Dominion and the Blessing of the Garden
God has designed the world to be a place where human beings can enhance the ecosystem through intervention. As Titchmarsh’s testimony shows, the “dominion mandate,” utilised in managing gardens and parks, actually increases biodiversity, not lessens it. On the other hand, naïve environmental campaigns that seek to rewild nature may reduce biodiversity instead—abandoning the well-ordered garden in favour of something less managed is counter-productive.
Alan Titchmarsh is a well-known gardener and TV personality in the UK. He has recently defended the traditional well managed garden that exists in Britain. This defence was in response to environmental campaigns that seek to rewild many of our gardens, parks, and countryside. Titchmarsh stated in a written representation to the British Parliament’s House of Lords that a carefully kept garden actually attracts more insects, birds, and small mammals than those areas of land that have been set aside for rewilding purposes. In other words, human activity, far from harming the environment, actually increases bio-diversity, and provides food and shelter for many more months of the year.
He said:
“Domestic gardens and well-planted parks offer an opportunity to all forms of wildlife—be they birds seeking nesting sites in hedges, berried plants that provide winter food, or shrubs that offer shelter to mammals.”1
This is borne out of his own gardening experience; he had set-aside two acres of land to grow according its own devices.
“Domestic gardens, with their greater plant diversity, offer sustenance and shelter to wildlife from March through November. Nine months of nourishment. A rewilded garden will offer nothing but straw and hay from August to March. A four-month flowering season is the norm.…This is at odds with my experience as the custodian of a two-acre wildflower meadow and garden.…The garden is patently richer—and for longer—in the variety of insect and bird species it sustains.”1
He also drew attention to prejudice that exists against imported plants; florae which have actually helped to increase diversity of species in the UK.
“I find it worrying that misleading propaganda suggests only native plants are of any value to wildlife and the environment.…Domestic gardeners have a duty to ensure the survival of this unparalleled resource.…Should a current fashionable and ill-considered trend deplete our gardens of their botanical riches then we have presided over a diminution in biodiversity of catastrophic proportions.”1
-
Lead vs Leader vs Leadership
Written by T. M. Suffield |
Saturday, January 20, 2024
It would help us to call people what they are. If someone holds a Biblical office of pastor/elder or deacon, then they aren’t a ‘leader’ and we should use the name of their office. Not least because these function institutionally: they are moulds that form us towards particular behaviours and habits. It would probably help fs we stop elevating some above others too, if we believe (as I do) that the New Testament dictates our churches are led by a plurality of elders.Throughout the Bible, people lead. Whether they are judges, kings, or prophets, they lead the people of God by showing them a direction in which to go. Leading is good. Leading is required, for without it we are like sheep gone astray, crying for a shepherd and prone to false ones. Churches need direction (even if that direction is ‘sit still’).
Of course, if there’s leading to be done, we assume the people doing it are leaders and that the science of what they’re doing can be called leadership. This is where I fear we start to come unstuck.
I have two complementary concerns that I’ve touched on before. Firstly that the language we use to describe things actually creates reality. Secondly that we’ve imported a set of concerns and solutions from the business world uncritically, to the point that in some more extreme instances the governance of our churches looks more like a corporation—or a large charity—than it does the assembly of the household of God.
My point on language is not particularly sophisticated. When we use metaphors or shorthand to describe something that aren’t exactly what we mean, we will find that those metaphors are more effective than the unsaid thing we did actually mean. They plough furrows in our mind that our thought then will flow down like a well-irrigated field. If they lead us otherwise, it is hard work to think against the grain—to mix metaphors—and it is often helpful to plough new furrows that send the water where we wanted it to go. In other words, if we say something that isn’t what we mean, our thought, practice, and (crucially) vibes (a technical term) will align themselves with what we say rather than what we meant. This is a slow process and is particularly pronounced when passing from one generation to another, but it’s a real phenomenon.
When we start calling Pastors leaders, and some other people leaders too, is it any wonder if the distinctions between that office and someone who is leading something are worn down? Or, if we start calling Pastors leaders, is it any wonder if they start to act more like business leaders than Pastors?
My second point is essentially that ‘leader’ is not a noun used in the New Testament. You might point to Hebrews 13 and I’ll come back with ‘those who rule’ is not ‘leader.’ It’s particularly not the same as what most of us picture as a leader. Leadership is not a science that is known in the New Testament, either. Leading is mentioned as something some people should be doing (Romans 12). They aren’t leaders. I suspect they are engaging in leadership, but whether that’s the same thing as what you find in a leadership book is a question we should examine carefully.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Do You Love the People of God?
