Sunday 23 May 2010

Children's loss of play: The need of families for a God-centred ethic of work and rest?

In his excellent book 'The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness' Tim Chester challenges Christians to examine the way we live our lives and to unmask the many self-deceptions that drive us to lead lives that at times seem out of control.

The Bible teaches that work and rest are both good, but in western countries like Australia, there is a constant playing out of two competing ethics, a ‘work-centred’ ethic and a ‘leisure-centred’ ethic. How can we achieve balance between work and rest? Chester points out that even the way we 'play' is driven by purposes other than the ultimate purpose of this important human activity. He comments:
"Even our time off can be hard work. Our secular age tends to give material answers to spiritual problems. So leisure has become a thing you 'do' or 'buy'....we no longer 'stroll' or 'ramble'; now we 'hike' with walking poles...leisure is no longer rest; leisure is consumption."
With Chester's comments about adults and play and with my own struggles maintaining a right view of work and rest as a backdrop, I want to suggest that the problems adults have working out a right view of rest (and work) might have many unintended consequences for our children. Our children learn from us through the words we teach them, the lives we live before them and the relationship between both of these and our faith. Children can grow up to imitate us or at times reject that which we have taught and demonstrated. The latter might have positive consequences or simply lead them to other equally wrong and confused notions of work and rest.  New research on the loss of childhood play might be relevant in understanding the importance of play (as a form of rest) to our children. While I don't want to suggest that rest = play for the child (or the adult), changes in the nature of play and the amount of time that adults and their children devote to play is I think relevant to our understanding of rest.

The varied consequences of diminishing play time for children

Psychologists, educators and paediatricians see children’s play as so important to optimal child development that it has been recognized by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights as a right of every child   [Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Rights of the Child].
But in a clinical report to the American Academy of Paediatrics, Kenneth R. Ginsburg concluded, "Many of these children are being raised in an increasingly hurried and pressured style that may limit the protective benefits they would gain from child-driven play."
Major child rearing agencies, early childhood associations, paediatric groups and government agencies with responsibility for children and families have been raising serious questions about declining spare time, and in particular unstructured playtime for young children. For example, a UK report from 300 teachers, psychologists and children's authors claimed that the erosion of "unstructured, loosely supervised" playtime is dangerously affecting young people's health.

Ginsburg concludes that:

• Play allows children to use their creativity while developing their imagination, dexterity, and physical, cognitive, and emotional strength.
• Play is important to healthy brain development.
• Through play children at a very early age engage and interact in the world around them.
• Play allows children to create and explore a world where they can achieve a sense of mastery.
• They can also conquer their fears while practising adult roles, sometimes in conjunction with other children or adult caregivers.
• As they master their world, play helps children develop new competencies that lead to enhanced confidence.
• Undirected play allows children to learn how to work and create with others, to share, to negotiate, and to resolve conflicts.
• When play is allowed to be child driven, children practice decision-making skills, move at their own pace and discover their own areas of interest.
• Play is essential for the building of active healthy bodies.


How might the limitation of play in childhood limit understanding of work & rest as adults?

None of the research on play gives any consideration to the possible consequences of the loss of play to the spiritual well being of the child and its impact on later adult life. Neither does the Bible offer too much direct advice about the importance of play for children's health, development and general well-being. But we do know that God ordained work and rest for our good, and in doing both we imitate him. We also know that in modelling the Christian life for our children, that they observe our actions as well as listening to the things we teach them. Could the way we structure our children's lives teach children things about work and rest that we never intended? Could the work ethic we hold and our attitudes towards activities like school, study, chores and part-time work (for older children), indirectly teach ethics of work and play that aren't biblical? What are we teaching them about work and rest in and through our lives and the way we shape their lives?

What should be our response?

The answer to the observed problem of children's reduced time for rest and play is not simply a new timetable at home.  The answer to lives that are too busy and lack time for rest, is not simply less work or more rest, but a right attitude to both based on a clear understanding of God's grace.  This will start with parents examining their own lives first, then their children's. There is nothing wrong with being busy, in fact Paul teaches us in Philippians that we are to 'pour out' our lives in the service of God (Philippians 2:17); and we are to honour God and give him first place in our lives, as we "present our bodies as a living sacrifice" (Rom 12:1).

