Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Guilford Trees
A while back I had an office in a building near the corner of Westridge Road and Battleground Avenue. There was a parking area that backed up to a gas station, to one neighbor’s back yard, and to a side road called Nathaniel Street. There was a small buffer of a few feet between the parking lot and each of these different bordering pieces of land.
One day while sitting in the parking lot I wrote the following. I call it “Guilford Trees.” I was speaking at first of the small little spaces of trees surrounding the parking lot.
In these rather small spaces a variety of typical local trees are reaching and stretching for sunlight. There is a young sycamore maybe 8 inches in diameter, the trunk completely white, that has bent and wound its way to its spot in the sun. From it hangs many of last fall’s sycamore balls. There are a couple of sweet gum trees, each with its component of unfallen sweet gum balls dangling as they do. There are several young tulip poplars growing tall and straight trying to outrace as it were all others to the open sun. There is a loblolly pine tree (most common tree of my hometown), several Virginia pines, a few maples, a red oak, a dogwood, a white oak, a black locust, and a small hickory tree.
300 years ago before settlement by European colonists, many of these same kinds of trees would have made up the mature forests of the rolling hills and stream bottoms of what is now Guilford County.
It is highly likely that over the course of time well over 95% of the land in Guilford County has at some point been cleared for crops. What has not been cleared for crops has been logged for wood. There are no known stands of “virgin” or even mature climax forest in Guilford County.
In fact, most of the land has been cleared several times over again. The remaining forested parts of our county, even in the creek and river bottom lands, contain second third or even fourth growth forest.
The early settlers who came down from Pennsylvania and Virginia came to an area almost absent of a local Indian population. The Saura Indians based in the present Eden area to our north and Randolph County area to our south had at one time roamed and hunted and even farmed freely in what is now Guilford County. Because of pressure from marauding Iroquois tribes the Saura had fled from the area before it was setled. Yet, they had left their mark. The first settlers were surprised at the number of open fields filled with tall grasses that would reach up to the height of a man’s chest riding on a horse.
But mostly the land was continuous forest. Early settlers cleared the forests for crops lands, usually using poor farming techniques, and either cleared more land or moved on when the soil was depleted or eroded away. Fields would convert back to forest, which future farmers and settlers would clear and log again.
Not only were the forests cleared for growing crops, but the trees were needed for fuel for fireplace and furnace, as well as for building supplies – for wheels and casks and barrels and furniture. Many trees were cut and exported for use by the military or by industries growing up around the country.
Most of the forests we have today are in the midst of various stages of the process of plant succession. Thus on a hike around Lake Brandt one might come across (even in a thickly wooded area), a large oak tree with old branches spreading out horizontally, a sure sign of a tree having grown up in an open space with no competition from neighboring trees, and with no need to waste resources in a race to the top of the canopy. Likewise, amidst stands of mixed hardwood and pine woods one will come across a row of old red cedars, marking no doubt an old fence line dividing field from field.
Had we been able to walk into what is now Guilford County 250 years ago we would have found largely mature hardwood forests, though even some of those forests would have grown up from fields cleared by Indians long before. These mature piedmont forests would have been characterized by a dense high canopy made up primarily of white oak, chestnut, hickory, southern red oak, and tulip poplar, the lower part of the canopy itself perhaps a hundred feet high. At ground level the field of view would have been dominated by large tree trunks spaced much farther apart than we are accustomed in our woods today. Tree trunks would have exceeded two feet in diameter for the great white oaks, and up to four or five feet in diameter for tulip poplars. The forest floor would have been relatively clear of brush, with somewhat of a park-like feel. Under this think canopy would have been scattered dogwood, sourwood, ironwood, redbud, beech, and other smaller trees.
Creek bottoms would have been dominated by huge sycamore trees up to six or more feet in diameter, along with massive tulip poplars, with great beeches and maples on the bluffs.
Through these forests ran many well worn paths, some used by Indians, and many packed and cleared of undergrowth by traveling herds of buffalo. It is hard to believe that in our little section of North Carolina, as recently as 250 years ago, there would have been an abundance of buffalo, wolves, elk, and eastern mountain lions, in addition to the common animals we still see today. It was a wild and often dangerous place!
