Taking the time to be a Father

Post by Edwina Hine

Lately, I found the following article (German vice-chancellor takes time off to be a dad, The Guardian) very interesting.  As I was reading it, I was reminded of Case Magazine #12 with the theme 'Family Foundations: What’s important for marriage, parenthood and family life.'

In Case Magazine #12  Professor Trevor Cairney writes about families, and in particular The Role of Fathers: Aligning biblical wisdom and research. It is an in-depth look at fatherhood and explores many issues that affect parents particularly dads. In the essay he sets out with two central aims.

To encourage fathers (and mothers) "...to develop an understanding of what God expects of fathers as men of God; and, second, to encourage further discussion relating to how we can work at reshaping our lives so that those of us who are fathers spend time with our families, loving them, teaching them, instructing them in God’s ways and modelling what it means to “love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”

Photo sourced from SMH

Prof Cairney draws on demographic research to illustrate the changing structure of the family, and discusses how changes in employment patterns have impacted on the family. He discusses how research suggests that changing working patterns are having many adverse effects on families. In particular, highlights that atypical hours of work are problematic with negative impacts on health, relationships, families and children’s well being. He also reminds us what the bible teaches on God-centred families and in particular fathers.

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Eph 6:4

The article referenced in this blog post is available as a free download from the CASE Website. CASE Associates receive Case magazine 4 times per year as part of their benefits. For blog followers who are yet to be CASE Associates you can sign up HERE or order a single copy HERE.

Rethinking the place of work, rest and play in the 'self-consistent' life

I wrote a post on 'Children's loss of play' a couple of years ago and I continue to reflect upon my central thesis. That is, could the failure of adults to understand the nature of play and its importance, be depriving their children of play, and at the same time offering them life models that might just shape their own use of time in negative ways when they grow up?

In my last post on this topic I cited Kenneth R. Ginsburg's work that suggests play is critical for children and fulfils many needs:

• 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.
• Play can also help them to 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.

But as well as being important for children, play is important for adults. In 'The Christian at Play' Robert Johnston argues that play is part of life and hence should be part of our consideration of what it means (quoting Thomas Oden) "to live self-consistent and intelligible [lives] of faith in Christian community".

Johnston has many interesting things to say.  As someone who has a spent a lot of time as a researcher observing children at play, I have become conscious that I know less about play as an adult. Here's how Johnston describes play:

I would understand play as that activity which is freely and spontaneously entered into, but which, once begun, has its own design, its own rules or order, which must be followed so that the play activity may continue. The player is called into play by a potential co-player and/or play object, and while at play, treats other players and/or "playthings" as personal, creating with them a community that can be characterized by "I-Thou" rather than "I-It" relationships. This play has a new time (a playtime) and a new space (a playground) which function as "parentheses" in the life and world of the player. The concerns of everyday life come to a temporary standstill in the mind of the player, and the boundaries of his or her world are redefined... But though play is an end in itself, it can nevertheless have several consequences. Chief among these are the joy and release, the personal fulfillment, the remembering of our common humanity, and the presentiment of the sacred, which the player sometimes experiences in and through the activity. One's participation in the adventure of playing, even given the risk of injury or defeat, finds resolution at the end of the experience, and one re-enters ongoing life in a new spirit of thanksgiving and celebration. The player is a changed individual because of the playtime, his or her life having been enlarged beyond the workaday world (p. 34).

His comments are interesting and lead me to ask, might play have a different human value to rest and leisure? Is it a distinctive part of the life of the adult as well as the child, and can my engagement in play bring glory to God and help me to live a life of faith well?
 

We Protestants have always been suspicious of play and idleness, trusting instead in the worth of work and diligence in all that we do. But in the process we have often failed to understand the biblical sense of 'rest' and have been just as confused about 'work and its purposes. We know that God ordained rest at creation when He rested from the work that he had done (Genesis 2:2-3). As well, we know that physical rest has a relationship to spiritual rest and God's ultimate plan and design for us, that we are to seek him in our lives. Our lives are to demonstrate that we understand and seek the only true rest that is to be found in Christ (Matthew 11:28-29). Play is an added complexity because it isn't the same as rest, but it may be pursued as part of rest, as we seek in the midst of life, rest for our souls not just our bodies. Understanding work, rest and play is made even more difficult because in the modern era the place of play and rest, relative to work, has become confused.  Johnston cites some of the following trends:

• As the amount of leisure time increases for some, the meaningfulness of work has decreased.
• While opportunities for leisure and play have increased for some, there has been a reverse trend for many women with paid work adding to many of their previous responsibilities at home.
• For many, work has become simply a means to an end; primarily, a way to increase purchasing power for life, with leisure increasing dramatically as an area of expenditure.
• Free time does not necessarily mean rest, leisure or play for those who Staffan Lindner labelled "the harried leisure class"; those for whom consumption dominates non-working time.
• What people do when they have time away from their jobs can often be simply idleness.

