And the antiques dealer recommended by our real estate agent drove up from Eden to look at the piano, and ended up agreeing to take several larger pieces of furniture, some garden items and a couple of pieces of our Great Uncle Ces’s artwork as well. ‘Steve’ was quite a character, pushing aside silvery dreadlocks and hoisting up his trousers as he inspected our wares and explained his unique approach to long distance driving. When he finally left, after a long stroll in the garden with mum over a cup of tea and a stressful morning of manoeuvring everything into his truck, he surprised mum with a goodbye kiss on the cheek. Overall there had been some lovely interactions with beautiful people throughout this difficult process.
Yet, at the 11th hour, only a couple of days before settlement, we received an intimidating letter of demand from the buyer’s solicitor, accusing us of chopping down a tree during the settlement period without their consent. This wasn’t the case at all. A large gum tree had fallen down in a storm about 6 months earlier, causing mum quite a bit of stress. Eventually, after much consultation, mum had brought someone in to chop up the fallen tree into smaller pieces. The resulting logs were then carefully positioned alongside walking paths in mum's beloved rainforest at the back of the garden and various stumps became seats, or little tables for potted plants. The larger stump was still there, in the depths of the rainforest, with its upended roots blending into 6 months of overgrowth. It had been visible exactly like that throughout the marketing campaign for the sale of the house and we had photos to prove it. Yet, the replies came back in legal jargon as determined as ever. We’d chopped down the gum tree without their consent and would have to remove the entire tree's remains within 24 hours or they’d withhold part of the final price. I was shocked, and then found myself enveloped with rage. Why on earth would we randomly chop down a beautiful gum tree? And why would we do it during the settlement period when we had so many other things to do and absolutely nothing to gain from such a move?
| Mum's beloved garden |
This wasn’t my first experience of people behaving badly. I have found myself affected when others have behaved in ways that I experience as disingenuous, unreasonable, manipulative or lacking in empathy. Whether it’s on the global political stage, in workplaces, or in community groups, I’ve seen how those with power can wield that power over others, how the truth can be twisted to serve a particular purpose, and how individual interests can override the greater good.
When the house thing happened, I shared on social media and with friends that I felt ill-equipped to deal with human cruelty. My Quaker upbringing has instilled values of integrity, equality, simplicity, peace and community. We have a piece of advice that encourages us to "Walk cheerfully over the earth, answering that of God in everyone". Yet, when I experience intense anger in response to cruel or unjust treatment, what happens to answering that of God in everyone? How can I maintain the rage in a productive way, I asked, to reach a just outcome?
It turned out that people had lots to say on the subject. Some reflected that Quakers, because of our focus on seeing the good in others, can struggle with holding people accountable, setting boundaries and resolving conflict in a healthy way. Others found comfort in the laws and policies that govern human behaviour. Some felt compassion for tyrants and bullies and found it helpful to imagine them as babies. Others reflected that anger is a good thing if channelled towards positive social change. After all, it is what’s led to progress on women’s liberation, racial justice and other civil rights. And then a couple of friends admonished me privately for taking things so personally. Other people are simply doing business in the way that they know works for them. If I wasn’t so sensitive, it wouldn’t bother me so much.
And there is some truth to this last assertion. After much discussion in therapy about the subject, I comfortably identify as a highly sensitive person. Which is different to being “too sensitive”, by the way. An article about Why Emotionally Intelligent People Struggle Most in Toxic Workplaces particularly resonated with me. The author states that “the people who feel things most deeply are the ones most easily broken by a toxic environment. Not the most brittle. Not the least capable. The most attuned”. Perhaps it’s because of my sensitivity, which is both a strength and a vulnerability, that I notice cruelty and injustice and want to do all I can to overcome it. But, in unhealthy environments, the article says, the efforts of emotionally intelligent people to improve relationships, have honest conversations and name what isn’t working often go unrewarded and are sometimes brutally punished.
I also think I became a bit too focussed on cruelty, and started seeing it everywhere. At just the right time, I remembered about a book that a friend gave me called “human kind”. This book explains that in so much of our literature, film and media there is a deeply rooted belief that humans are by nature selfish, cruel and unkind. That in times of disaster it's every person for themself. Think Lord of the Flies, Titanic (the movie), and the witch hunts.
Yet, this book explores actual evidence from history that tells a different story. Humans, it turns out, are overwhelmingly willing to die for strangers, they band together in times of adversity, and are generally decent. The book described the behaviour of both British people during the bombing of London and German people during the bombing of Germany behaving in ways that demonstrated their humanity, resilience and sense of community, despite both sets of political leaders expecting otherwise. Survivors of the twin towers' collapse in New York shared later that people were incredibly generous towards one another during that catastrophe, even insisting that strangers go ahead of them down the fire stairs, knowing that such kindness could cost them their own life. And there is the story of Celine Cremer, a Belgian hiker who went missing in Tasmania. People came over from several other states of Australia and even from overseas, without knowing this person, to participate in the search. Celine’s mother gave an emotional thank you speech at the end of the search. The idea that complete strangers would do this for her family gave her immense comfort and hope about humanity. Perhaps, the book suggests, those with power, whose intentions are questionable, assume that everyone else is the same. In reality, the vast majority of us behave in ways that are helpful, community-oriented and kind.
Back to the question of walking cheerfully over the earth answering that of God in others. How do I do this with integrity when there’s been significant hurt or injustice? Is it always healthy to do so? I turned to those more enlightened than me for answers. The desiderata prayer which I have displayed in my hallway balances out its advice by saying "As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all people". I hold onto that idea of 'without surrender'. And when I recently watched Emily Provance’s 2025 Swarthmore Lecture on "A Testimony of Community", one of the minutes she shares at the end offers guidance on responding to that not of God: “How we respond to provocation is how we demonstrate Christ’s way”.
Well, the past six months has been a lesson in balance, in celebrating that of God in the world while responding thoughtfully to provocation. I’ve gravitated towards teams and community groups where empathy, honesty, integrity and courage are valued and expressed. My faith in “human kind” has gradually been restored, and I feel a strength, a calm, and a sense of emotional safety return. And in times of provocation, so to speak, I have chosen to set boundaries, minimise contact and sometimes even cut ties as the best response. The bitterness that I felt so strongly at the time of the house sale has gradually been replaced with a degree of compassion. We left the family home for the last time with a strong sense of community that had been built over several decades, of being held by a force greater than ourselves. I hope the new owners come to experience some of that human kindness for themselves.