Clearing this land was not for sissies, but cleared it was, in time almost every single bit of it.
Today we have the privilege of watching many forests coming to regain some of their earlier splendor. With agriculture waning in economic significance, there is the likelihood that if we can set aside enough of the tracks of land that are left, maybe our children and children’s children will have even more opportunity than we had of knowing what it would have been like to wander a piedmont forest of long ago.
Monday, July 13, 2009
My Flapper Grandmother (Nanny)
This is far and away the most-viewed picture on my Flickr site. It is of my grandmother Mary Sue Gillespie, my dad's mom, before she was married to my grandfather I think, and in a beautiful 1920's outfit. The condition of the 80+ year old print was outstanding, and it made for a great scan. "Nanny" was always a classy lady, and a wonderful guide and help and friend to me. I just thought I'd share this photo with you all again.Thursday, July 09, 2009
Patsch, A Village in Western Austria

Got nostalgic about Austria today,, so I went back and looked at some pictures that I took in early April 1978. This little village in Western Austria is called Patsch. In our train tour around the continent we had wearied of the rush and decided to spend a little time in one place, and took a bus ride out to this village. Thanks to Flickr friends for helping me identify the place - I had forgotten.
More Europe in 1978 pictures.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Purple Rock - Badlands SD

I took this on a drive out to Vancouver in August 1980 with my dad. We had taken a detour off I-90 so as to go through the Badlands and we came up on a helicopter - an OLD looking helicopter - sitting on the dirt outside a little shack, with a sign advertising rides. He looked at me and I looked at him and he said "what the hell." So we pulled over. We walked into the shack and there was a very, well, worn looking woman, and she called for "Frank" or whatever his name was, and Frank came stumbling out of the back half asleep. "Want a ride," he said. My dad looked at me, and I looked at him, and he said "what the hell" (again). So Frank started up the chopper and off we went. It was way fun! Dad and I had a blast and got some good pictures too.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Evolution Revolution Devolution
Anyway, a high school student who currently attends a public school, and who used to attend a private Christian school, asked the following (edited) question about evolution, and I answered as best as I could.
Here is the question...
"Well, I am in Biology this year...my exam in on Friday...and we have been studying the theory of evolution. While we were taking notes in class on evolution the verse from Ecclesiastes came into my head, where it says, "there is nothing new under the sun". Based on the verses before and after that verse I don't really think that it had anything to do with that, evolution I mean, but I was just wondering if it did. It was alot easier at (my fomer school) in science class because we were able to talk about these things from a biblical perspective, but being in a public school that is not how it is taught, or how the discussions go (though, really there are no discussions...it is just accepted as fact). So, I don't know. I get confused because some of it makes since...and then all of a sudden the teacher writes something that I am to copy down and I cannot see how anyone could believe it. So, there you go..."
Great question, don't you think?
And here is my answer...
"Dear ****,
You're right, the verse in Ecclesiastes has nothing to do with evolution, though it does speak to any and all ideas that come to man. Philosophically speaking, in terms of how people so quickly and easily jump from evolution to evolutionism, that is, from a scientific/historic theory of development to a purely materialist view of reality, then it's not new under the sun.
You're also right, in public school for the most part one cannot look at this or most other topics from a biblical perspective, or from a Buddhist perspective, or a Hindu perspective, or Scientology perspective, etc. It's a good thing and a bad thing.
I would venture to say that at most Christian schools they don't really look at the topic from all perspectives either (even if the discussion is more open) because they don't take evolution seriously enough to evaluate it and examine and respect it as the powerful model that it is. In my opinion one cannot speak with credibility to a matter if one does not understand it. I have found evolution too easily reduced to silly cliches by those who like it and those who don't.
Yes indeed, some of it makes sense. In fact, a lot of it makes sense. Not all of it makes sense to me or anyone else, but it is a powerful model or framework for understanding change - especially biological - over time.
We have to remember though that the processes that add up to evolutionary theory are strictly impersonal and with no purpose whatsoever. Evolutionary change is not progress; it is just change. There is no "point" to it. But, since we have a hard time swallowing that, we slip personal language into the process. We give the process "purpose."