There is much that could be added to Johnston's list some 30 years later. For example, today I suspect that Christians, like people in general, have a tendency to binge on rest and play, and I'm also not too sure that anyone has much more leisure time. For many, there is an inconvenient truth about the dominant place of work, as they seek to earn money to allow insatiable consumption in all parts of life.

In an age where most people feel time poor, and we spend too much time working and too little time entering into rest, a consideration of the role of play in life might just be helpful for many of us. As well, we may need to give careful consideration to the way we model what rest and even play mean in our lives as others observe us.

If you're interested in this topic, you might have a look at issue #24 of Case Magazine on 'Work in Progress'. You might find this helpful.

A right view of indoctrination? From the CASE Archives*

"... no true education can escape the responsibility of communicating a view of life - that is, of 'indoctrinating.' The cult of the open mind is a way of camouflaging the poverty of an education which has no view of life to communicate. Indoctrination is not an educational crime; it is an educational necessity, in religion as in table manners. The crime is to indoctrinate in such a way as to destroy the freedom and responsibility of the pupil. It is by no means impossible - and the world's greatest teachers from Socrates onwards have proved it to be the very heart of teaching - to present a strongly held faith in such a way as to challenge the beholder to come to terms with it on his own personal responsibility. That there is no necessary opposition between doctrine and freedom is clear when personal freedom is at the very heart of the doctrine."

The above is a quote from a book written by M.V.C. Jeffreys who wrote most of his publications in the first half of the 20th century. He was a Professor of Education at the University of Birmingham. The quote is from his book 'Glaucon' and was first published in 1950. We could argue about what we mean by indoctrination, but I'm happy to accept the Oxford Dictionary definition for the purpose of the post. That is, to "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically".

Richard Dawkins is a big critic of parents holding a faith position and teaching it to their children. He claims that it is indoctrination and that it is a form of child abuse. Is this fair? I think not! Surely it is the right of all parents to teach to or share with their children the things they believe. What parent would not try to teach their children the things that they think are important. How different is it for a parent to passionately teach their children about Climate Change, the killing of endangered species, the dangers of atomic energy or the unparalleled merits of the New York Yankees (or the Rabbitohs in Sydney) and a parent who teaches their children about their faith?


It's easy to be accused of indoctrination. In September 2009 President Obama was accused of indoctrination (here) due to his national address to the nation's school children.  Jim Greer the chair of Florida's Republican Party stated, "I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." In fact, there are accusations of this sort against the President all over the web. Personally, I think the claims are grossly unfair, but how do we make such judgements? How and why did Jim Greer reach his conclusion that it was indoctrination?

Is it just possible that some of the people who object to parents teaching their children about faith, labelling it as indoctrination, might 'indoctrinate' their own children, or even find it acceptable when others 'indoctrinate' children with ideas with which they agree? I read a blog recently in which the writer told how her 3 year old had chanted to her at dinner that night “Reduce! Reuse! Recycle!”. She suggested that the learning of this chant to encourage recycling is "good indoctrination".  Who decides when indoctrination of children is good, or bad? Given that indoctrination simply means to instruct or teach someone a "doctrine" - which in turn means a body of knowledge, sets of principles, a collection of teachings - then it is nonsense to assume that it is always wrong.

Photo of Mother & Child I took at Clare Hall Cambridge

M.V.C. Jeffreys' view was that indoctrination rather than being wrong or immoral is appropriate and unavoidable. What he saw as wrong was indoctrination that can "destroy the freedom and responsibility of the pupil". In defence of Christians who are accused of indoctrination regularly, it is relevant to remind people that the very basis of Christian faith is freedom. Christianity isn't about simple adherance to a set of rules or even moral principles; although the Bible does suggest ways that we should live. Those who present the Christian faith in this way are teaching a false gospel. While we can teach a child about faith in Christ, we cannot make them believe. It is wrong for a parent or teacher to seek to coerce children into believing that which they believe themselves. It is also a quest that is doomed to failure. As Joshua reminded the Israelites as they prepared to enter the Promised Land, ultimately all of us must choose who we will serve. Joshua challenged the Israelites to consider if they were going to serve the gods of the Amorites or the God of their ancestors, Yahweh (Joshua 24:14-15). Likewise, Jesus called his disciples to choose to follow and to believe in him. And as Jesus taught the stakes are high:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Why shouldn't parents teach their children the doctrines that will allow them to make a choice as to the reality of God as taught in the Bible? Especially when they believe that there are eternal consequences.

