Take your kids to the park, and leave them there

I must have looked like a nodding dog while I was reading this article - it makes so much sense! It just can't be healthy for children's development to keep them so closely supervised all the time. And, as the article says, people tend to forget the statistics which say the vast majority of crimes against children are not committed by strangers - I think it's just so much easier to focus on the "stranger danger" issues, because that's something you can actually do something about, you can teach your kids not to take sweets from strangers, you can mollycoddle them and supervise them in the playground, so you get a sense of control. One of the quotes from British parents in response to this "take your children to the park... and leave them there" idea was from a dad who said that he's not willing to take this kind of risk because he needs to know his kids are safe. But hey, can you ever really know that? Is there such a thing as complete and total safety in this world? All you can really have is an illusion that your kids are safe.

And if you wrap them up in cotton wool, you're taking different risks - you're risking your kids growing up without having a clue how to make decisions for themselves, how to make good judgements about risk-taking. You're risking your kids growing up to be over-anxious adults.

And yes, I know, it's easy for me to say - I haven't got kids to worry about. But I'm pretty sure that if I did, I wouldn't want to raise them on the fear & anxiety diet that my own mum brought me up on.



For more about this stuff go to Free-Range Kids - How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children

"had on"??? what's happened to "was wearing"?

I'm reading a novel by Anita Shreve, really good stuff but there's one thing that keeps bugging me in this book and it's the way she describes what people are wearing. Again and again I find myself accosted by sentences such as:

"Margaret had on jeans and a long-sleeved blouse."

Is it just me, or this is a weird and clumsy alternative to the perfectly normal "Margaret was wearing jeans and a long-sleeved blouse"?

I'm pretty sure I've never come across this sort of thing before. Perhaps this is the latest, most modern way, and I'm just (as usual) behind the times?

Your thoughts please, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

rules are so boring and limiting, aren't they...

When I was a child I thought like a child... I looked forward to the time when I would be a grown-up at last and would be able to do whatever I liked. No adults to boss me around, tell me when to go to bed or when to get up, to make me do my homework or tidy up my room or comb my hair...

But looking back now, I can see how important it was that there were adults in my life who set boundaries for me, because a child doesn't know what's good for him and needs to be kept safe, to be protected from his own natural desires - a child wants to run and catch that ball, and needs to be forced to stay back and not get hit by a passing car. a child wants to explore - what would it be like sticking my fingers in those interesting-shaped holes in that plasticky thing on the wall? a child needs to be forced against his instincts not to stick his fingers in the electric socket, not to put his hand in the fire, not to do all sorts of things that seem really attractive but are seriously dangerous. Good parents do this not because they're spoilsports but because they care about their children.

A child also needs the adults to force him against his instincts to refrain from hitting his brothers and sisters, pulling their hair, stomping over their toys and dolls - a child needs to be taught that there are some things that are not acceptable behaviour. We like to think of children as sweet innocent little things, but the truth is that children do not need anyone to teach them to be nasty towards others - that, sadly, is something that comes naturally. So they need to be taught to curb that malicious instinct. Good parents do this not because they're spoilsports but because they want to bring the best out of their children, to discourage negative and destructive behaviour and encourage positive behaviour.

It took me a long time before I could see the same pattern with God - that he is not some big spoilsport in the sky who seeks to stop our fun, but neither is he a stupid, uncaring, irresponsible parent who would just let his kids poke their hands in the electric sockets and pull their sisters' hair and kick the cat without telling them not to do that.

The fact that we are very good at not listening, or at hearing him but going our own sweet way because we feel we know best or because whatever-it-is seems so attractive that we put our fingers in our ears and say la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you - that's what we humans are like, and God in his amazing love and mercy still goes on loving us, as good parents do when faced with teenage rebellion... the kids that you nurtured suddenly turning against you, yelling "I hate you" and slamming the door in your face, doing all the things you've told them not to do - a good parent carries on loving them despite their appalling behaviour.

A good, responsible and caring and wise parent does not say: do whatever you like, it's ok. Therapists and counsellors in later years pick up the pieces of such parenting - because the message a kid gets through this, even though it isn't at all what the parents intend, is: I'm not valued, they don't care about me enough to keep trying to protect me, they don't care what happens to me.

A good, responsible and caring and wise parent says: the way you are behaving is not ok, but I still love you anyway.

That's the kind of parent God is. He cares. He cares enough to put boundaries round us, even though he knows we will continue breaking them. He cares enough to keep loving us despite our rebellious behaviour. He cares enough to always want us back, no matter what we've done.

He's not the type of parent who will say: oh, what you did doesn't matter. He's not going to beat around the bush, pretend that you hadn't broken his heart by causing so much damage to yourself and to others around you. What he will say is: I'm so glad you've realised and that you've come back - now I can clean you up from all the muck that has stuck to you along the way, I can bind your wounds, I can start work on healing you. Oh, and I've paid your debts, down to the last penny.

"I can't do that, I'm a Christian"

Years ago, in my London days, I remember the young daughter of a friend of mine asking me every now and again questions like: Meirav, can you do such-and-such if you're a Christian?

Which to me, being Jewish, sounded very normal - when you're Jewish, life is full of "can you do xyz" type questions. We don't eat that - we're Jewish. We don't do xyz on Shabbat [Saturday - the Sabbath day] - because we're Jewish. Being Jewish revolves around do's and don'ts (and around finding ways round the don'ts...) - we're used to these sorts of questions. And our rabbis have spent a lot of time on working these things out, laying down guidelines for each and every aspect of behaviour.

There is something about human beings that yearns for clear rules and regulations. There is also something about us that rebels against rules and regulations (whether they are God-given or man-made). And there is something about us that picks certain rules and regulations and places them higher than others...

For some reason, anything to do with sex tends to get a much higher billing. Is it because sex is a more exciting subject than, say, the nicking of paper clips from the office where you work? Or is it because we like to have something we can make a big deal out of, so that we could avoid looking at the planks in our own eyes? It is so much easier to avoid the issues of feuds or gossip within the church if we are focused on those people out there who are sleeping with people they're not married to.

And so, we've got an election looming here and we have topics that are deemed to be "Christian issues" and, whilst all these topics are ones which I believe are important, I feel like shouting: what about the orphans and the widows? what about God's heart for the poor? surely welfare and employment and taxation are Christian issues too? and maybe government policy about social welfare and unemployment benefits is more important than whether or not they will promote marriage?

But that's not what I had in mind when I started forming this post in my head. I was thinking not of the elections but of day-to-day life, of the sorts of choices we make all the time, and thinking how sad it is that you're so much more likely to hear someone saying "I can't do that, I'm a Christian" about, say, going to the pub for a drink than about being nasty towards a fellow human being - sad because if there's one thing that is abundantly clear from the Bible and from Jesus' teachings it is that we are not only to love God but we are to love our fellow human beings as we love ourselves.

We humans are so much more comfortable discussing issues like, is it okay to go to the pub/smoke cigarettes/listen to rock music/etc etc if you're a Christian. From whether or not it's okay to go to the movies, we could then go on some lengthy tangents about exactly what kind of movies it would be okay to watch - do you draw the line at PG, at 12, maybe even 15? And as long as we're discussing these issues, we can avoid thinking about the other, more uncomfortable stuff...

Not to mention the fabulous glow of self-righteousness we can get from counting the specks in the eyes of people we know, and the glee with which we could share that with a Christian friend "just for prayer" - not that we are gossiping, of course...

Now, to go look in the mirror and see how many planks I've got stuck in my own eyes.