On the other hand, and this is important, all scientific study has to have a kind of atheistic methodology. If you want to cure cancer, you find the mechanisms that cause it and you don't assume that the gaps of knowledge are to be filled in by God. We don't just say "God made cancer" and let it go at that.
In a similar way if we are curious about how so many of the plants and animals on an isolated island (like Madagascar) are so different, we don't just say "God made them that way," we try to understand how it is that they are or became different. There is nothing wrong with the impulse to want to understand that. That impulse is a significant part of what makes us human beings.
If you take both the Bible and science seriously, which you should, you will grapple with this issue most of your life one way or another. Just try to learn and understand as much as you can.
More later,
Mr. G."
Turning Stones into Bread
In his book Hansen talks about how a person called to be a pastor puts aside the prerogative of what he calls “turning stones into bread” or what I might call “working for a living.” Thus I derive the title of this post from Hansen’s book, though I do not wish to fault him for any bad or erroneous ideas I have come up with on my own!
Technically speaking as a pastor I was not “paid” to do a job as much as “supported” to do that job, in a similar manner as a missionary. OK, that support gets turned into a salary and a paycheck, but the official “call” from the congregation goes like this…”In order that you might devote yourself exclusively to the ministry of the word and pray, we the congregation…”
Once calledin this way, many business instincts are out the window. In my 20 years of pastoral ministry this was one of the most frustrating and also rewarding aspects of the calling.
Although there may have been an indirect correlation between how hard or well I worked on the one hand, and how much money was in the coffers (or in my paycheck) on the other, the pastoral ministry requires that such correlations be far from mind and heart.
If I run a business I can choose to work more hours, spend more money on advertising, or develop new proficiencies with the motive or goal of having more business and as a result more money. I may fail in those efforts, but there is nothing wrong with those efforts or their motivation.
Granted, one would hope that I see some greater good being served through my work, but seeking to provide better for myself and family is a perfectly decent motivation. It isn’t in the church. The moment I am connecting anything I do as a pastor with an increase in “business” (more money coming in) and the normally concomitant increase in “salary,” well, I have profaned the calling and am worthy only to be cast out of it.
Just think of the mischief to which such a motivational correlation would lead . First, it would cause me to spend more energy “courting” wealthier visitors than poorer visitors. Such favoritism is an obscenity. Second, it would lead me to focus pastoral attention and care more on those who offer possibility of financial return rather than on those who really need the care. Usually in such scenarios the mentally ill, the elderly, and the needy get shorted. Third, it would lead me to focus a church outreach on an affluent neighborhood rather than a poorer neighborhood. There is nothing inherently wrong with outreach in a more affluent neighborhood of course;, well, depending…(This reminds me of the almost universal tendency for church plants to be located in what are, on average, more affluent areas. Something seems wrong with that picture.) Fourth, the motive of “building the business” might be the driving force for all sorts of interesting and hip advertising campaigns. That would be bad.
Had he not been called to fast, and were he not being tempted to distrust his Father, there may have been nothing wrong with Jesus turning a stone into bread. Likewise as a pastor I gave up the right to work for my personal well being and benefit, especially financially. I gave up, as it were, the right to turn stones into bread.
On the positive side giving up that right forced me to trust and to pray more. God’s faithful provision over the years for my family’s needs also trained me to attend to the essentials of the calling while being able to rest in the knowledge that He had taken care of us all along the way and would continue to do so.
I was raised in a family of small businesses – my dad, his parents, my mother’s parents, my siblings, and so forth. I sought out work as soon as I was old enough to push a mower, and always had money. If I ran low I went out and made more money. If I needed to I advertised. If I needed to I sought work in the rich neighborhoods rather than the poor ones. If I needed to I worked dawn to dusk day after day.
