Diary of a Sydney rock, 25th January 1788

Diary of a Sydney rock, 25^th January 1788

Friday 25^th January 1788

G’day! I’m a rock just up from the water’s edge in what you may know as Sydney Cove. I’ve been sitting here for a long long time (I’ll let others argue about how long).

The 25^th of January 1788 was pretty much like any other day. Native animals foraged for food while plants did what plants do. The first settlers poked about with a bit of hunting and fishing, building shelters and sitting around fires telling dreamtime stories. They had arrived from the north a long time after I appeared, settled in tribal areas and made the place home. They disrupted life in the cove, fought a bit among themselves and impacted on the landscape, but basically the soil, plants, animals, people and we rocks all learned to get along.

A few days ago, some other people appeared from down Kurnell way. It was clear they didn’t belong. Their clothes were strange and unsuited to a Sydney summer. Their pasty white skins soon burnt to a crisp. We had seen other people like this in various parts of the big rock called Australia. The Dutch, French and even the Chinese had come and poked about over the years. They all stayed for a bit and then moved on, as had people from the islands just north. About 18 years ago a white skin called Captain Cook had landed a bit south of Sydney Cove, stayed for eight days, collected some plants and raised a coloured cloth on a pole. We should have known then that something was afoot.

Little did I know how life was to change forever the next day.

Saturday 26^th January 1788

The day began like any other. The waters lapped nearby, smoke from the early cooking fires drifted lazily skyward and the cool air of a summer’s morning gave way to the heat of the day.

There was a buzz among the first peoples who looked towards the great sea where the sun rose. One after another, sail boats came to view, made their way to the cove, lowered sails and disgorged their load. Dinghy after dinghy dropped more of the white-skinned ones. Some were in fancy clothes like the people that appeared the other day. Most looked bedraggled and the worse for wear.

The number of the newcomers and the way they set up camp suggested this was not a social visit. This second wave of immigrants soon made it clear that they were here to stay.

Sunday 3^rd February 1788

Well, the newcomer’s settlement grew over the last week, but it is clearly going to be a struggle for them to make a go of it. They bought food with them but, of course, didn’t yet understand the seasons and plants of a new country, let alone the riches under the waters – Sydney rock oysters are a treat. And they still wear silly clothes and their skins burn to a crisp.

Today was different.

There was a kind of parade that I later learned is called a church service. People sang and prayed to their God who they called Lord and creator (at least that helped me know where I came from and to whom I belong). And then another of the white-skinned ones in funny clothes stood up, read from a special-looking book and started to speak. His name was Richard Johnson. I remember his text: What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits towards me? This was a startling event for me. Even as he spoke, I felt that I was in touch with something deeper, higher and older than even cousin Uluru and the earth itself. The first immigrants had their dreamtime stories that overlapped with what he said, but this was different. Mr Johnson spoke about Jesus as the saviour of all who believed and urged people to remember their maker.

(If I can indulge in a personal note, I later learnt that this Jesus is somewhere called a rock – which I find kind of amusing and flattering given the usual indifference to my lot. I love to rattle my pebbles in unison when they sing ‘Rock of Ages’, so please keep singing it.)

Thursday 7^th February 1788

Another day another parade. The chief of the white skins, called Captain Arthur Philip, dressed up in even more finery and read a proclamation with a loud voice. A distant chief, called George III, claimed the island for himself and vested all its land in his name. I later learned that this was based on a white dreamtime tale called terra nullis, or ‘empty land’. Empty land my foot! I had learned from Mr Johnson’s big book that the land was made by the creator God and belonged to him before there were trees and rocks or dreamtime. It always was, and always will be, his land. And then there were the first settlers that Captain Phillip certainly knew about and who came a long time before the white skins. Really, you’d have to have pebbles for a brain to say it was ‘empty land’. Or maybe it was deceit in your heart?

Sunday January 26th 2020

It’s been a long time since I last wrote but I’m still here (we are not called rocks of the ages for no reason). Of course, the place they call Sydney is very different to those old days and you can hardly see this rock for all the tall buildings made from a fake rock called concrete. The white skins have been joined by even later waves of immigrants from all different places and the streets are full of many colours and voices. I don’t see or hear much from the first settlers these days.