As Tim Chester wrote in an article for Case magazine last year, the Bible presents us with a "liberating God-centred ethic in which we work for the glory of God and we rest for the glory of God". Granted, the desire for our children to know and ultimately live out this understanding is rarely in the front of our minds when we play leggo with our 2 year-old, help our 7 year-old with homework or 'waste' time with them at the weekend; but maybe it should be, at least to a greater extent than I assume that it is for most Christian parents.  

We need a right attitude to work and play driven by motivations, goals and aspirations centred on knowing Christ better ourselves and making him known to others. Tim Chester reminds us that "...we can find rest in our busyness and joy in our labour." As parents we need to demonstrate and teach our children that a life dedicated to Christ is one which has a yoke that is easy, and one that will bring ultimate 'rest'. Jesus' teaching ultimately points to the fact that our lives need to acknowledge the perfect rest that we find in our relationship with him:

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)

Other reading and resources

Robert K. Johnston (1983), 'The Christian at Play'

Tim Chester (2006). 'The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness'

Robert Banks (1983). 'The Tyranny of Time'

Previous posts on 'Tyranny and Challenge of Time' and 'Time and the Family'

Tim Chester (2009). 'The Busy Christian's Introduction to Busyness' Case Magazine, No. 18. [Theme: City Life]

Kenneth R. Ginsburg (2007). 'The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds'. Pediatrics, Vol. 119, No. 1, pp 182-191.

12 comments:

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

"But we do know that God ordained work and rest for our good, and in doing both we imitate him."

Could you expand a little on the second part of this statement? Are you saying that, like us, god works but also allows time for rest?

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

There is a lot about rest in the Bible. My comment that you picked out refers to the fact that the Genesis account of creation ends in God resting. See Genesis 2:2 - "And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done". God's act of creation ended not in the creation of man but in God setting aside a time of 'rest'. Of course we can never know what 'rest' could mean for God, but it would seem to be something other than work. The communicating of these words to us in the Bible suggest that God would have us rest too! Hope this helps, Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

Yes, I realised that you were referring to the Genesis creation story. Was just curious though...

Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the story?

If so, what possible need could there be for an all powerful being to rest?

And if not, how are we imitating him? (as in, if it didn't happen like that, we're not really imitating him at all!)

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

The Genesis account is very old. It is essentially literature and talks of events long before the time of Moses. What we read in these early chapters was written for an ancient people. The context in which it was written was a world where there was generally belief in many gods (polytheism). Many creation myths existed but I don’t see Genesis as just another one of these. In fact, I see the Genesis account as something given by God to offer a different account of creation. I believe that Genesis records actual events (I don’t see it as mere myth). The account of creation (Gen 1-3) is more poetic than expository or scientific writing, and was meant to tell these ancient people (and us) that the one and only God created the heavens and the earth and in fact all things, including us! Fewer people these days believe that God created the world in 6 days, but Christians believe that if God had wanted to, he could. Many Christians see that evolution can be reconciled with the Genesis account, other don't. Of course some scientists (Christian and non-Christian) claim that the steps described in Genesis parallel ‘Big Bang’ accounts of creation. But what is critical for Christians is that Genesis tells us who created everything (God) and what the relationship of creation is to its creator. This was the purpose of Genesis.

As you suggest, we shouldn’t try to attribute human characteristics to God, and it would be silly to assume that the God of the Universe would need to rest, perhaps a better way to make the link between our rest and God is to say that in God’s work in creation he set for us a pattern for life where rest is very important (and the ultimate eternal rest is found in Christ). I don’t read the comment that God “rested” to mean that he was exhausted and needed to take a break. But the suggestion that God rested seems related to the very purpose of creation that God ordained. God clearly wants his creation to understand that the world he has made and the life he wants his creation to lead is one that has cycles of work and rest. This parallels the alternation between work and rest that we see in the creation activity. God’s rest seems to have been delighting in his own creation. He looks with joy on his creation and “saw that it was good”.

Of course, the Bible says more about work and rest than this if you want to read further.

Thanks for your questions.

Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

You said that Genesis records "actual events", but that it "is more poetic than expository". What are the actual events that you are able to glean from Genesis? Just that god created "the heavens and the earth and in fact all things, including us"? Do you believe that god made the first man out of mud, and the first woman out of his rib? If not, why not?

