Pull the Rug from Under your Feet

I am currently in a bit of a pickle in my professional life as a teacher. I have recently had a number of accusations levelled against me where I have allegedly 'pushed' a child in my classroom and implied that another student was 'fat'. The latter allegation came about because of my response to a boys question about whether sliding across my table tops in the classroom, to get to his chair, made him look like a Ninja or not? 



I jokingly replied, 'No, more like Kung Fu Panda.' (The only other Kung-Fu master I know of is Bruce Lee). It was an innocent 'off-the-cuff' remark. Meanwhile, another student made an accusation that I 'pinched' his skin, when I took the school's digital camera out of the hand of the boy and his mate, who were taking inappropriate 'selfies' with it. 


This is considered to be a very serious matter. In the UK, our children are protected through safeguarding policies, which means that any physical contact between an adult and a student in their care, particularly within a professional setting, would be investigated thoroughly and a summary judgement made of their conduct. This can lead to the adult being subjected to severe consequences as a result of the investigation, particularly when the adult is found to be at fault. 



In my case, I was able to prove that it was the actions of the student that caused them to 'bump' into me or for them to believe that I pinched them... I'll be polite as it was not quite a bump, more like the student making their intention clear to 'get out of my way'. However, under the spotlight of safeguarding, it was my actions that come under scrutiny, not those of the student. The student, unhappy that I would not let them interfere with the learning of other students, fielded a complaint along the lines that I shoved them out of the classroom.


As the professional adult, I had to account for my conduct, with the resulting verdict being that I should not have intervened when the students actions had escalated beyond my control. I should have left them to their own intentions while I, as a supervising adult, sent another student to go for help from outside of the classroom.

As a Christian, we are called to live up to the standards that God asks of us in the Bible and more specifically, through Jesus' teaching. Love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:29), considering others before one's own needs (Philippians 2:3)...

Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves.(Philippians 2:3, NLT)

Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don't try to get them back. (Luke 6:30, NLT)

If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. (Luke 6:29, NLT)

So it is with great remorse that I find myself in my current predicament. The resulting verdict I have received states that as an adult supervising children, I should not use sarcasm that could be misinterpreted, or block the movements of children in the classroom. Essentially, I should not stand in the way of students who have got up out of their seat, in order to prevent them from disrupting others in the classroom, and I must adhere to the rules regarding dealing with disruptive students namely, call for help from another adult. I was also advised that any repetition of my actions could result in a formal disciplinary that may indeed, lead to my dismissal. 

I am deeply distressed by the interpretation of my conduct in the everyday goings on in the classroom. Indeed, if you were to witness the behaviours and actions of the students in my care, you may find it to be incredulous that they would even table an accusation against my professional misconduct, when you witness their own actions. 

However, the words of the students count for far more in these matters; more than my own voice. The tone of the disciplinary meeting assumed my guilt, particularly as the students statements were read in isolation. The cross examination required me to substantiate my actions against the students statements, even though I had formally written-up my account of what happened on the official documentation used for these types of incidents. 

The evidence I am able to provide for the 'WHY' of the resulting events, can only ever be circumstantial at best because it is the students word against my own. As I am the one sitting in the proverbial 'dock', my evidence is considered to be tainted. I was 'warned' by my investigating colleague to 'avoid lying' about what took place. I was however, credited with being 'honest' at least... and was judged to have 'defended' my actions with integrity. 

Why therefore, did these events take place? They occurred because the will of those who felt aggrieved by the curtailment of their actions, were able to use the mechanisms in place, to defend their actions. The students were each being willfully disobedient, perhaps because they knew I was impotent in the actions that I could take. The impetus was therefore placed in the hands of the students and my employer, to determine my 'blame' or 'fault', as the process is designed to protect the integrity and safety of the victim.

Regardless of the reason for my intervening actions, it was deemed inappropriate for me to interfere. The students used the process available to them to maintain the moral grounding for the accusation they held against my own conduct, despite there being corroborating evidence to suggest that they were in fact, behaving recklessly, without regard for my authority as their teacher, while being oblivious to the learning needs of others.

So where does that leave my own reasoning and sense of self? Well, I feel that I have been professionally maligned by the events that took place, particularly as I have been warned that any further misconduct on my part, would fast track me to a disciplinary hearing that could seriously affect my future. This would include all of my work in church, youth work, charitable activities and my role as a trustee. This is a serious matter, where I am left standing again at a cross-road, looking towards the cross, in search of which direction I should travel in. 

I know that the cross is where I need to spend a great deal of my time in order for me to reconcile my tempestuous emotions with the reality of what has happened. When the sea becomes choppy, it is difficult to view the horizon, particularly when a once flat calm has become a squall. I must look in the direction of Jesus, my light house, signalling to me, revealing where the dangerous rocks are to be found and the location of the safe harbour, at journeys end.



I felt certain that I had been treated unfairly, yet there appears to have been a move of grace in that the integrity of what I had stated in my evidence has been accepted, and the point of conflict has been diffused somewhat. The fact remains however, that I now have a black mark on my professional record that will remain there for at least 5 years. A mark that is also not easily erased from the mind of my accusers, as they were quick to point out to me recently, in a form of vindication and defiance, when I again asked them to stop indulging in behaviours in my classroom, which were inappropriate. 

"I feel helpless. This is in complete contrast to the grace of God, who forgives me for everything I ever did, everything that I will ever do, and everything that is in me that dishonours God, my Saviour, my neighbour and my friends... his love conquers all - Hallelujah!"

I know that any violation, any indiscretion on my part, is covered by the grace of God. Jesus sacrificed his life at the hands of the people he came to save; to save them, to save me, to save you. But save us from what? The answer to that is a simple one: we need saving from ourselves.

"Why do I need saving, what have I done wrong? I make mistakes but I haven't committed any serious crime. I consider others, I give to charity, I try to help people out if I can... What could I need God for? I certainly didn't ask him to sacrifice himself for me."

Since the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th Century and the quest for reason within Modernism during the 19th Century, freedom from the authority of the religious shackles of the past, has put society on a course to individualism. Suggestions that we should restrict our lifestyles in order to maintain our modesty or the dignity of others, have been dismissed by a largely secular society, who have seemingly prospered as a result. 

In this so-called 'Post-Modern' age, we can mistreat our bodies and other people without disrespecting them, because we can rationalise why we have done it; honouring one another can be forgotten in the heat of the moment; especially in the pursuit of our hearts desire. We can experiment with any of our more primeval instincts, in order that we might attain that sense of happiness, wellness, or an ideal that we think we deserve.

If we are reasonably happy about what has gone on in our day to day interactions, our relationships, the good and bad, then what is there to criticise? As long as I feel okay about it, then I'll do it. We tend to banish the feelings of remorse and regret, and avoid self-reflection and making recompense for our actions, in the pursuit of a Utopian happiness we are all looking for but haven't yet found. We would be lying to ourselves however, if we don't admit to ourselves that we subconsciously hold onto the frustration of being wronged, especially when the events of our lives turn out to be different than what we expected. 

People carry around with thema lot of emotional hurt believing we can adapt and move on, when in effect, it starts to define our character and shapes our personality. Christians believe that this mind-set can be broken, through the work of the Holy Spirit; the comforter, who draws alongside us, listening to our innermost thoughts, and bringing restoration to our lives.

"But the comforter (Counsellor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate), the Holy Spirit, who the Father will send in my name; he will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26, NLT)

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you." (John 14:16, NLT) 

There is a sense in our culture today, that we are becoming more tolerant of the different forms of self expression that were once forbidden. This has the effect of releasing new opportunities within our society to form bonds that never previously existed, whilst creating new tensions amongst those who would want to preserve the standards that we once lived by. 

Whether it be the judgemental attitudes towards alternative lifestyle choices or the resulting bigotry when opinions are expressed, we are almost at a point where those who stand apart from the wider changes of our secular society, are themselves made to feel as though they are the ones who require legislating against.

In my situation as a teacher, I think it is appropriate that I have the authority to stop the students doing what they should not be doing; to expect a level of courtesy from the students when asked to comply with the instructions they are given; to ensure that students avoid interfering with the learning of others; and to encourage students to engage with the learning objectives of the lesson. This paradigm seems reasonable in order to maintain discipline in the classroom.

What does seem to have changed in our post-modern culture, is that the teacher in a UK school at least, does not have the automatic right or authority to correct the conduct of students, particularly if some form of physical altercation was part of the events that took place, as in my case. This is in part, a response to the level of domestic violence that can be found in the home, and the outlawing of corporal punishment (1987 in UK schools), as a means to modifying behaviour.

However, as in my case, where no physical contact was planned for, or even desired, I ended up being party to the behaviours of the children in my care. This placed me in the awkward scenario of a soap opera, where my behaviour could only be defended through circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the natural order of the teachers authority is undermined by the safeguarding polices designed to protect children from physical harm.

Part of my frustration is that as a child of the 1970's and 1980's, I experienced what would be considered today as being both domestic abuse and corporal punishment, vowing never to employ these methods with my own children. In school, the Dunlop Green Flash plimsoll was the principle means by which teachers punished children or indeed, a wooden ruler across the back of your hand. In the home, parental discipline was reinforced through fear and a hand across the back of your thigh.

The threat of punishment encouraged either compliance, or defiance. Those that thought they could 'take' the punishment, were willing to push the boundaries and were seen to get away with far more than what we all thought we were allowed to. As a consequence of this experience, I had internally vowed not to employ the schooling methods that I had witnessed, so I find it unpalatable that I have been judged for breaching the very protections I had disavowed.

It is impossible to live our lives pursuing our own sense of what we feel is right or through campaigning for what we ought to be allowed to do, whilst neglecting the responsibility we might have to those around us, or indeed, the wider community. We cannot legislate for what we want to believe to be true now, for a select few, just because it feels right. Even ethical and philosophical ideals are subject to the whims of fashion, with society going with the ebb and flow of what seems right. 

If we make relative, what was once assumed an absolute truth, then we become subjective; accepting all forms of knowledge and meaning in pursuit of an individual ideal. So in my scenario, where I felt that I had the moral authority to exercise control in the classroom, my application of that truth was only correct in principle, but subject to the circumstances for which they were employed.

I did indeed have the authority to exercise order amongst the students but only to the point at which my actions could be justified, relative to the events that took place. Effectively, I lost my authority when my actions were deemed to be conflicted. So both were true. My role as a teacher to demand compliance and the students wilfulness to do as they pleased. 

What was deemed unacceptable, was my management of the students actions; not that of the students actions. As teacher, I did not have the moral absolute authority to demand compliance in a situation where the boundaries I was permitted to operate within had become breached; seemingly beyond my jurisdiction. My authority was deemed to be relative and subjective to the conditions, whereas my understanding as a teacher is that I have the absolute authority to discipline the students actions. This is where the conflict exists.

We now seem to be living in a world of moral relativism, where a stand point or viewpoint is only considered to be acceptable to the rest of society, if there are no demands made of them to challenge that view point. Otherwise, it could be argued that although what you say may hold true, against an alternative interpretation of what you say, I may disagree with you, but each to his own. 

No one view point is uniquely privileged over another and yet anyone having an opinion contrary to the cultural norm of inclusivity and tolerance, would be considered to be bigoted of conservative in their viewpoint. The main thrust being that society develops a tolerance for all expressions of culture that are relevant to itself. We no-longer govern our behaviours and actions through a set of universal moral absolutes because we don't believe they can exist... In reality, if the precepts that underpin law making can be undermined through relativistic thinking, it offers the freedom for change or reform.

'Well that might work for you, but I don't buy into it.' 

The adults of the post millennial generation 'Y' for example, do not hold to the Utopian ideal that humanity will 'better' itself through the evolution of culture. We were promised this future through the 1960's modernist ideals of generation 'X' but wars and rumor of war, famine, poverty and high levels of inequality, continue to blight the lives of many people. So we reject that viewpoint, simply because it didn't work, even if the ideals within it contain a truth that might still be applicable to today.

In my situation, the group of students whom decided that their need for self expression was greater than my desire to teach them, were able to qualify their own actions through the responses that I made... 'Look at what the teacher did! I just wanted to get a pen from the box, but he stopped me.' claims one student. Teacher: 'Were you reaching for a handful of pens to then throw them across the room?' Student: 'Well yes, but that isn't the issue. You touched me when you took the pens out of my hand and that is not acceptable!' 

The verdict given as a result of the investigation into my actions: 'Refrain from restraining or physically preventing students from moving about the room by blocking them or shepherding them with your arms, as physical contact with the student is forbidden.'

The students in the scenarios above were able to avoid the responsibility they had, to respect the instructions that were asked of them because there were mitigating circumstances, as a result of the teachers actions (my actions). This elevated their need above that of the teacher, due to the inappropriateness of the response that the teacher employed to deal with the situation.

This type of moral relativism is used in all aspects of life. A driver might say: 'It is okay for me to use my mobile phone whilst driving because my call is more important than paying due care and attention to my driving.' A person in the street might say: 'It is okay for me to drop litter because it keeps street cleaners in work.' A man convicted of culpable homicide might argue that: 'It was appropriate for me to shoot through a closed and locked bathroom door because I thought there was a burglar in there and I was scared...' A politician might think: 'It's acceptable to make changes to tax credits and housing benefit for those on low incomes because the economy is growing and if these people work more hours, they can make up for the financial shortfall.'

"We must be very careful to avoid mistreating reason, in pursuit of an insular whim that fulfils our most fanciful dreams, but like sugar on the lips that quickly disperses, it leaves a bitter aftertaste on the pallet." 

Oscar Pistorious is to be released from prison, after serving only 10 months of a five year sentence for killing a fellow human being... there are no absolutes don't forget. He is a famous celebrity athlete who's own story of battling his disability, serve to elevate his personality over and above, the tragic circumstances of Reeva Steenkamp's death at the age of 29. Surely she deserved more from him in the security of the bathroom she shared with Pistorious. He noted that there was an open window to the bathroom whilst he sat in the bedroom, causing him to fear that an intruder had got in. Although he could see the open window outside, it was too dark in the bedroom for him to see anything, so he shot blindly through the bathroom door in panic.

Pistorious' panic became the determining factor to justify the consequences of his actions, as his disability rendered him unable to do anything else. The law seems to agree, by letting him out after only 10 months.

Oops - I have made a judgement here. There seems to be a logical flaw in his argument and I find it incredulous that this defence can be deemed acceptable when a death has occurred. However, I am unable to sit in judgement on this matter as I am not legally appointed to make that decision on behalf of Reeva. 

My reasoning is based on my own understanding of the use of firearms in the home and our ability to protect ourselves. We do not need firearms in the home. We do not meet violence with more violence. Things, possessions are indeed, just that... replaceable. A person however, is far more valuable and irreplaceable. Should our paranoia or fears determine our responses, making any response we make acceptable in the circumstance, or can we not have a set of absolutes that we can all follow, without bias?

We can justify all kinds of behaviour in this way. As a Brit, I queue; I wait in line patiently; I let each person take their turn in the queue until it is my turn. I realise that this is not the case everywhere. Holidaying in Italy, we visited Garda Land, near Peschiera, on the shores of Lake Garda. Italians and Germans for that matter, are seemingly impatient when it comes to waiting! I have made a judgement here again, which could be seen as being prejudiced - but there are no absolutes, sorry. 

If you left a small space in the queue for a roller-coaster ride, it would be filled by another person who would come around the side of you, moving ahead of you in the queue. They would keep pushing forward until they could go no further forward... 'Why couldn't I be so bold to do that?' Oh, it's because in a queue, we each take our turn, as we all want to go in the same direction. We use patience to deal with any negative feelings we might generate whilst waiting, while being polite. We used to call these human qualities, virtues.

No one else seemed to comment or mind about their queue jumping, but this Brit was getting wound up by it. The same thing happened on the roads in Italy. All manner of traffic pulls out in front of you without indication of their intention. By some strange sense of paranormal activity, you have to mind read... don't even get me started on sticking to speed limits.

All these actions have absolute truth, contained in the highway code, but it can all be made relative by an individuals interpretation of the rules of the road. You may be travelling on a 50kph road, but the driver of the car behind, riding your bumper, straddling the middle of the lane, demonstrate with their vehicle that they want you to go faster. 


On our Journey from Salo to Toscolano Maderno, we had a gentleman in an ancient Fiat Panda, sitting three cars behind us in a queue. We were being held up as we sat in single file traffic, waiting for a vehicle to turn left. As soon as we all set off, there was this noisy screech of scrabbling tyres from somewhere behind us in the queue. As we too accelerated, we could hear a roar of an engine that drowned out the noise that our own car engine was makiing. 


As the road narrowed and oncoming traffic approached, I casually checked my left mirror to see this guy, tyres smoking, with his 0.9l engine screaming at maximum revs, attempting to overtake us all. Such was his annoyance at having to wait in the queue, in desperation, he recklessly drove down the middle of the road, forcing us all to take avoiding action. He swerved across our bonnet, hands gesticulating out of the window, horn blaring, as though we were the source of his frustration. He raced off into the distance, only to turn right at the next roundabout.

Relativism and Individualism can lead to selfish aspirations. This is a worrying trend that is dividing civil arrangements and societal interactions, to the point that nothing seems to work in the way it used to. It seems to me today, I must warn you that I am about to make a judgement call if you like, that if you can get away with it and there is no shame in it, then why not? This is not how we were designed to be. 

In relationship, we are designed to respectfully accommodate each others needs. Not our own desires. Woven into our very fabric, is a code of conduct stored within our consciousness, an absolute if you like, which defines our humanity and shapes our culture. If we disregard the still small voice of our thoughts, warning us against such actions, we are going to have to live with the consequences sooner or later.