They now call this Australia Day. It’s been slow in coming to this. It was January 1808 before anyone much thought to make this a day of “drinking and merriment". It will like that again today as people get drunk and add even more smoke to the murky bushfire sky with their many BBQs. In 1818 Governor Macquarie declared this to be a “Foundation Day” holiday with sports and festivities. In 1837 a boating regatta started on the harbour and I guess the ferries will race again today. Only after 1888 did other states start celebrating this as some kind of national day and only after 1935 did the day become the national holiday that it now is. Some of the first settlers dubbed it a day of mourning in 1938 and invasion day in 1988.

I sometimes daydream back to 25^th January 1788 and long for the good old days.

I know things couldn’t stay the way they were and that someone would come along to claim this wide brown land for themselves – it was just too bountiful to be left to the first settlers. And I know that many of the things that later settlers did have developed the land towards its potential. And I know that its right for the white skins to celebrate the day they arrived to make this place home.

But I also mourn.

I mourn for the scars the land bears from their hands. How long will they dig up my rock cousins and send them away? How long will they pollute the waterways and air, degrade the soil and threaten the creator’s creatures? And I mourn for the first immigrants who are pushed to the edges of their society in every way. And I mourn for the creator God who looks on this land that he has blessed, and which still denies and defies him year by year.

Really, I wonder if January 26^th is the right day for the “drinking and merriment" that the white skins started around 1808. Maybe it’s a day for all the people of the creator’s ‘one blood’ to be quiet before him and think on Mr Johnson’s text.

_________

Writer’s note

I know that rocks cannot think or speak any more than the animals in Narnia, but, hey, this is my blog! I am descended from later waves of immigrants (Ireland in the 1840s and Cornwall in the 1870s). My lot have been part of the dispossession of the first immigrants and are numbered among the miners who dug up the rocks. I’m glad to live in Australia and enjoy the fruits of its development. However, I mourn that the 1808 tradition of ‘drinking and merriment’ has prevailed over a pondering of Richard Johnson’s text.

Making widows and orphans in a politcally-charged age - the examples of climate change and Donald Trump

Making widows and orphans in a politically-charged age – the examples of climate change and Donald Trump

The late Francis Schaeffer wrote that the church that weds itself to the philosophy of the age will find itself a widow in the next. The history of ancient and modern theology bears that out.

Schaeffer’s remark has other applications. These include civil politics. The church that weds itself to a particular political ideology is likely to find itself an orphan and widow. Wedding to one political ideology alienates those of other ideologies. As political ideologies and parties change in pursuit of their goals, the ideologically-aligned church can be left stranded. It’s just a dumb move to tie the Christian cause to a particular political agenda,

Progressive and liberal churches typically gravitate to the left of centre in politics. That means privileging parties and politicians that major on social justice for needy persons, refugee intake, gender equality, environmental care and such like. By contrast, churches of conservative theology typically gravitate to the political right. Preservation of personal freedoms; enshrining Christian values in laws around sexuality and family life, free-market economics, small government and such like feature in their agendas. Either way, those alignments obscure the gospel behind political alignments and alienate the other half of the population. They also blind both liberal and conservative Christians to the whole range of issues that may be on God’s horizon, as reflected in the scope of Old Testament law and New Testament ethics.

Two present examples illustrate the problem of churches being aligned to a political ideology of the age.

The first example is with respect to environmental issues.

I’ll put my cards on the table to say that, within the supremacy of Scripture, it’s my general rule to follow the science of the day when it comes to things that are properly within the domain of science. When science presumes to speak about metaphysics or ethics it is outside the domain of its methodology and I stop listening. However, when scientists make rigorous observations about the physical world and repeatedly test hypothesis arising from those observations I’ll cautiously go with the science – even though knowing that it is just the science of this day and may change tomorrow. In this sense, I am epistemically with A.A. Hodge in his remark about the links between knowledge gained from the book of God’s world and knowledge gained from the book of God’s word. And so, I heed what mainstream science says about the reality and importance of climate change, even while opposing the pantheist and monist metaphysics and catastrophising language of some environmental activists.

I notice some people of conservative theology gravitating to climate change scepticism as being the Christian position. I struggle to understand why. Is it because they mistrust any science; or because to acknowledge climate change will disturb a settled economic order; or because they see climate-change projections as contradicting their eschatology? Or is it because the people pushing climate-change agendas are often liberal progressives and naturalists and hence presumed opponents of Biblical Christianity – the fallacy of origins? Whatever the reasoning, this means that these theologically conservative Christians become allied to the political groups and ideologies associated with climate change scepticism. That’s a sure path to being marginalised orphans when it comes to connecting to the concerns of the age.