Given that there are millions of Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, how is one able to decide which parts are literal and which are metaphorical? Can you say that one of your fellow Christians is "wrong" to believe that god made the world exactly as laid out in Genesis?

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Even metaphor can be used to communicate truth Tim.

Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

Well yes, of course. But whether or not something is a metaphor is usually clear. In the bible, this is quite obviously not the case. Many stories used to be considered literal, and are now claimed to be metaphorical. The question is, who decides? Is everyone free to decide for themselves?

You seem reluctant to answer my questions...? You don't have to answer, of course... but I am curious to know which parts of Genesis you believe to be literal, and how you reached that conclusion.

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

I don't accept your argument that it is never clear in the Bible whether we are reading something that is metaphorical rather than literal facts. There are challenges for us reading an English translation of ancient Hebrew and Greek texts, but you simply need to read it with an open mind. At times it does require hard work and careful study.

Asking which bits I see as literal and which bits I think are metaphorical doesn't take us anywhere. For example, I believe that when Genesis 1:1 says 'God created the heavens and the earth', that this is just what it means - it's literal. Whether he made it in 6 days might be literal or metaphorical. But this is irrelevant to my belief that God created all things. I believe that Genesis communicates truth in a variety of ways including metaphorically.

Regards,

Trevor

Greg T said...

Hi Tim,

If I may stick my oar in at this point...
Further to what Trevor says, I'd suggest that it is not accurate to say that '"Many stories (in the Bible) used to be considered literal, and are now claimed to be metaphorical". Assuming you are referring largely to the first few chapters of Genesis (please provide some examples if you are not), in fact there have always been differing views among Christians as to how that part of the Bible is to be understood. Some of the early church fathers (Origen and Augustine, for instance) were quite clear that the six days of creation were not to be understood literally. They came to that conclusion by means of a careful reading of the text, particularly with respect to its internal logic - and many centuries before carbon dating techniques became available.
As it happens, I agree with them; however, many Christians - including some extremely intelligent ones - do not. The great thing is that I really don't think it matters, either way: it is hard to see how anyone will miss out on their eternal reward on the basis of that kind of misreading of the passages in question.

Regards,

Greg

Timaahy said...

Greg,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, I was mainly referring to the first few chapters of Genesis. Origen and Augustine did indeed say that, but if they are the earliest writers you are able to reference, and they were writing a few thousand years after Genesis was supposedly written, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that “there have always been differing views among Christians as to how that part of the Bible is to be understood”. I think it much more likely that there was, for quite a long time, a consensus that Genesis described the events as they actually occurred.

Anyway, whether a particular story has always been regarded as literal is not central to my argument – the main point to note is that there can be many interpretations of a particular passage, to the point where, in some cases, two vastly different positions can be justified simultaneously.

You said that you believe that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, but “many Christians - including some extremely intelligent ones - do not”. Exactly! Either god made the world exactly as depicted in Genesis, or he didn’t. Who is right?

You will find Christians with different interpretations of almost any passage you care to mention. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Isaac, Noah’s Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, the Ten Commandments, the entire books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Revelation… who decides whether a particular passage is to be taken literally or metaphorically?

In some cases, neither interpretation works. Consider the story of the Fall of Man. Given that this story is the actual reason Jesus had to sacrifice himself, the interpretation of this story is extremely important for Christianity. There are millions of Christians in America that believe this story happened exactly as depicted in the Bible. They need to answer questions such as: Did Adam and Eve have reproductive organs? If so, why? If not, how did they reproduce? Why did god create man with an appendix and junk DNA? You can explain these questions away by pulling the metaphor card, but what about these: Why did god plant the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil if he didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat from it (especially since in his omniscience he knew that they would)? How could Adam and Eve be blamed for their actions, given that before they ate the fruit they didn’t even know the difference between good and evil? And why was every subsequent human punished for their actions? The inherent illogicality of the story means it doesn’t work as a metaphor either… which is a problem because, as I said, the Fall of Man is supposedly the reason why Christianity exists in the first place.

I don’t agree with your statement that it doesn’t matter either way, for two reasons.