Written by Jason K. Allen |
Thursday, September 2, 2021
In many ways, ministry is like marriage; you sacrifice for, love, and serve the body of Christ. You cannot do this—you will not do this—unless you serve out of a heart of love.Have you ever known a married couple who confessed they didn’t love each other? I have, and trust me, there is nothing more painful. As a husband, I can’t imagine waking up every morning beside a woman I didn’t love. I pity such a person.
On a couple of occasions, I’ve had such couples meet with me. Their stories tend to be similar. Life is rote. Their relationship is boring. They are married, but they feel more like individuals sharing a home and splitting the bills. For these people, romance left town long ago. They feel trapped because they understand divorce isn’t an option.
I can’t imagine the boredom, frustration, and disappointment that type of life must entail, especially for those who, like me, believe that marriage is between one man and one woman for life.
This is what one who enters the ministry without a love for the church will feel. In many ways, ministry is like marriage; you sacrifice for, love, and serve the body of Christ. You cannot do this—you will not do this—unless you serve out of a heart of love.
Perhaps you’ve seen pastors like this. They look for every opportunity to be away from their congregation. They erect barriers between themselves and their church. They view other activities, ministerial or otherwise, as more important and more satisfying than just serving God’s people. They seem to view God’s people as an interruption to their ministry, when the people are supposed to be their ministry.
Read More -
We Need to Support the PCA’s Agencies
Other than prayer, the best way Old School Confessionalists can support the agencies of the PCA at this time is by searching for more men who share a commitment to robust, Old School Presbyterianism who will be willing to serve on the permanent committees to help shape the policies and priorities of the College, the Seminary, MTW, MNA, etc. It’s not enough to serve on a General Assembly CofC! Instead of neglecting the Agencies of the PCA, let’s be willing to serve them on the permanent committees.
The PCA is comprised largely of three groups. In 2015, TE Bryan Chapell described these groups as “traditionalists, progressives, and neutrals.” I don’t like the label he chose for my segment of the PCA; I prefer the label “Old School” or “Confessionalist.”
By the way, I don’t think anybody likes the label he chose for their group, but – as I have written elsewhere – the unified dislike of the three labels suggests TE Chapell was at least over the target.
Regardless of what label is proffered, there are largely three groups who are united together in the Presbyterian Church in America. The two groups on each end of the spectrum both profess a love for the PCA, but their interests in the PCA are shaped by different concerns.
Love for the PCABut there are others in the PCA who are drawn to the PCA not necessarily because of her robust Westministerian theology and her historic polity. They are eager to see how the PCA with her institutions and cultural cachet can influence society to restore people, places, and things. Their love for the PCA seems more centered on the PCA’s Agencies and Institutions and what the PCA represents for the culture. Their love for the PCA is exhibited especially in an unflinching and enthusiastic support for the PCA’s College and Seminary because of the opportunities for witness and cultural engagement that are afforded to the PCA through the institutions brought in to the PCA with the RPCES. Likewise, this segment of the PCA seems excited about the possibility of planting 120 churches a year until 2030 and are therefore wholeheartedly committed to MNA’s models, assessments, initiatives, and programs.
This is not to say the “traditionalists” are not motivated for evangelism or that those on the other side are not committed to the essentials of the Reformed Faith. The “traditionalists,” however, have been rather lackluster regarding enthusiasm for the institutions brought in with the RPCES as well as the other Agencies of the PCA. Their attention is to doctrine and the slow, but steady growth from discipleship in the ordinary means of grace.
A Pointed Critique of the PCA’s Agencies
On a recent episode of the Westminster Standard Podcast (WS Pod), we discussed the change that has taken place in the PCA since 2018 and the role of blogs and podcasts in that transformation.
In 2018, the National Partnership reflected on the success they had enjoyed in shifting the trajectory of the denomination. But six years later, former members of the now defunct partnership are decrying the General Assembly as “broken” and others share their disappointment with the PCA’s renewed commitments expressed in confessional fidelity and clarity.
In the episode, one of the guest commentators relayed some anecdotes shared with him based on experiences church members had with a couple of specific PCA Agencies (i.e. Covenant College and RUF) as well as his own perception of a Covenant College promotional video.
He pointedly expressed concern that some of the PCA agencies were failing to disciple men in particular, but instead accommodating cultural values he viewed as having diverged from historic Christian emphases.
At least one employee of the College has understandably expressed strenuous objection to the guest commentator’s critique. I note several things in this regard.
First, the opinions and views expressed on the WS Pod are not necessarily those of Jude 3 & the PCA, First Presbyterian Church, the Tennessee Valley Presbytery, or the PCA, but only those of the individual speaker who offers a particular opinion or viewpoint.
Read More
Related Posts:
