Acts of God

One of my neighbours grew a crop under contract to supply a certain quanity to a designated buyer.  It has rained like Billy-oh on it for the last couple of months (basically since it came out of the ground) and even though it has dried up and it has started to grow again he isn't likely to get his required tonnage.  However, he has a clause in his contract that allows him to default if it is an 'Act of God' that prevents him from harvesting the right amount, and the unusually high rainfall (which led to the unusually high flood we've just had) will certainly qualify for that.

Hmmm.

If one of my neighbours can't grow a decent crop because it rains far in excess of what it usually does around here (or it doesn't rain at all), and we collectively blame God, who gets the credit when he does the same work with the same inputs and gets an average yeald in an average year?  Is that solely an 'Act of Dave'?

I know that Greg and Dave and Jason and so on work hard and smart to grow what they can, and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't, but is it only the really crook weather that God is in charge of, or does He deserve some credit when things go right, too?

Submission

Authority is an interesting thing to think about. We all have at least one, whether we like to admit it or not. Having been reading a bit of the Uniting Church's Basis of Union and some commentaries upon it has raised the issue of the authority of scripture. As Davis McCaughey notes, the Uniting Church recognises the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments have been recieved by the church and are an authority over the Church, but the Basis is intentional in not getting bogged down in what kind of authority the scriptures are.

Along the lines of authority I can't help but reflect back on a discussion during a class in which one of the teachers, reflecting on the rape of Dinah, pointed out the treatment of Dinah as property by both the Canaanites and her own family and how she was abused on virtually every front as a human being. As she became more emotional and vehmenent, she closed her discourse by saying that this (and other similarly violent passages in the Old Testament like it), for her, was not the word of God.

This raised one immediate concern on my part, which was that I had been too flipant in my reading of these passages (it was one of my favourites when I was 18 and just starting to read the Bible because of the successful against the odds revenge by Dinah's brothers) and of the abuse that women are especially vulnerable to, and more so in a society like the Ancient Near East.

It also raised another concern which I thought about more as time passed: how was my teacher able to distinguish what parts of the Bible were and were not the word of God, relevant to the teaching and building up of the church? What if she had a passage which she considered to be the word of God but I did not consider to be the word of God? Who then would be the arbiter of what was authoritative in such a dispute? It seemed then, as it does now, that my teacher was displacing the Bible and the God who inspired it from the rightful place of authority over the church. Such 'nasty' passages are in the Bible, I believe, not because God condones despicable behaviour (either by those who are his covenant people or those who are not) but because the Bible is a real book for the real world, and in the real world despicable things happen. Thankfully, God recognises the problem and himself ultimately provides the solution.

Year's End

First year of college is over, and I survived - further more, I enjoyed the experience (most of it, anyway). And I passed all my subjects.

I have found myself this year doing the three things I least wanted to do upon my finishing grade 12 - living in a city, going to university and public speaking. Now I find myself living in Brisbane (part-time, at least) and going to college at St Lucia in order to become a better preacher. Like I tell people, don't say God doesn't have a sense of humour. More surprising than doing these three things is that I actually enjoy what I'm doing.

One of the features of starting with about 30 other people is that one gets to make a few new friends. The opportunity to pick the lecturer's brains over different issues I've struggled with for years has been wonderful, and the chance to dive more deeply into the word than I've had the chance to before has been wonderful.

College has also been very humbling - daily I rediscover my ignorance, and often, especially in Greek and Hebrew, another mountain of knowledge to climb. But at least I'm not alone. And the learning has been good in giving me a bigger framework to put the different books of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, together.

The outlook of my college is also rather different from what I've encountered in the past. Last year during an Old Testament course I was doing I was told that the Documentary Hypothesis was fair dinkum and that the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) was a late cobbling together of various stories (and invented stories) of Israel's past and as such was in no way historically reliable (even on the off chance some of it might be true). I'd come across the Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD) about seven years before (and had ended up discounting it), but there was something disconcerting in the way it was presented at that time - perhaps the overlay of post-modern thought and the declaration by the teacher that doubt was essential, certainty unobtainable, and the Bible unreliable (and indeed, often counter-productive to what we were trying to do in the church). I know, of course, that such people exist in my church, especially among the ordained, in large numbers, but until you actually brush up against them at forums like these you can forget that they exist and that they teach such things for the church's benefit.

Contrast to QTC - I was informed again and again that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and reliable, in both Old and New Testaments. The most stunning difference lay in the Pentateuch (my Hebrew/OT lecturer did his PhD under Gordon Wenham, hence part of the reason). One lecture in particular (which actually had no value toward our assessment) saw him go over why the Documentary Hypothesis (Wellhausen) was in conflict with the other tool of the time (the history of religion school of Gunkel) were in fundamental conflict with each other (they cut the Pentateuch up into little bits, but the trouble was they made the cuts in all different places). Starting in the 1970's, the Emperor's clothes started to be seen for what they were, and more and more scholars looked at the unity of the Pentateuch, and its literary style and purpose. It should be noted that although the Documentary Hypothesis has been largely overthrown, its language still has to be retained because it was in fashion for so long, and also that there is no clear replacement for it. For Evangelicals the obvious answer is Mosaic authorship, but there are many models for this, too.