1
Certainly if god exists, is Christian and has some common sense, he won’t send people to hell for believing the world was created in six days. But that is not the only passage in question, the bible is not the only holy book going around, and these kinds of beliefs have consequences beyond the believer’s individual prospects for salvation.

2
It affects the bible’s credibility. That is, if a literal interpretation is favoured and it is patently ridiculous, or if a metaphorical interpretation is favoured and it is illogical, it calls into the question the truth value of the entire book.

Tim

Greg T said...

Hi Tim,
Good to hear from you: I thought we might have lost you there for a minute!
Thanks for these insights. As usual, you pose some thought-provoking questions.
Looking at some of your points: firstly, I can't agree that it's "much more likely that there was, for quite a long time, a consensus that Genesis described the events as they actually occurred". A consensus among whom? My main problem here (apart from the fact that you provide no evidence) is that you seem not to have understood that I was referring to differing views of the early chapters of Genesis among Christians, not pre-Christian (i.e. Jewish) scholars etc, as well. The Christian understanding of the stories of Creation and Fall is shaped heavily by the person and work of Christ, so I can't see how one can refer to pre-Christian readings of scripture in the same breath as, for instance, the views of Origen and Augustine. The era in which they were active means we are talking a few hundred years of Christian history, not thousands. Even conceding that a literal understanding has probably been the more common one, I think I have demonstrated that it has never been universally so.
"Either god made the world exactly as depicted in Genesis, or he didn’t. Who is right?" Now, in certain important respects, God did make the world exactly as depicted in Genesis, in that we are here talking about it! Sometimes I think the debate about the details of the creation story leads to the essentials being missed: it is, above all, a depiction of God's mighty acts of creative power in bringing all things into existence. In this sense, it is literally true. However, turning to the debate about the details, clearly the world can't both have been made in six, twenty-four hour periods, and also over billions of years. Yes, to put it simply, some people must have a more correct understanding of the truth of the matter than others. However, I remain to be convinced that this is important in any meaningful sense.
Turning to your comments and questions about the account of the Fall in Genesis 3, I'm not clear why (it seems to me) you insist that the story has to be understood either literally, or metaphorically. Why not both? "There are millions of Christians in America that believe this story happened exactly as depicted in the Bible". Once again, it is important to define what is meant by "exactly". I believe it happened exactly as depicted in Genesis 3, in the sense that mankind fell from a state of grace, innocence and perfect relationship with God into one of sinfulness and alienation from God, with attendant consequences. Whether this involved the literal eating of fruit, talking snakes, etc, as against those and other elements having a symbolic or metaphorical function, I'm frankly not too fussed about. As it happens, I think the details of the story need not be understood literally. This in no way, however, means that the story itself cannot be seen as having a literal meaning (as outlined above). You seem intent on pushing a mutual exclusivity which I simply don't see a need for.

continued...

Greg T said...

Part 2...

As for the questions you pose concerning aspects of the account of the Fall: on the one hand we have a couple of red herrings (next you'll be asking me whether I think Adam and Eve had navels!), and on the other a few questions to which there will be no ultimate answers this side of eternity, at least. Why did God plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Why does God act through human history? Why Israel? Why does he build his church using fallible human beings? etc etc.
There is, in a sense, an ultimate answer to these and similar questions, and it is always the same: He's God, and we're not. We cannot finally know the innermost workings of the mind of God. However, we can know that everything, ultimately, proceeds according to God's set plan and purpose (Acts 2:22-24, for instance). Judging by the fact that He was willing to come to earth and lay down his life for me (and you) in order to overcome the effects of the Fall, I feel confident that that purpose is good.
This is the problem with your seeing a story such as the biblical account of the Fall as "illogical": scripture itself tells us that scripture is not always easy to understand (2 Peter 3:16), and that God has chosen not to reveal his will and purposes in an exhaustive manner (1 Corinthians 13:12). God reveals himself in the Bible (and otherwise) in a way that is consistent with his purposes. Why he doesn't always make himself crystal clear to limited human minds is a fair question. The effects of sin no doubt contribute somewhat to our lack of understanding. Beyond that I'm not going to speculate at this point (this is long enough already - and I think we're now well and truly off the topic of Trevor's original post!)

Regards,
Greg