The second example is with respect to the American Presidential election. Again, my cards are on the table. I find that voting is a matter is a compromised choice resulting from a relative weighting between flawed options who are on a continuum. Who is the most preferred or least disliked? I oppose the progressive liberalism of the US Democrats (and their Australian equivalents) with its increasing intolerance of dissenting voices on issues like abortion, gender identity, homosexuality etc. On the other side of the aisle, I find Donald Trump personally obnoxious, amoral and a highly problematic President. He seems to feel that he is above all law and can run the nation in a manner reminiscent of the caricature of a nineteenth century business tycoon. He is reminiscent of the Biblical Nebuchadnezzar.

However, I notice some people of conservative theology who seem to feel that it is the Christian position to support and defend Trump and who read any critique of him as endorsement of his political opponents. Why is it a Christian agenda to defend Trump from any criticism and berate any who critique him? Why is it that objection to him is read as support for his opponents? The effect of locking in behind Trump is similar to aligning with climate change scepticism – it makes orphans out of the theologically conservative Christian cause and alienates about half the nation.

In observing this, I am not advocating that Christians abandon the public square and retreat to the sanctuary. Good theology refuses to leave the fallen world to itself and instead seeks to engage with it as salt and light. Good theology leads Christians to love God by seeking to make the world what he intended at creation and will re-make in the new creation. Love of neighbour leads people of sound theology to try and keep our neighbour from things that will harm them in this age and leave them liable to eternal judgement. We must be in the public square of today’s issues.

So, Christians should engage with the politics of their day in a way appropriate to circumstances. But we do well not to marry ourselves to any political ideology. The ’for better for worse’ part of that marriage vow is apt to end in tears.

Praying for Mallacoota and Cobargo

The promise and puzzle of prayer – praying for Mallacoota and Cobargo

Bushfires recently threatened the Australian town of Mallacoota with disaster. Christian media carried reports of a faithful Christian man who stared down the Mallacoota fires with a prayer of faith for winds to change. The winds changed and the immediate threat was averted. This was rightly hailed as a great act of God and a result of persistent prayer (Lke 18:1-8). Meanwhile, prayer meetings were held for other threatened towns such as Cobargo. However, the fires came, and Cobargo became ashes.

And so, there is the puzzle of prayer.

But first the promise of prayer.

Jesus said that if we ask anything in his name, he will grant it (Jn 14:12-14). This does not mean that we treat prayer as a machine-like access to an ATM where our PIN is “J-E-S-U-S” and God is obliged to give whatever we ask if the PIN is correct. Rather it means to pray as Jesus would pray. That is, we pray with his mindset and asking for things that we know he wants and which honour him. This is very similar to the word that if we ask anything according “to his will” it will be given (1 Jn 5:14). To pray according to the Lord’s will is to ask for the things that we know he wants because the Bible tells us that he wants them.

An illustration may help. If a husband knows that his theatre-loving wife dislikes the thought of bungee jumping but still asks her to go, the result is predictable. However, it will be very different if he suggests a theatre outing, for that is within her character and will. Likewise with God. Our prayers need to be within his character and will. For example, we know that he wants people to repent (Ex 18:32; 1 Tim 2:2). So, it is right to prayer for the conversion of people. However, the holiness of God means that it is an absurdity to pray that he blesses a plan of ours to do some sin.

These sayings, along with general sayings on prayer (eg Matt 7:7; 11:24; Jn 15:7) encourage Christian people to “pray always” (1 Thess 5:17).

So, the promise is that if we are close to God and ask for things within his character and revealed will we can ask with confidence that it will be given (Matt 7:7)

Back to Mallacoota and Cobargo.

It is reasonable to assume that faithful people prayed for Cobargo and other fire-ravaged towns, just as they and others prayed for Mallacoota. They prayed as people who abided in Christ and who believed that God is called ‘almighty’ because he is able to do whatever he wants. Their prayer that God spare Cobargo the sufferings of bushfires seems as much within God’s revealed character as does the prayer that he spare Mallacoota.

Righty we attribute the Mallacoota deliverance to the Lord’s intervention and thank him for it. Where does that leave Cobargo and those who prayed for the same deliverance? Is the Lord capricious, such that he heard Mallacoota prayers and arbitrarily turned his back on Cobargo? Were the prayers for Cobargo less well-framed or the people less abiding in Christ?

The point here is that care is needed in interpreting the outcome of our prayers and attributing divine intervention. We know that God knows our needs, that he is mindful of the needy and that he is able to do as he pleases. The Cross of Jesus is the guarantee of all this as we see his goodness, power and mercy combine to saving effect. His character is beyond question.

However, God does not always do what we think will please him. And so, we are perplexed.

Scripture helps resolve this perplexity about prayer.

Consider the quite natural prayer of Jesus that he be spared the Cross (Lke 22:42) or the prayer of Paul that the Lord remove a troubling affliction (2 Cor 12:8). Both seem reasonable prayers that fit within the Lord’s care for people, but neither prayer was granted. Jesus hints at a bigger picture when he adds “... not my will but yours be done”. Had his specific prayer be answered, the world would have been denied the redemptive work of his Cross. Likewise, when Paul sees how the Lord’s refusal of his specific prayer was for his good and the good of his ministry (2 Cor 12:7-10). These examples are reminders that God sees a bigger picture than we do and is doing things which we cannot begin to imagine. Our prayers are to be framed within his revealed will, while acknowledging that there are parts of his will that are not revealed to us (Deut 29:29)

We do not know why God granted the prayers for bushfire relief in Mallacoota and not in Cobargo. Our part is to continue in believing prayer within his revealed character and will and to keep trusting in his power and goodness even when our specific prayers are not answered. And of course, to weep and care for those whose prayers were denied even as we rejoice with those whose prayers were answered.

-->

The (impossible) quest for the perfect

The (impossible) quest for the perfect

The quest for perfection is common in humanity. Consider the new homeowners who want everything in their dwelling to be perfect. Or the cook aspiring to a faultless dish. Or the thesis writer who wants to be error-free at submission. Or the person seeking a perfect spouse. Or the gym member seeking perfect pecs. Or the speaker seeking a perfect presentation. The examples can be multiplied.

The aspiration to do things well is praiseworthy. They rightly say: if it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well.

Consider the alternate. As an old saying goes, the person who aims at nothing will achieve it every time. Lowered expectations may avoid disappointment, but they also lead to lowered results. A life with low or no aspirations is a wasted life. We can easily see that it’s better to aim high than low.

However, the quest for perfection is different to aspiring to do well. Perfection may be impossible to achieve and sustain. And that can make it dangerous.

Is perfection attainable?

It sometimes may be so, with enough care in planning, checking, rechecking and execution. More commonly, flaws emerge. Seven people put a bulletin through six levels of review over three days during pre-publication. On the day when it was used, mistakes were clear to all. A graduation programme for a theological college was rechecked several times only for the principal’s name to morph from “Ian” to the blasphemously aspirational “I Am”. A version of the Bible was printed with the word ‘not’ missing from the commandment against adultery. As for the perfect house, the floorcovering chosen for looks and durability proved to a be a marvellous dust trap on which every mark was visible. The search for the perfect spouse may well end in singleness. The perfect pecs may well be accompanied by an ounce of unwanted fat somewhere else.

Is perfection sustainable? That is even more tricky. The perfect food dish will decay if left on the bench and will disappear once hungry diners attack it. The perfect house will become imperfect once real people move in and scratches, scuffs and messiness surface. The perfect spouse will show their flaws as pressure hits and time passes. The perfect pecs will fade if gym is missed for a day or two. Really, perfection can only be sustained by some process of freeze-fossilisation which makes the object or person unreal and useable.

The question for perfection can be dangerous. The thesis may never be submitted, the house never built, and the dish never cooked if perfection is the criteria. The result is frustrated aspiration.

Further, there is the question of proportionality. The effort needed to achieve perfection may be out of proportion to the value of the result. Consider the parent striving for a perfect family meal and who spends hours on a dish that is rejected by children or gulped down in 10 minutes with complaints that the meal is late. Was the effort was worth it, or should they have just done a scratch meal? Meanwhile, the children may have craved time to be still and share with the parent or to get help with schoolwork. The question for perfection may mean that we miss the really important. Is the value of the (temporarily) perfect worth the cost?

Doing something well may more often be a case of ‘good enough’ rather than perfection. That means being of sufficient quality to what is needed and with a level of effort fitting to the level of importance. ‘Good enough’ is not an excuse for slackness, but is an exercise in scaling.

Deeper things are at stake here.

Some schools of visual art include an intentional imperfection in every artwork. Its purpose is to remind the artist and viewer that perfection is only found with God. To strive for perfection in the here and now is not only unlikely and unsustainable but can be a distraction from the quest for eternity. Our unsatisfiable longing for perfection in this life should lift our aspirations to eternity with God. Only in him is there only, and always, perfection.