The truth about pruning

You’ve probably heard at least one sermon or read at least one book on spiritual growth which refers to us being “pruned” by God, usually in reference to John 15:1-2, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

PruningI know next to nothing about pruning trees. (I know Jesus was referring to grapevines, not trees, but I think my tree analogy will work. I know nothing about pruning grapevines, either.) I know to trim off “shooters” that do nothing but sap energy from the “good” branches, and that dead branches can be removed. But other than that, you wouldn’t want me close to any of your trees. I have a number of trees on my property, but no fruit-bearing varieties. Any pruning we do is simply for aesthetics; that is, we want our trees to look nice. Branches are trimmed so the trees will “fill out,” and branches that go off in weird directions will be snipped for that reason. One commentary that I saw on John 15 said that God’s pruning process was designed to make us “look more like Jesus.” So, you can understand why my assumption (although to be honest, before now I never really thought that much about it) was that the more we are pruned, the better we will look.

For many years we had lived in the middle of suburban San Diego, in a development of nearly identical tract homes with very few mature trees. Five years ago we moved to Oregon, which is pretty much just a huge forest with a few clearings where people can live. We live one block from the edge of town, and right across the street from the city limits are some peach and cherry orchards, which I would drive by every day on my way to and from work. One day a couple of years ago, I was shocked at the aftermath of an apparent pruning: there were huge piles of branches on the ground below the trees, so much so that it seemed the poor trees had no branches left. I wish I had taken a photograph of it, but by the time I thought to go back with my camera, the debris had been removed, leaving just the poor naked trees to wait for leaves and new growth.

This year, another pruning has taken place in the orchard around the corner; not as drastic as that first year, but enough so that a couple of days ago I walked over and took some photos. As I stood looking for the best angle, I had an epiphany: Weirdscape Pruning makes you ugly, not better-looking. I stood looking at the freshly-pruned trees, which were obviously the most mature of the trees in the orchard from their size, thinking that they could have been models for the Headless Horseman’s tree in Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow. They were gnarled and scarred, and no longer had the same natural beauty and symmetry that younger trees on either side had. If my hunch is correct, it’s only a matter of time before the younger trees, too, will be pruned to the point of ugliness, for the sake of better (and more) fruit.Pruning the Orchard

Pruning makes you ugly – I had never stopped to think about that before (and don’t recall this ever being preached on – chances are it’s not a popular sermon topic, and not one that’s apt to make visitors return to your church). Obviously, the point of this kind of pruning is the fruit, not the beauty of the tree.

Now for the deep spiritual insight that you’ve all been expecting: How many times do we look at ourselves and get disappointed at our ugliness? Unless, of course, you’re a guy who sees it as rugged good looks. But seriously, don’t we look at our scars and our gnarled and sometimes missing limbs, and start to think that God’s somehow forgotten to heal us? I think we forget that “looking good” – one of my few life-long goals – is not the point. We judge ourselves, and others, on meaningless things like symmetry and lack of what we consider to be defects. But, God’s job is to prune us, and pruning ruins all of that. Everything we think is fine, gets damaged or removed. What God knows is that a fruit tree’s only real asset is its ability to produce fruit, and therefore a scar is a beautiful thing.

Posted in Spiritual stuff | Leave a comment

The Freedom of Speech Awards

I love the concept of “Freedom of Speech,” at least the way it was originally conceived. Freedom of Speech was granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, the founding fathers would probably have been a bit more concise in their wording had they conceived of the kind of perversities now considered to be “free speech” (some of which do not involve “speech” at all…), but that’s a topic for another time. I suspect they had in mind the abuses they had just fought against, specifically right to speak against the government without being shot or hanged (by the government, that is…).

Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing. So wonderful, in fact, that I have decided to establish my own “Alden’s Blurt Freedom of Speech Awards.” This just means that whenever I feel like it, I will pick someone who is exercising their Constitutional right of Free Speech, and spotlight them here. There will be no trophies, money or other prizes, just the prestige of being mentioned here.