The Bible teaches that the Christian faith is not about being enslaved to the views of others, whether as a child or as an adult, it is about being set free to live as God had intended.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.  (Romans 8:1-4)

* This is a revised version of a post I wrote in May 2010.

Helping our children to have a right attitude to work, rest and play

Image from Wiki Commons

In his 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."

At the end of a week that for me seemed out of control and with Chester's comments about adults and play and 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 others, including 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.  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 that "...many 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".  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 that 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 labour 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. (Matthew 11:28, 29).

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', 'The Busy Life' 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.

[This post is based on one I wrote in 2010 - 'Children's Loss of Play: The need of families for a God-centred ethic of work']

Happiness & the folly of the positive Life

University & the popularity of 'Positive Psychology'

Dan Haesler is a teacher, writer and speaker. In 2010 he was awarded the NSW Premier’s Anika Foundation Teacher’s Scholarship to address and raise awareness of youth depression. In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald (5th May 2011), he points out that the most popular course at Harvard University is not medicine, dentistry, engineering or even law. Rather, it is positive psychology.  Penn State Centre for Positive Psychology describes this new field within psychology as "the scientific study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive".

The field is founded on the belief that people want to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives to cultivate what is best within themselves, and to enhance their experiences of love, work, and play. Positive Psychology has three central concerns: positive emotions, positive individual traits, and positive institutions. The Penn State centre suggests that:

"Understanding positive emotions entails the study of contentment with the past, happiness in the present, and hope for the future. Understanding positive individual traits consists of the study of the strengths and virtues, such as the capacity for love and work, courage, compassion, resilience, creativity, curiosity, integrity, self-knowledge, moderation, self-control, and wisdom. Understanding positive institutions entails the study of the strengths that foster better communities, such as justice, responsibility, civility, parenting, nurturance, work ethic, leadership, teamwork, purpose, and tolerance."

Dan Haesler rightly asks, "How could it be that at one of the most respected universities in the world, America's top scholars need lessons in how to be happy?" He poses this question alongside the observation that 20% of the high school students who enter Australian universities will drop out each year, at an estimated cost of $1.4 billion to the taxpayer each year.

He suggests that the reasons for dropping out are complex, but rarely related to academic ability. Students will often drop out because they lack the social or emotional skills to work effectively outside the regimented structure of their high school. He argues that the standardisation of school education isn't helping...while most schools do a good job of getting kids through exams... only a few institutions genuinely prepare students for ''real life''. This is an appropriate warning on this the first day of NAPLAN testing in schools for 2011.

This standardisation he suggests is turning our schools into factories, and our children into mere products on the production line, without a clue what they will do with their lives, or what they are good at. The result is that many end up studying fields with no inbuilt motivation or any sense of intrinsic reward for studying it. Does this explain the "happy classes" at Harvard?

The 'upside down' nature of a preoccupation with happiness

I'm not sure when we begin to learn what it is that we think will make us happy. I suspect that it begins very early in life; perhaps first as we simply observe the priorities in adult lives that are communicated unknowingly to children. School then picks the agenda up and more explicitly signals the things that seem to be most important; success, exams, winning, popularity, looks... And then of course there is every imaginable element of popular culture 'nipping' at children's heals. Is it any wonder that young people arrive at university confused about what they want to do and why.

From a biblical perspective there is something upside down about focussing on happiness and the control of external circumstances like success, appearance, pleasure, wellbeing and so on to achieve it. The Bible says little about seeking this type of earth-bound happiness, but says much more about eternal blessings. In Jesus’ first major teaching event (Matthew 5:3-12) he made it clear that those who mourn, the persecuted, the hungry and so on can have much more than this temporal happiness; we can be blessed with eternal membership of the Kingdom of God.

The Bible's message is that rather than focusing on external circumstances, the key to 'true' life is to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).

There are many things in this world that can bring us temporary happiness – money, good health, a good reputation, people who love you and so on, and they are all good. But the things of this world cannot ensure ongoing happiness; we are foolish to place our hope and trust in these things.

Jesus taught, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?”

I find Paul's words at the end of his first letter the young Timothy (1 Timothy 6) to be a great encouragement in these matters. He warns of many things but amongst these he challenges Timothy to seek contentment rather than the things of this world:

"Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction." (1 Timothy 6:6-9)

Instead:

"But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses." (1 Timothy 6:11-12)

Other reading

You can read Dan Haesler's article 'Cookie Cutters and Happiness' HERE

In issue 14 of the Case magazine we examined this matter in detail. You can still buy single copies by visiting the CASE website HERE.

