairly well. This collect places emphasis on human experience and, as such, sees proper care for creation as a result that springs forth from a greater appreciation of both creation and creator, rather than simply an outcome of the prayer.
Immanence and Transcendence
The relationship between God and creation was explored using the concepts of immanence and transcendence. In the collects, the invocations in particular reveal differing conceptions of immanence and transcendence: the 1992 collect emphasized immanence through highlighting the divine attribute of mercy, the 2014 collect emphasized transcendence and the eternal aspect of God, while the 2007 collect highlighted both aspects, with God being both “heavenly Father” and “creator.” The 2007 collect also emphasized immanence not only in the relationship between God and humanity, but also between humanity and non-human creation. It is also the only prayer to contain an explicit epiclesis.
Relationship between Humanity and Non-Human Creation
The three collects also revealed different attitudes concerning the relationship between humanity and non-human creation. The 1992 collect displayed clear anthropocentric tendencies: it emphasized earth as given to humanity, humanity's failure to protect and steward it, and the fearful consequences of ecological crises for human beings. It did not, however, resort to eschatological escapism but emphasizes hope in a future on earth.
The 2007 collect began with a lengthy thanksgiving for every living thing and emphasized that the responsibility to care for non-human creation is something that we share alongside God. It exhibits traits of both biocentrism, through the appreciation of living beings as valuable in themselves, and theocentrism, in appreciating care for creation as a God-given responsibility rather than simply a human necessity.
The 2014 collect explicitly connected caring for non-human creation to cultivating reverence for it. Thus, the collect suggests that ecological crises stem from deeper issues beyond environmental degradation, such as pollution or deforestation. Rather, humanity's perception of nature and its place within it lies at the heart of these crises. 56 By addressing these underlying beliefs and values, the prayer advocates a holistic transformation of our attitudes and behaviors towards non-human creation. Through an emphasis of God as creator of not just humanity, but “all that lives,” the kinship between humanity and non-human creation is highlighted. Nevertheless, despite showing some traits of other views, the clear emphasis on human experience, neglect, and responsibility highlights a fundamentally anthropocentric view albeit a weaker kind of anthropocentrism than that found in the 1992 prayer.
Conclusion
In this article, I have examined three “green” collects written specifically for use in worship services that emphasize care for creation in the Church of Norway. These were drawn from two resource books published in 1992 and 2007, and from the official missal of the Church of Norway, the collects of which were written in 2014. By examining these three collects, significant variations regarding both liturgical theology and ecotheology were uncovered. In this discussion, three different lenses were employed for reading these prayers ecocritically: prayer and instrumentality, immanence and transcendence, and the relationship between humanity and non-human creation.
The analysis revealed that the 1992 and 2007 prayers exhibited an instrumental view of prayer, wherein the goal of prayer shifted towards teaching ecological responsibility to the congregation. This instrumental view of prayer was linked to the post-Reformation tradition of collects after Veit Dietrich, on which the collects in the Church of Norway were based until 2014. Dietrich's collects have been critiqued for their strong dogmatic traits, leading to a language of prayer that is more concerned with teaching ethics and dogma than with devotion. The 1992 and 2007 collects appear to follow this tradition, with significant emphasis on environmental ethics.
In exploring the concepts of divine transcendence and immanence, the 1992 collect emphasized divine immanence by highlighting divine mercy and intervention, whereas the 2014 collect focused on God's transcendence and eternal nature. The 2007 collect to a greater extent managed to hold a more nuanced perspective in which God is both immanent and transcendent, an essential balance that is revealed and underpinned by trinitarian theology.
Finally, in discussing the relationship between humanity and non-human creation, the 1992 prayer showed clear anthropocentric tendencies, highlighting human responsibility and anthropogenic sin as well as the consequences of ecological collapse for humanity. The 2014 prayer exhibited a weaker form of anthropocentrism, still placing a certain emphasis on human experience, but having traces of other models present that called for a holistic transformation of human attitudes towards non-human creation. The 2007 collect exhibited the traits of biocentrism and theocentrism more clearly, emphasizing both the intrinsic value of non-human creation and God as the source and end of all living things.
The question I sought to answer through this investigation is how successful these collects are, both in how they function as liturgical prayers and how they integrate ecological concerns into a worship context. In response to the first part of the question, the 1992 and 2007 collects appear to have been instrumental in their approach. These prayers are clearly aimed more towards the congregation than towards God and seek to teach the congregation about environmental issues and ethics. The 2014 collect to a greater degree maintained the liturgical style typically found in the classical collect. This finding is not surprising, given that the 1992 and 2007 collects come from more activist contexts, while the 2014 collect is part of the official church missal. Regarding the second part of the question concerning the integration of ecological concerns, while all three prayers have their merits, the 2007 collect appears to be the most successful, both in balancing immanence and transcendence and in avoiding anthropocentrism.
In summary, by using an ecocritical framework comprising three specific lenses, it has been possible to show how the different conceptions of God incorporated in three “green” collects used in the Church of Norway encourage disparate attitudes of Christian towards the relations between humanity and the created world and different understandings of the role that the Christian must play in combating the ecological crises faced by today's world. The ecological recontextualization of prayer remains an important endeavor, as we face the increasingly grave consequences of imminent ecological catastrophes; however, it must be done with utmost care by the liturgist. Balancing the concerns highlighted in this article could potentially result in the creation of new transformative liturgical practices while retaining the fundamental devotional character integral to Christian worship.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