And so, on the negative side, giving up the “right” to turn stones into bread went against almost every instinct I had and have. This reminds of my first rugby game at Clemson. I played left wing, and I remember on about our first offensive move down the field, after the ball came to me, my football instinct kicked in. I saw a crease and I cut and I ran for it. Had it been football I would have made a twenty yard gain, gotten a first down, and lots of pats on the head. But it was rugby. All I did was cause our team to lose possession once I was down. I got a few knocks on the head for being stupid, that’s about it.
After being well trained in the ministry mindset I am now back in that other world. All in all, I think I like it. It’s scary in a whole different way, but I am enjoying the opportunity to think creatively about how to survive.
As you think of your pastor or rabbi or priest, remember the unique challenge it may be to him or to her to give up the right to turn stones into bread. Be generous and do what you can to allay the anxieties that may eat away and tempt him or her to take that stone, that calling to trust and wait while being devoted to word and prayer, and turn it into bread. The temptation is always there. It can be insidious.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
I'm Not Dead Yet, Am I?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Twitter: From Mother Lode to Overload
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Birds
Friday, June 12, 2009
Working It and Keeping It
It says in Genesis 2:8 that “the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” It goes on to say in 2:15 that “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” All this of course follows, and to a great extent explains, the more general description of man’s purpose as found in Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
OK, so back to our yards…for those of you that accept the importance and significance of what we read in Genesis above…
Our yard or garden is one little spot under the sun that God has given us that we might exercise dominion over His creation. We can rightly say indeed that by God’s providence He Himself has given our yard or garden to us and placed us in it. Genesis 2 helps understand the nature of this dominion. We are placed in our little bit of creation “to work it and keep it.”
So what does exercise dominion in the sense of “working it and keeping it” look like?
I think that “working it and keeping it” means making our place as beautiful as we reasonably can, since God made His world to be beautiful and pleasing, reflecting back as it were the beauty of His own person. As He created, He Himself liked what He saw, and He pronounced it “good.” I wonder if He would say “good” as to how we have worked and kept our bit of creation? Beauty is important to the Creator of all that is beautiful, and it is important to our neighbor. Indeed, we have more than enough ugliness to contend with on a day to day basis as it is. Beauty is itself a kind of sanctuary.
"Working it and keeping it” means that we seek to extract as much potential goodness out of our little piece of God’s earth as we can. This may mean working the soil to make it even richer, or planting trees and shrubs and flowers that will draw out the fruitfulness of the earth in beautiful and exciting ways. Many of these plants will then provide food for our animal friends. We can plant food for ourselves too – enough even to give some to our needy neighbors. In so doing we extract out a goodness that was there only as it were in waiting for us.
“Working it and keeping it” includes seeking to bless not just other people but all of God’s creatures in and by the bit of the earth He has loaned to us. Birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, arachnids – all these can find a home and sources of food in our little spot of the earth. Each adds richness to creation and joy to human life (yes, even spiders when adequately understood). I think of the various animals being brought before Adam (who was alone), each of which (with affection I believe) he named (and blessed in so doing), and I can’t help but think that we were meant to be friends to the animals, and a means by which God blesses them. I believe that animals (especially the higher animals of course) experience a kind of happiness in living, in simply being unselfconsciously what they are. And we get to help bring that about, working in cooperation with Him “who fathers-forth whose beauty is past change. Praise Him.”
“Working it and keeping it” would include I believe care for our human neighbors all around us – within sight and earshot, but also downwind and downstream. Do I really wish to disturb my neighbor’s peace with my power blower? Do I want to pollute the air and water of all my neighbors downstream and downwind? I don’t. Neither do I wish to bring harm to God’s creatures downwind and downstream either.
“Working it and keeping it” could well include providing a place of beauty and haven and rest for needy and wounded souls battered by the difficulties of this life. Even though beaten and battered ourselves, we can extend hospitality to others by giving them a place to rest and to refresh. The smallest yard can be this kind of place, even a porch garden.
I remember many times in my life when I have been struck at how an extremely small and humble home and yard can be made into a haven of beauty. This can happen amidst urban blight, in a small abode tucked next to a freeway, or in a poor rural cottage. Living well in this way is not restricted to the rich or to those with lots of money to spend on their properties. Within humble means we can bring beauty out of ugliness, working and keeping the little spot in which God has placed us.