Academic standards are also pretty high. This has been a bit of a shock to the system, not having had homework since 1996 (and at least then it was all in English) but at least I chose to do it this time around. The certificate level stuff I did towards lay preacher accreditation and the hours of listening to lectures/sermons by Don Carson and others on mp3 helped along the way.

Alround Good times. Hope I can keep it up in 2011.

OWER THE HILLS AN' FAUR AWA'
W.D. Cocker

Ower the hills an' faur awa',
Ower the hills an' faur awa',
The bravest tune the pipers blaw
Is "Ower the hills an' faur awa'."

The bonniest floo'ers that deck the green,
The lassies wi' the brichtest een,
The fairest sichts, the ferlies braw
Are ower the hills an' faur awa'.

The dreams we dream, the joys we crave,
The gowd, the gear an' a' the lave
Are set by Fortune's fashious law
Ower the hills an' faur awa'.

Adventure, like the luring licht
That kelpies wave ower bogs at nicht,
Oh! that's the bait that draws us a'
Ower the hills an' faur awa'.

When we were bairnies in the glen,
Were we no' fain to grow to men?
To streetch oor wings an' croosley craw
Ower the hills an' faur awa'.

At sodgers then amang the braes
We played, nor kent in future days
We'd gang the gate wi' guns an' a'
Ower the hills an' faur awa'.

We've had oor wish an' crossed the tide,
An' seen the touns whaur strangers bide,
An' things we maun forget we saw
Ower the hills an' faur awa'.

Ower the hills an' faur awa',
Ower the hills an' faur awa',
The hills o' hame are best o' a',
But ah! they lie sae faur awa'.

Flanders, 1917

8th Day

As my first post on my web log since returning I thought it appropriate to comment on one of the first things which struck me on my recent sojourn to the dark continent, politics.

This is a subject derided or ignored by many, and even more so when visiting someone else's country. I have no wish to direct the people of the countries I have recently visited
regarding their various political situations, but I will certainly not shrink from offering my observations, breif as they were, on the situation of national governance in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia, and the relevat lessons that I think we can learn from them.

Politics, firstly, is boring - even as the most politically active member of the GSE team, I have to admit that I was a bit bored with politics when I went overseas. And politics is tedious and boring, at least, that is, until it starts affecting you. When you leave the comforts of a developed nation and suddenly come to a place where the standards of road safety are less than what you are used to, the average income of the population is less than what you are used to, the services provided by both the government and also the private sector - be it something like communications, building standards or health care - are not what you are used to, you are compeled to ask 'Why such differences?'

Why indeed does a country like Malawi, with direct access to the third largest fresh water lake in the world, as well as numerous running creeks and rivers and underground water supplies, seem to have a tenuous handle on feeding itself as a nation from one maize crop to the next, ever dependant on the rains and how and when they fall over the course of the wet season? A number of factors constrain the ability of farmers in Malawi to develop irrigated and diversified agriculture in Malawi - I don't know of anyone who can get a business loan from one of the local banks at under 22% P/A, there is the problem of buying things from overseas that have to paid for with a weak currency (like fertiliser, tractors,deisel, irrigation equipment), then there's the area of an unskilled work force, poor road and rail networks (not only Malawi - its worse in Mozambique, through which Malawian goods have to go for export) and a lack of active support for businesses (such as being able to get engine parts in a timely fashion or getting adequate cooperation from government employees). To these things, however, it has to be said that there were many challenges facing the development of agriculture in Queensland. Malawi isn't Queensland, you may say, and you would be right - but neither are the two agriculturally developed countries to the south of Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe. I think from my observations I could also argue that many parts of Malawi that are under developed in terms of agriculture have more potential than some developed parts of Queensland, and aslo some parts of South Africa that I saw.

To look at those limiting factors I listed above, If you think about it the govenment in a country has a significant effect on many of these things: government borrowing and spending habits (especially whether they run continued defecits or surpluses, and how effectivelly they spend the money they get) have an impact on the inflation and interest rates, as well as the exchange rate. The state of the roads determines how quickly a business can get their product to market (and also how long it will have trucks and cars in a state of disrepare if there are a number of potholes on the roads as big as your kitchen table and one foot deep). The state of your local hospital will also have an impact on how soon an injured worker can come back to work, as well as whether someone with the skills you need for your business will be prepared to relocate to your part of the world to help your business.