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.

Other People's Children (A Reprise)

When I first blogged on this topic in September 2008, it was in response to a great question that Tim Adeney had asked in a blog he was writing at the time.

"How do you feel about other people's children? Do you see them as people worthy of your time, effort, prayers and affection?"

I've been encouraged to revisit this topic by an excellent post my daughter wrote recently on her blog 168 Hours titled 'The Disappearance of Caring Adults'. In it she presented a great quote from Steve Biddulph and ended with a few questions of her own, one of which was "How can we make ourselves more available to our children, and other people's children?" I've repeated my last post on the topic (with a few minor revisions) because I think it's such an important topic that touches all children and families.

Love your neighbour as yourself

Tim's question of course was directed to those in the church, and is worth asking within the church alone, but I have always felt that as Christians we are far too ready to place a fence around our concerns for others. As I reflect upon questions like those from Tim and Nicole, I can't help but think about how I was treated as a child and the impact it had on my life. While there is good biblical justification for the priority that parents are to give to the care, concern and spiritual growth of their children, we can easily become oblivious to the needs of our neighbours. By neighbours, I mean the broadest sense of the word, the Luke 10 sense, where Jesus challenges the expert in the law ("lawyer" ESV) who had just tried to challenge Jesus himself. You no doubt know how it unfolds; the lawyer asks, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responds by asking him "what is written in the Law?" The lawyer then quotes from Leviticus 19:8 - we are to "Love your neighbour as yourself." Jesus then responds with the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan and makes it clear for the lawyer that the extent of his love and concern for others should extend beyond his family and fellow Jews even to a stranger (Luke 10:25-37), in fact in other places Jesus extends this even further - "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-45). Jesus makes it clear that the Christian life must demonstrate this type of neighbourliness.


Some decent men and women in my life

When I reflect on my first 31 years as a non-believer and atheist, I can identify a number of decent men and a couple of women, who took an interest in me; who saw me as their 'neighbour'. These were men and women demonstrated in the richest sense of Jesus' parable what it is to be a neighbour to other people's children. I'll share how just two of them did it.

There was Paul, the owner of the local slot car track and pinball hall. As a young teenager I would spend up to 25 hours per week at the slot car track - playing pinball machines, racing and repairing slot cars, messing around and hanging over the counter talking to Paul about sport, cars, girls and life in general. Paul had his own wife and two children and his mother-in-law living with him. He was a devoted husband and father even though like most small business owners he worked long hours. He was always quick to give advice - "Don't talk like that!" "Don't you need to go home to do some school work?" "Do your parents know that you're here so late?" "What are you going to do with yourself when you leave school?" "One day I want to be able to tell people that you're an engineer, not unemployed."

There was Mr Campbell my 4th grade teacher. I was a grubby and chubby little kid who would try to sit at the back of the room, with the seat out of my hand-me-down pants and a neglected appearance that was brought to the attention of DOCs on at least one occasion. He was the first teacher who recognised some things in me that others had missed. He took an interest in me in and out of the classroom. He would talk with me in the playground when I drifted towards him. He would encourage me inside the classroom, calling on me to answer questions when my hand didn't go up, setting me work that would challenge me, talking patiently with me when I messed up, and looking for ways to challenge me. He gave me several jobs. One of them was to put me in charge of the brand new school aquarium with tropical fish. I'd never seen tropical fish before. I'd seen goldfish and the mullet I caught from the creek, but never fish like this. I was entrusted with the only local source of knowledge "An introduction to caring for tropical fish" and encouraged to take care of them; and I did with great success. Eventually, he gave me my first public speaking opportunity, a talk I delivered on tropical fish to the class. I was now an expert on something.

There were other people too - a baseball coach, a cricket coach, a single woman who lived next door called Evelynne, a high school geography teacher, Mrs Clarke across the road, and the father of one of my closest mates. All demonstrated that they were concerned for me and that they were interested in my life and my welfare. None of these people were Christians, but all were decent man or woman who had a significant impact on my life, second only perhaps to that the only significant Christian influence, my grandfather. While God was to use a variety of Christians later in my life (between the ages 20-31) building on my Grandfather's godly example, God also used these decent non-Christian men and women in my formative years.