Now, I should perhaps clarify my own perception of who best uses their freedom of speech. My own slightly warped definition of Freedom of Speech is “the right to say really stupid things in front of millions of people.” I believe that this proves and champions America’s Freedom of Speech better than anything. I am limiting, at this point, the potential candidates to those speaking about political issues, but I reserve the right to amend this at any time.

The problem, of course, is that there are just so many people to choose from.

I am very pleased to announce the first ever Alden’s Blurt Freedom of Speech Award is going to none other than my old Senator from California, Diane Feinstein. She was speaking about why the Democrats are likely to vote in a party-line vote against Samuel Alito. The issue, of course, is that he is simply not a liberal.

According to the AP, she “said things are different from when the Senate considered Breyer and Ginsburg, who were confirmed 87-9 and 96-3 respectively.” She stated:

There was not the polarization within America that is there today and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction …

Like Ginsburg was nominated because she was so moderate? And, like the “polarization” is something out of the Democrats’ control?

This absolutely brilliant statement by Ms. Feinstein, in my opinion (which is all that really matters here), has earned her this most prestigious honor, in proving that Free Speech doesn’t have to be true, thoughtful, or even logical. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Freedom of Speech is all about.

Posted in Politics/Current Events, The Freedom of Speech Awards | 1 Comment

More on evolution

I woke up fairly early this morning thinking about the whole evolution thing – that was before I went back to sleep and had that really annoying dream, but that’s another story. I haven’t finished reading that Dover court decision yet (it’s not very entertaining reading – Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is much better), but I will at least skim the rest. In my first post on the issue, I accused Gary Trudeau of being clueless, and thought I should explain what I mean.

First, it should be noted that there are many varied definitions of “evolution,” so there’s a good chance that any discussion on the topic (including testimony at the Dover trial) will involve people using the same words, but talking about very different issues. A very basic “scientific” definition is “any change in gene (allele) frequency in a population over time.” Another definition, by Ernst Mayr (considered one of the premier evolutionary biologists) is the “gradual process by which the living world have been developing following the origin of life.” So far, it’s pretty hard to argue with these rather open definitions.

Creationists and non-scientific folk, on the other hand, typically define evolution as the process by which “primordial soup” morphed into contemporary life-forms, including a process by which man and apes evolved from common ancestors.

Then, there are varying interpretations of microevolution and macroevolution. The above “scientific” definitions would tend to encompass both of these, whereas Creationists see totally separate concepts. The typical Creationist would define microevolution as the changes (adaptations) that occur within a species, which most would accept as pretty obvious, such as people being taller on average today than 100 years ago. Macorevolution, on the other hand, means one species morphing into a new, genetically separate species.

It’s impossible to discuss without first agreeing on the definitions. What Trudeau doesn’t understand is that you can accept intra-special evolution (that is, changes to a species over time without becoming a different species) while still holding that God created Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis, and proving one doesn’t disprove the other.

But, no one (especially the evolutionists, I’m guessing) wants to clearly define the terms; it’s harder to keep the myth alive if everyone knows what you are talking about.

If we want to find truth, it would help if people would agree that truth is the real goal. This means accepting the risk that one or both (or all) are possibly – even probably – wrong about some things. Creationists tend to fall back on theological presuppositions, and scientists resort to faulty logic and playing with definitions. It’s a useless debate, at this point, except that the public is as clueless as usual. Most people will just pick whatever they find the easiest (least personally painful) to believe in, although I doubt that most could talk intelligently about their particular belief.

The side that defines the issues usually controls the issues; to this extent, the evolutionists appear to be winning. However, these victories do nothing to advance truth, since truth is not the goal, or even the issue. Rather, the goal – apparently to both sides – is merely control.

Posted in Politics/Current Events, Random Thoughts | 1 Comment

Channel Surfing

I don’t know about you, but I can’t stand Raymond.

I even find the title of that show annoying (not to mention presumptuous). That’s all I really have to say, except that when I’m looking for Seinfeld re-runs, and 3 channels are all showing Raymond, it’s frustrating.

So, when you see “Everybody Loves …,” don’t believe it. It’s a lie; it’s just another case of the liberal media messing with your mind.

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment