Recently I came across a rules list for a junior youth club, and was reminded of the list that I saw on the wall of one of the rooms of our building soon after I arrived here - a list that had hung there for at least five years after the demise of the club to which it referred (nuff said).
The list on the chapel wall, so far as I recall began "no swearing" and the list I came across recently began "running is only permitted in the large hall." Now these rules are fine, though the problems that prompted their imposition seem self-evident, but hardly my idea of 'rule 1'. In each case some way down the list was something along the lines of "show respect to everyone" or "treat others as you would wish to be treated." Now, I might be a bit pedantic, but I'd have thought that these ought to have appeared higher up the list than "no balls games in the sanctuary" or some such similar thing. Surely the list of rules needed is pretty minimal, as a good 'rule 1' will negate the likes of 'no name calling' or 'no thumping or kicking.'
Rule 1 - Love God with everything you have ,and love others as you love yourself (God via Moses)
Rule 1 - Love one another as I have loved you(God via Jesus)
I am challenged to look at lists of rules that we draw up and to see what our implicit priorities are. Restricting running to the large hall probably makes good sense, but if we love/respect each other and other people's property then it will follow on, won't it?
Comments
There are two things that strike me.
Firstly the hidden christological statement about the divinity of Jesus gave me some material for my theological reflections today (remember when we used to call it a quiet time!).
Secondly (and on another tangent) "Rule Number 1" has always had a slightly different meaning for me since being on an Oasis Frontline Team in the 1990's when "Rule Number 1" was no dating either other team members or people on "your patch". When I attended the newly accredited ministers Conference at Hothorp hall a couple of years ago, I was given the impression by Paul and Viv that "Rule Number 1" was no "Under no circumstances hop into bed with people in your congregation". I thought this was so obvious it didn't need saying, but apparently it did! The second rule they gave us appeared to be "Under no circumstances should you use text messages to communicate with your congregation or young people", A rule so bizarre I questioned it and earned myself the title "Yes, the one in the orange tee-shirt" and pitying looks from my colleagues who all seemed to think I was some kind of simpleton who could not see the need for such an obvious rule... I digress.
I much prefer Jesus rules and the way he acted them out, but I can't help wondering,.. "Would Jesus have communicated with the ladies in his entourage by text?"
Only if he was wearing an orange tee shirt at the time, only if it was a group text and only if it was completely unambiguous. I mean, Jesus never had any private conversations or said things that could be interpreted other than in one obvious way did he? Not much! ;-)
I now have a weird image of a text to the Marys saying 'meet me in the garden just before sun rise. bring spices. tell no one' which would be doubly scary as a txt from beyond the grave!
I didn't realise that there was a rule about no texting. Perhaps I heven't been listening to the right people or reading the right pieces of paper.
Texting is how we keep in touch with a number of our deacons and congregation - it is their medium of choice. I often get my pastoral news via a text. And each week we pick up some of our teenagers for church - and the only way we know whether they want a lift is by exchanging texts with them.
Oh well, you live and learn.
I think it was dropped as advice by the next year. I however still manage to maintain my incredulity and disbelief that it ever came up.... I may have, on occasion, muttered "Luddites" under my breath.
I seem to recall that the big 'no no' was texting youth/children except in group texts and with very precise meaning. So you could say 'I will collect you for youth group at 6p.m.' but not 'c u @ 6' because the latter might be misconstrued if you have a warped enough mind. To be fair to those who delivered the advice, they deal with the messes that arise about 1/week and possibly over reacted to something we don't know about.
Texting your deacons is/was probably ok so long as the meaning is/was not capable of being twisted...
Here's an interesting thing about shared memories. Were you at the same conference as me?
I suspect that's what they meant to say, because it makes perfect sense. However the memories I have tell me the advice they gave was far stronger than that!
Yup, I was at the same conference - I think you were in my 'delightful' small group along with Rev Jev. The group was fine as in the NAM-people in it but otherwise....
Anyway, I wouldn't say what I've said is what they said verbatim cos it wasn't, but it was where the discussion led, so far as I recall it. Or maybe it is just the influence of my late, lamented RM that I heard it this way...