The challenge

For me the challenge as a Christian is this. If God can use a few decent men and women who didn't know him or his eternal purposes, how much more can God use godly Christian men and women in the lives of their neighbour's children? We all need to ask, how available am I to be used in similar ways? In fact, how can I ensure that I am seeking to be used by God in this way? Am I even conscious that God might use me this way? Of course, I know that God expects me to do more than live alongside people, he wants me to share my faith in Christ with others. But how seriously do I take to heart that I am to love my neighbour as myself? And perish the thought, am I so bound up with caring for my own nuclear family that I have no time or interest in my neighbours (young and old)?

There isn't space to go into much detail, but my personal challenge, and one I hope readers will share, is for each of us to do a quick assessment of the type of neighbour we are to the other families even in our street or apartment block. Of course for this to happen, our lives need to intersect with their lives in some way. How can we make this happen? This will vary depending on our circumstances - whether young or old, married or single, male or female etc. If for example, you have a young family, you have a great opportunity to involve yourself in other people's lives. When my children were growing up my wife and I had wonderful opportunities to be involved with other families. For us there were three areas where we had numerous opportunities outside the church:

• Through school - we got to know parents and children at bus stops, in the playground, at school events and in the community. In one street where we lived our house was an open house for all 23 children in the street (21 of whom were girls!).
• Through sporting teams - my daughters played sport summer and winter in the primary school years and generally I ended up coaching their teams. As a result, I had opportunities to know the team members and their families.
• Through other out-of-school activities like dance classes and music lessons.

I have no idea what influence my wife and I had in these years but I do know that we were enriched by these opportunities, and that we began to develop a concern for these children and their families. With this came opportunities for prayer and for us to share our faith. As well, our own daughters saw us relating to other children, which I'm sure was helpful for them in the formative years of their faith. Christians must not be part of the disappearing group of "caring adults" that Nicole talks about in her post.

Related posts

I wrote an article on families in Case 12 (here) that considers research evidence on the importance of fathers have a special role.

I’ve also written a number of previous posts about families, including:

a) how time spent with children matters (here),
b) the negative impact of the reduction of time spent sharing meals (here),
c) the role of fathers more generally (here),
d) shared community responsibility for children in crisis (here),
e) being a church that welcomes and includes children (here).

Finally, I've written a number of more practical posts about fathers on my other blog 'Literacy, families and learning' (here).

How will our children 'read' us this Christmas?

Children are learning machines. From birth they observe their world and the people who inhabit it. Even if you wanted to stop children from learning you'd find it difficult. The hard part about being a parent is that often we don't have the degree of control that we'd like in the things that our children learn. We often lament the fact that our children don't (or won't!) learn the things we want them to. But in many ways, a much bigger problem is the fact that they learn lots of things we'd prefer them not to learn simply by observing us.

The major task of the parent is to shape their children's character. I doubt that there is any parent, irrespective of their worldview or faith, who would not want to influence their children for good. But unlike the humanist who assumes that all people are basically good or capable of becoming good people, Christians believe that all people are marked by sin and require God's intervention and salvation. The Bible teaches that the "..intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21), so consequently, one of the major tasks of the Christian parent is to train our children's hearts. Our aim is not simply to shape behaviour, but instead we seek to influence their foundational beliefs. We do this in many ways. Clearly we set limits on their behaviour and try to train them to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26), but as Tedd Tripp points out in his book 'Shepherding a Child's Heart', it is easy to spend most of our time focusing on our children's behaviour and to neglect the need to train their rebellious hearts that produce the behaviour (Luke 6:45). We need to work constantly to orient our children towards God. We do this in many ways.

By teaching them about Christ and their personal need of forgiveness and redemption.
Through the example that we set for them and the extent to which our own behaviour reflects the orientation of our own hearts towards God.
The priorities that our family life demonstrates - how much is life within our families shaped by our faith in Christ and our desire to know him better?

At Christmas Christian families have great opportunities inside and outside their homes to speak about and demonstrate the reality that Christ lives (!) in their hearts and lives. And yet, it is easy at this time to demonstrate inadvertently the opposite in our words and actions towards others and hence provide confused messages and priorities for our children. While my children are grown up, I still have a responsibility to provide an example to my children and grandchildren, and members of our extended family. And I still find it challenging to provide a message in my actions that matches my faith in Christ and the priorities that I say have shaped me.

So as we approach Christmas it would do us all a lot of good to consider in advance how our family members will 'read' us at this time when we celebrate God's grace and mercy in breaking into the world in the person of Jesus. I offer some questions below for self-evaluation that I've framed broadly enough for those of us who don't have young children.

