"Do not covet your neighbours ass"

 Yes, it is hilarious. To clear my mind of the humour in this, I had to explore what this actually said in Exodus. And it did prove interesting.

The list of things we are told not to "covet" are our neighbours house, animals and wife and other possessions. Yes, as we all know the wife was considered a possession.

So I will come back to that in a moment. Firstly, the word "covet" - it means desire, lust, unhealthy passion for. It is not just about wanting things, it is about obsessive desire for things. And, in this case, it is based on an obsessive desire for things because someone else has them.

The other word is "neighbour" - something there has been so much written about I cannot really add more. But it refers to others in the community. Our neighbours are those who are part of our community - whether we like it or not. They are those around us - whether we like them or not. People we live in the same area as us, people we work with, people we are at church with, people in our community. Not just people we like or respect - the point of the word "neighbour" is that they are near us, and may have no more in common than that.

But, to return to the passage about coveting these things are all about wealth and status. They are about not seeking the status of others, their position in society. The reason for this is because such jealousies are damaging to community. The call here is to work together, build together the community, the society we live in. To work all together to make the neighbourhood better.

I can only think that we in the UK might be in a better position, a better state in the world, if we had all - right the way to the top - followed this idea.

Do we know how to educate young people?

 Now I need to start by saying that I am not here criticising teachers or pedagogy in general. This post has come out of discussions I have had on social media which have helped me clarify my understanding.

It comes also from watching programmes like "Back in time..." and also "Educating...". Which are always really interesting insights into the past and the present.

So the challenge of "educating" young people is actually a relatively new one. You don't have to go back very far to the point where most young people did not get an education as such - they learned what they needed on the job, from family or artisans. It was only those with independent wealth who could take the time to travel and spend time discussing with others. Or reading books - a talent that was also an indication of privilege.

The early forms of education of young people tended to rely on "rote learning". In simple terms, a teacher put something on a blackboard, the students would copy it down and were expected to learn it. I say early - within my lifetime, the idea of learning bible verses by heart has been promoted as a way to educate young people. Rote learning has many problems, not least that it doesn't work.

My era of learning was very much more "hands on". Actually, it was an era of educational experimentation - schools where the pupils could do what they wanted were the vogue idea.

Today, there is a different idea too - engaging education, dealing with pupils much more as individuals. There is, in the sciences, a lack of the excitement and experimentation that I experienced, but there is a lot that is significantly better. Not least, the acceptance that different pupils will learn in different ways.

The problem still, in my view, is that we don't educate them. The focus is examinations, and - to a large extent - the teaching is to an examination. We train young people to pass exams, and in doing so, I think we fail to educate them.

The other thing that inspired this line of thought is the comments this week that "we need to get young people into school" otherwise they are not being educated. I strongly disagree with this, because most young people can - with some direction - get an education outside a school. Looking at and exploring nature can be educational. Discussion can be educational. TV can be educational. Listening to grandparents can be educational. Reading books - or even spending time on the internet - can be educational.

It may not help them pass exams. But then, I don't believe that passing exams should be the purpose of education. Education should seek to expand young peoples minds, provide them with tools they need to learn throughout their lives. Especially now, when the future might be very significantly different to the present, they need the skills to relearn, reskill, rethink. Not just pass exams.

I don't think we do know how to educate young people. It is not the fault of the teachers or the people who teach the teachers. It is the fault of the political direction. And in this, I think we are still failing our young people.

Engaging worship

 So, some people find the idea of a zoom Quaker worship odd - a zoom meeting where everyone is muted? I mean, why?

 More traditional churches have taken a variety of approaches to online worship - zoom from the building or YouTube of the service seem to be common. It struck me that this is very much reflecting the form of worship we are used to: worship as presentation. Where the participants can join in or not, and it makes very little real difference.

 And then, in the meeting this morning, I realised that our silent meetings are totally different. Joining in - being a part of the meeting - is not an optional aspect. Each person is a full participant, and it makes a difference.

I am not intending to criticise any form of worship, but I did get a real sense of participation today, that I do not think everyone gets from a broadcast service. Because, for me, I am not "joining in". I am an essential part of the worship - actually, an existential part of it, as my typo wanted to suggest. Without me, it does not exist.

Silent meeting is not for everyone. But zoom meeting is as participative and corporate as physical meeting. And it is an experience that helps me understand deeper what worship really is.