Thursday, February 09, 2006

the surprisingness of trees

I think it is my goal to daily be surprised that trees exist, and perhaps to show to others how surprising it is, and many other things besides, but in the last few days, while riding under trees, drawing trees, living beneath and around trees, I find myself asking "What do trees mean?"

5 Comments:

Anonymous Bethanie said...

I like this one about trees. I also think about trees a lot. THere is a field on the SMU campus that has so far been left alone by The People Who Build New Buildings, and the trees in it specifically remind me of medieval stories. I'm not sure why, but they always have since I first saw them, and especially since the semester I took my medieval culture class. I'm not always surprised by trees, unfortunately, but I am always surprised by those trees. I do think that trees are some of the most surprising and wonderful things in nature. :)

2/11/2006 8:27 AM  
Anonymous John Jackson said...

I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you're getting here at Stephen. Could you clarify what you mean when you say, "I think it is my goal to daily be surprised that trees exist", and "I find myself asking "What do trees mean?""

2/11/2006 9:16 AM  
Anonymous John Jackson said...

getting at that is.

2/11/2006 9:17 AM  
Blogger Stejahen said...

John, this isn't something you can learn by reading books or using words, to understand you must simply watch trees.

2/11/2006 2:58 PM  
Blogger noneuclidean said...

You know, there is always a danger in sounding like a Romantic poet when one talks about nature. If I didn't understand some of your Biblical perspectives, I would assume that you were making some new age/transcendentalist nonsense statement about trees being really spiritual. But knowing your beliefs (that little that I do know), I am very encouraged by what you wrote.

I would never argue that we could learn all that we need to know of God from nature without the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the Word. However, every time we look at nature we do learn something of God. What kind of a God would imagine trees and speak them into being in the act of creation? Why trees? Why that shape, that form, that complexity, color, weight, properties...

The difference, one of them at least, between that Romantic poet (Wordworth comes to mind especially) and your pronouncement is that you look to nature and see the personal creation a loving, imaginative, creative God, not a part of the universal god.

Thanks for reminding me of something I had forgot.

2/11/2006 10:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home