Do we speak of God's grace at this time and yet demonstrate lack of forgiveness in our attitudes and actions towards our family members, fellow Christians, workmates and neighbours?
Do we talk of the love of Christ and yet demonstrate a coldness of heart that fails to show patience, kindness, and gentleness in the way we deal with others?
Do we speak of the generosity of God in sending his Son into the world and yet demonstrate avarice, greed, envy and jealousy?
Do we speak of the priority of Christ in our lives and yet at this time demonstrate in our actions that other things gain priority over our devotion, love and service in Christ's name?

Paul challenges his readers in several of his letters to be imitators of godly men and women who in turn are imitators of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2:14). Similarly, the writer to the Hebrew church exhorts his readers to be imitators of those who through faith and patience have inherited the promises of God (Hebrews 6:12; 13:7).

Our children read us every day. How will they read us this Christmas?

Related posts

My review of Ted Tripp's book 'Shepherding a Child's Heart' (here)

'How not to teach children to gamble' (here)

Fathers matter!

1. Secular research tells us that fathers matter

I wrote in an article on families in Case 12 (here), that research suggests that families matter, and that within families fathers have a special role. I’ve also written a number of previous posts about families, including how time spent with children matters (here), the negative impact of the reduction of time spent sharing meals (here), and the role of fathers more generally (here). As well, I've written posts on the shared responsibility we have with communities for other people's children (here) and in the church (here). The latter is critical for families where no father is present. Finally, I've written a number of more practical posts about fathers on my other blog 'Literacy, families and learning' (here).

To recap some of my previous arguments; research on families and demographic trends have demonstrated a number of significant changes in families and parental practices in recent decades. I summarised the trends last time under four headings:

• Family structures are changing – e.g. there are less children in families, women are having children later in life, there are more sole parent households, there are more blended families, children stay at home longer (and many more return as adults) etc.
• Employment structures are changing - and they have an impact on families, with more parents working in multiple jobs, more women back in the workforce, many workers working longer hours, more people working from home etc.
• Fathers and mothers have changed roles and levels of engagement as parents - and while there is a trend towards some fathers spending more time caring for children, for others longer working hours have affected family life. As well, the increase in women doing paid work outside the home has led to more children in the critical first five years of life being placed in childcare with mixed impacts.
• Research has highlighted the critical role that fathers have - for example, fathers have a significant impact on their children’s learning and behaviour. The influence on children’s education alone (the quality of which is also correlated with many other behavioural factors) is significant, as a UK centre on fatherhood has outlined.
  

Other research has suggested that the influence of fathers and family structures flows well beyond children’s learning (see for example Qu and Soriano, 2004). I concluded in my Case article that:

Research suggests, that fathers who show affection, give support and yet offer an authoritative parenting style, have a more significant impact on their children, when compared with fathers who adopt a more authoritarian and detached style. Other evidence indicates that who the father is, and what he does in life makes a difference.

In summary, what many research studies show is that fathers have a significant influence on child health and wellbeing, cognitive and emotional development and life outcomes.

2. The Bible tells us that fathers matters too

The importance of families is seen throughout the Bible. The concept of family is central to God’s plan for his creation and its restoration. The Bible teaches that relationships, like creation itself, were affected, disrupted and dislocated by sin in the Garden (the book of Genesis describes what happened). But God sustained his people in families and sought to restore them to their rightful place and adopt them into his own family (see for example Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 1:4-5). God continues to use families in spite of the curse that has been placed on family relationships as a result of sin, and the struggle that ensues between men and women (Gen 3). God’s plan to rescue his people ultimately involves family – his family!

As well, the critical role of fathers is clear within Scripture. The nation of Israel was one family, descended from Abraham. Within the nation that would rise up as a result of God’s promise to Abraham, there would be tribes defined on family lines and ultimately families within the family, all linked through fathers. Fathers are central to families in the Bible. Marriage in turn is seen as necessary to create a nuclear family – a man and woman, committed to each other in a covenant relationship - which seeks to have and raise godly children (Mal 2:14-15).

How the father fulfils his role as a father in families, is less clear and more open to varied styles of parenting. This of course is within the boundaries of God's expectations of godliness and faithfulness to him and the primary responsibility to make the gospel of Christ the centre of our parenting (see my post on 'Shepherding a Child's Heart' here). But there is no doubt that the godly father who exercises authority over his family is a central part of God's work of redemption within families. I've always found that one of the most practical places to look for guidance on how fathers lead their families is the advice God gave to Moses to pass on to the Israelites in the desert before they entered the Promised Land. Having exhorted them to fear God and obey his commandments, and to take care of how they lived (Deut 6:1-3), God gives instructions on how this is to be done within their families.

