i read somewhere this week that the word “Sabbath” means “to cease”. which kind of means that the symbol for Sabbath could be a “STOP” sign.
when i hear how orthodox jews approach the sabbath - making sure their alarm clocks don’t go off because turning it off would be regarded as “work” - i have sometimes regarded their laws and rituals as extreme.
but as I reflected on the “commandment” to keep the sabbath holy (ex 30:8) i have also begun to think about the invitation (from God) to stop my busy-ness and stop working. while jewish laws about not working may seem extreme, perhaps they have grown out of the problem of where to draw the line. left to my own devices i always sneak a little work into my day off.
(in fact here I sit on my day off, at a coffee shop, writing on my blog with 5 other applications open on my laptop - i’m editing a talk and writing it to mp3, checking email, researching for Holy Week and summarising our plans for a “way of the cross” meditation programme.)
when does stop mean STOP? literally, NO MORE WORK!!!!
Maybe what seems like extreme (in the jewish tradition) is actually wisdom about the nature of us human beings… that (some of us at least) really find it hard to Sabbath…
before apartheid, there came the idea of separate development. in essence, it’s the idea that people will do better if left to develop within their own groupings.
The architects of apartheid used this philosophy to justify the separate development of tribes and peoples within the country of South Africa.
what became abhorrent was the systematic oppression of some peoples and tribes, while others were given special benefits. This systematic separation for the purpose of ensuring the control of power and resources is what made apartheid so unjust, hurtful and ultimately violent - because the majority was not happy to continue to be controlled and restricted, allowing a minority to benefit from the wealth and resources of the country.
That system has been dismantled. People are no longer restricted in the way that they were under Apartheid laws.
But what has not changed - and this is to me far more significant! - is the idea of separate development.
I had naively thought that the “liberation movement” would deconstruct both the systems AND ideology of apartheid. But it seems that only the systems have been addressed. Further, it seems to me that very few are actually even interested in addressing the ideology of separate development.
An example.
When apartheid determined where people lived, church life was defined by apartheid boundaries. development happened separately. Now that those boundaries have been taken away, church life still resembles the separation that apartheid enforced. It seems that even church people are not sure about whether they want to deconstruct separate development - only the systems that enslaved. so the result is two distinct communities, worshipping in the same building on a Sunday, but having almost not contact with each other at all.
As we think about the future, few are imagining a time when this will change. The personal cost would be too high. For a new, united community to be formed, one would need both communities to relinquish some of their much-loved traditions and ways of doing things, for the sake of being together. Compromise would be required. Most communities would much rather continue to meet apart for the sake of comfort and familiarity.
Another example.
When contemporary Christian music began to get the attention of younger people, some churches acknowledged the need to make space for this music. So many churches allowed their evening services to become “contemporary” with bands leading music with drums and guitars. The rationale was that we needed to make a place for “both”. But the method was not to encourage the worshippers at existing services to compromise and embrace other traditions or ways. rather, the ideology of “separate development” was employed to avoid conflict.
the result is that we are a church that has embraced separate development to such an extent that we have multiple communities meeting in the same building on a Sunday who have very little to do with each other.
I want to question the ideology behind these expressions of community that avoid conflict by adopting an ideology that is not biblical. the biblical witness is a journey, painful sometimes, always costly, that leads to one faith, one baptism, one father of all, one people, one nation, one Lord!
I feel we have forsaken our prophetic witness and conformed ourselves to the world (Romans 12:2) - it’s fears and ideologies - and I wonder when we will stop.