In a developed country where even the socialists and the left-wing excersize 'small government', government has a large influence and effect on our everyday lives. In a country with less distractions and more basic but unfulfilled needs, the obvious just becomes that much more apparent. 30 years of a one pary dictatorship, over a populance unready for self-government, then a change to a freer but also particullary corrupt and lax leadership has not done Malawi any great favours as far as the position of its poorest and least priveliged. The wish by its politicians to be popular (and thus, re-elected) has led Malawi to support some noble but most likely impractical and even detrimental policies such as looking to the smallholder (as oposed to the commercial farmer) for food security.

Malawi, however, has made some important steps forward over the term of the current president: interest rates are down, as is inflation. Businesses are generally moving forward and there is an environment in which there is the security for people to invest, education seems to be moving forward. More needs to be done in the way of improving the health system, however, and AIDS is taking a terrible toll on the population - as well as the obvious social and humanitarian disaster of having half the adult population infected, it leaves many orphans to be looked after, less skilled workmen in the work place and less people to support the government - and hence health and education - with their taxes.

Governments cannot lead people where they don't wish to go, but they also have a duty and responsibility to make at times unpopular but neccessary decisions in the peoples best interests, and in a democracy, they must then sell these to the electorate. Government doesn't have a role in planning the minute decisions of the businesses in its country or municpality, but it certainly has a role to see that a stable and safe environment for businesses exist so that they can go about creating employment and wealth, and to see that there is a provision to look after those not able to look after themselves.

Government makes a difference. If you don't agree, just take a look at Zimbabwe.

What was it that Paul Simon sang...?

Silence. You can get some of that here, especially at night (unless someone is busy baling). A lot of us are either not used to or can in a way be afraid of silence. I find silence to be a good environment for gaining clarity and perspective.
Unfortunatelly, I chose to drown out and polute this environment with noise of one kind or other - when you're on your Pat Malone the TV can sadly act as a substitute for actual human interaction, which is one of the reasons I've decided to not use it in the time before heading off. It wasn't my idea to get one anyway but a 'gift' from Dad, who likes to watch/fall asleep in front of it at my place as well as his own. I'll admit they are good at delivering information and entertainment, but as for myself I don't know when to turn the infernal thing off.
I remember one past national president of Australian Junior Chamber telling a group of us six or so years ago that he hadn't had a TV for a couple of years and wouldn't have another one again. What with going between Australian and French territory it took him 6 months before he found out Shirley Strachan had died (and if he'd never seen any TV at all he might have asked, "Shirley who?"), but it didn't affect him terriblly not knowing the most current events. I don't think anyone can reasonably say that TV quality has gotten better since then, either (even if we leave aside Big Bogan and the rest of the reality garbage). The only current affairs programme that has any skeric of credibillity is The 7:30 Report, but one has to take Kerry's ever-so-slight leanings toward his former boss into account. At least Kerry doesn't expose Australia's biggest love rat, which I've seen twice out of the last three time I've been foolish enough to tune in to A Current Affair. Considering this and the blatant cross promotion from the commercial news programmes, as well as the useless guff meant to appeal to the lowest common denomenator and it is small wonder The Chasers (who were'nt that funny until this last season, unless maybe you were a uni student or worked for the ABC) found a ready audience.
As the man said, we can spend a lot of time watching TV like a zombie or we can actually do something.

Well, its around three weeks to go. I think the team is all starting to get a bit more aprehensive - for all the things we have to do before we go as well as the actual trip itself.

So, there you go.

Here's some of what I've been reading lately. It's from Thucidides' History of the Peloponnesian War, book 3#82:
'So revolutions broke out in city after city, and in places where the revolutions occurred late the knowledge of what had happened previously in other places caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration in the methods of seizing power and by unheard of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of agression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an atempt to disguise one's unmanly charachter; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot successfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one's blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership, since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever. These parties were not formed to enjoy the benefits of the established laws, but to aquire power by overthrowing the existing regime; and the members of these parties felt confidence in each other not because of any fellowship in a religious communion, but because they were partners in crime. If an opponent made a peasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.
Revenge was more important than self-preservation. And if pacts of mutual security were made, they were entered into by the two parties only in order to meet some temporary difficulty, and remained in force only so long as there was no other weapon available. When the chance came, the one who first seized it boldly, catching his enemy off his guard, enjoyed the a revenge that was all the sweeter from having been taken, not openly, but because of a breach of faith. It was safer that way, it was considered, and at the same time a victory won by treachery gave one a title for superior intelligence. And indeed most people are more ready to call villainy cleverness than simple-mindedness honesty. They are proud of the first quality and ashamed of the second.'

It seems such a contrast to much of the Bible, but events like the Peloponnesian war went on to form the world in which the New Testament was written. Here's the epistle reading from yesterday, Romans 8:6-11:
'For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is to life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now, if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.'