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house

and on your gates.” (Deut 6:4-9)

God expected the men of Israel to obey his commandments and to love him with all of their being – heart, soul and strength. He also expected them to teach God’s commands and expectations to their children in the ‘everydayness’ of life. To talk about God when they sat together at home, when they walked from place to place, when they were preparing for bed and rest, and when they rose in the morning. They were to speak of God’s ways, to wear the words of God’s law on their foreheads (no I’m not about to suggest we introduce this practice that is still followed by some Orthodox Jews), and write them on the doorposts and entrances to their houses, so that they would not forget them and so that they could teach them even more effectively to their children.

Here is a picture of a father with a right view of God, who trusts, obeys and serves his God and who seeks to teach his children to understand the wisdom of God and to follow him. This is also a picture of an involved father. If we were to translate this biblical picture into contemporary terms, we would see a father who seeks to obey and honour God, who sets a good example for his family, who models what it is to be a child of God. Such a father spends time with his children (indeed will 'waste' time with them), listens to them and shares godly wisdom at meal times, while resting, while together at home, while travelling. This is an engaged father, one who makes time for his family!

3. Practical implications

As Christian fathers there are some fairly obvious implications for us. As a framework for self-assessment, fathers might consider the following:

Godly Leadership - Is my life demonstrating to my wife and my children that it is centred on Christ?
Engagement – Does my life give priority to interactions with my children and do we share joint activities? Is biblical teaching a part of this?
Accessibility – Am I available to talk with, listen to and simply be seen by my children?
Responsibility – Do I share family responsibility for childcare? [I'm not suggesting a specific model for shared parenting here but the evidence suggests that being involved with kids means time spent with them, and some of the above flows from this].

Other resources and links

Apologetics in Family Life (here)
Fatherhood Institute
Family Action Centre (Newcastle University)
'Literacy, families and learning' (here)

Shepherding a Child's Heart: Wise advice and one key error

Like any father I have always found parenting to be both challenging and rewarding. When I came to faith as a 31 year old with two daughters aged 3 and 5 years I was confronted by a new challenge, how would I raise my children to know God and be obedient to him? As an academic with interest in child development, learning and how families structure learning in the home, I also have more than a passing interest in parenting. As a new Christian, I quickly learned that the Bible was our family's key resource and that this was where I was to seek God's wisdom on how to be a wise parent. It took many years before I even realised that there was a large market for Christian parenting resources and that many of the books published evoked varied responses from Bible believing parents.

Tripp's Error

After hearing many references to Ted Tripp's Book, 'Shepherding a Child's Heart' in recent years from young parents, I decided that I needed to read and review it on this blog. I see this as a very helpful book with some excellent and biblical advice written by a godly and wise Christian, but it has one major flaw. The error is signalled on page 59 when Ted Tripp suggests that:

"We cannot be indifferent to [parenting] methodology. Biblically, the method is as important as the objectives. God speaks to both issues. He is concerned not only with what we do, but also with how we do it."

I believe that the second sentence in this short paragraph is false. The first sentence is difficult to dispute, yes we should give careful consideration to how we parent; we can't be "indifferent to methodology". And perhaps, God has spoken through his word in places to give some pointers to methods. But I don't believe that God is concerned with how we do parenting in the sense that he might favour specific methods, let alone one main method of discipline as we see argued in Tripp's book. Of course, we should use the Bible to inform our practices, but to claim that the Bible offers clear guidance on disciplinary method has little biblical justification. God is certainly concerned that we act as godly parents who seek to honour him and bring glory to his name as we care for and lead our families. Like many authors of parenting books before him, Tripp allows his own methods, which he suggests worked well for his children (and I have no reason to doubt that they did), to become the yardstick by which he assesses the appropriateness of other approaches, before using the Bible to justify his approach while dismissing others. Suggesting a single method ignores key variability in children and parents. For example, not all fathers are capable of controlling their anger and avoiding the warnings that Tripp gives about abuse of punishment. Furthermore, all children are different, even in the one family! They have different personalities and psychological make-ups which cannot be ignored. I believe that slavish adherence to one method will make it harder to avoid the warning of Ephesians 6:4, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord".

Tripp's wise advice

I find Tripp's emphasis on 'the rod' all the more frustrating because the first half of this book lays out a sound biblical framework for the basics of parenting. Until I reached p.59 I found little that I could question and much that I would applaud. For example his comments that:

The gospel is the central focus of parenting.
Far too often parents focus on changing children's behaviour; instead we need to look beyond behaviour to the rebellious heart that produces it (Luke 6:45).
Our every effort should be to ensure our children internalise the message of the gospel.
There are many influences that shape children, including family values, the structure of the family and its history, family practices like conflict resolution, how roles are defined, and how families deal with failure.
Children like adults are covenantal beings that must choose who they will worship and serve - from the womb we are wayward and can go astray (Psalm 58:3).
Parents have the critical task of 'shepherding children's hearts' to be oriented towards God.
Punishment must always be corrective not punitive and be an expression of love of wanting what is good for your child - Discipline must not be in anger, for revenge or just to punish.
Our goals for parenting are always to see God glorified in our lives, in our children's lives and in our family.
Communication is all about dialogue (not monologue) and is vital to good parenting.
It is important to regularly diagnose our children's relationship to God (Tripp offers a helpful strategy for this) that gives biblical focus to parenting.

The Rod

While I do see a place for occasional physical punishment (e.g. a slap on the legs, or a tap on the hand of a toddler who defies my instructions and verbal prompts) as a parent, I don't see much biblical evidence for the major priority that Tripp gives it in this book and his claim (in effect) that 'the rod' is the most biblical of methods, trumping threats of punishment, withdrawal of rewards and privileges, isolation (e.g. the 'naughty chair') etc. Like several high profile books on parenting in the past, this one is in a sense a corrective to overly permissive and unbiblical parenting, but it goes too far. This is a blog post rather than an essay, so I won't go into great detail about my objections to the priority given to 'the rod', but I'd like to simply list some of these objections to the emphasis given to corporal punishment and Tripp's dismissal on biblical grounds of some other parenting methods.

There is no question that Tripp is correct that the Bible supports his advice that parents need to be concerned primarily about their children's hearts, not their behaviour. Parents need to help their children understand that they are sinners and that the cross of Christ should be the central focus of childrearing. He is also correct that parents must discipline their children to curb these rebellious hearts and to train them in obedience - obedience to parents, obedience to other authorities and above all, obedience to God. But how we do this is less certain and there is very little biblical justification for 'the rod' being the primary tool for training your child alongside communication (p. 150). Because 'the rod' is spoken of in Proverbs there is certainly justification for considering it as one method, but exactly what form 'the rod' should take is debatable. Even Tripp's use of Proverbs is open to question, for not all the references necessitate a reading that physical punishment is intended, and certainly there is doubt about the form it should take today. In my view it is unclear whether 'the rod' need only refer to physical beating, spanking, hitting etc. For example, I'm not convinced that Hebrews 12:5-11 (a passage he uses) provides justification for Tripp's thesis that physical punishment is what is intended - let alone his brand of spanking - as the key biblical method. This passage speaks of a father's discipline as being for a child's good and that it leads to the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Heb 12:11). But it hardly provides justification for Tripp's form of discipline; that is, pulling down a child's pants and paddling them a sufficient number of times to hurt them, from any age when they show resistance to you (p. 151). This he suggests can be as simple as resisting a diaper change. While we must help our children to recognise their sinfulness and rebellion, we need to be careful that we do not lose sight of the fact that we also need to help them to grasp an understanding of God's mercy, forgiveness, grace, patience, love and ultimately the possibility of redemption as sinners in Christ. I'm not suggesting that Tripp makes this error, but over-use of 'the rod' may well leave less room for children to learn these things about God.

In contrast to Tripp's justification of 'the rod' is his quick dismissal of many other forms of discipline as unbiblical. While I agree with him that far too often parents appeal to 'pop psychology' for answers, other criticisms are unjustified. For example, he dismisses what he calls 'punitive correction', that is, the threat of punishment to control children (p.64). But surely as a form of discipline a biblical case can be made for it. The Bible has many examples of God warning his people of the consequences of wrong behaviour, and often links punishment, wise behaviour and blessing (e.g. Deuteronomy 28). The pattern for warning of impending punishment is set in Genesis 2, with the ultimate warning that if Adam were to eat of the tree of knowledge that he would "surely die". We must also remember that there is a two way relationship between 'the heart' and behaviour. Yes, our behaviour reflects our heart, but repeated uncorrected behaviour begins to set patterns that influence the heart.

Summing up

There is so much good material in this book that is sound biblically, but its impact is reduced as Tripp embellishes this with his advice that physical punishment is the key tool for discipline. He is right in suggesting that parents should talk to their children when they rebel and that they should appeal to their consciences, but why must this be followed so regularly from a very early age by physical punishment? I would encourage parents to heed Tripp’s encouragement to use the Bible as the key resource in guiding our parenting and not expect to find biblical support for a single method to train our children in godliness. This book is one of the few books to offer a sound biblical framework for parenting, it's a shame that the section on method (which also has much good advice) is flawed due to Tripp's preoccupation with 'the rod', and a very narrow interpretation of what it means in practice.