Some philosophical viewpoints try to separate body, mind and spirit, or soul, if we do indeed have one, into separate spiritual, psychological and sociological compartments. It helps us make relativistic choices. I am more minded to believe that our body and mind are one. It's our soul that defines us, as it contains the conscious reasoning between right and wrong within it. Our soul modifies our behaviour by following the moral code that is coded within it, encouraging our interactions for doing good amongst the communities we live. 

My mind and body can look lustfully at a bikini clad girl lying on the beach and thinks wow... it's my soul that determines how I act. I know it dishonours the girl, dishonours my wife and that it dishonours Jesus' teaching on how a man should conduct himself. So while the first impression might be a temptation to leer at the girl, my conscious reasoning would interject and remind me of my mistake, or indeed, my sin.

"And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It's better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell." (Mark 9:47, NLT)

"But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28, NLT) 

Without God's law in our hearts, we can corrupt every good thing until we are truly lost in ourselves, in our sense of purpose, and in our understanding of who we are. It is man's folly to look and covet what is not their own. Be it wealth, status, beauty, possessions, lifestyle, political views... Jesus knew that it was not really what we do, rather how we think and how we feel about the world and those in it, which determine our responses. Our hearts are what corrupt our nature, leading us into actions that have consequences which we sometimes cannot undo. 

The prophet Jeremiah's observations 600 years before the birth of Jesus were such that "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?" (Jeremiah 17:9, NLT)

I know the depravity that lurks in the dark recesses of my own mind... we all do. We know of the wickedness within, the secret desires, the vain ambition and the conceit of our thoughts, containing ideas or forms of expression that we dare not let rise to the surface. However, we live in a time where these boundaries of forbidden expressions of human interaction have been removed, to unravel a cultural change we haven't seen since generation X. Where this will all lead with economic and political reform, religious extremism, secularism and sexual emancipation, will only be understood after our time has been.

We cannot continue to change the world we live in, based on our relativistic ideals that are forever changing, redefining our humanity without thought for the moral and ethical foundations of the next generation. It is too easy to ignore the plight of others, if we only pursue the interests that we think only matter to us.


The refugees fleeing ethnic and religious war in their home countries, waiting in what is called the 'Jungle' in Calais, France, are there because as English speaking people, it is the place where they can communicate their intentions clearly, and escape their wretched plight. Many are Christians from Ethiopia and Eritrea, fleeing religious persecution to get to a country that British Prime Minister, David Cameron, during the election campaign in 2015, declared to be Christian. However, the rhetoric used is like the Jewish exodus from Egypt.

To get to the UK, many have travelled through many European border's that are not policed or controlled. Only in Calais, do the refuges find a physical border, highlighting just how big the world's problems really are. If a refugee can leave war torn Syria and reach the UK coastline, there must be more we need to do at the UN, to solve this humanitarian crisis... along with the many other issues such as trafficked people, and the many humanitarian disasters such as drought, famine, disease; it is a long list.

We need to stop blaming war, religion, government, race, ethnicity or nationalism, and start to look at our own heart. What is it that we think we deserve? What is it we think we have a right to? Are we not just fortunate to have been dealt a hand whereby those of us in the west, live in relative comfort, with clean water and always someone somewhere, willing to make a sacrifice to help those in need? Do we therefor not have a duty to care to those less fortunate than ourelves?

God saw the human race that he created and saw that it was very good (Genesis 1:31). But we lost our way. We have become corrupted by the free choices that we make. We make mistakes. When we are willing to recognise our true nature, we can find in Jesus, a God who is desperate to save us. In becoming a human being, Jesus experienced what it was like to be me. To be you. As Jesus pondered on his purpose, imagining the bright new tomorrow that he and his Father had planned, his blood coursed through his heart, his emotions stirred in his soul, and his passion ignited; he understood more than any of us, our desperate need for redemption.

On the night that his friend Judas betrayed him, he went to pray to his Father. He requested that his remaining friends watch over him as he went to pray in : "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me." (Matt 26:38, NIV). But for some reason, the disciples couldn't stay awake, making Jesus feel vulnerable to the threat he perceived. "My Father, if it is possible, take this cup from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:42, NLT).

On Jesus' return, he recognised that their spirit was willing to stay up with him but the disciples bodies weren't; their tiredness, couldn't respond to the situation as he wished. Praying again, Jesus asks the same question of his Father, searching for an answer until it arrives in a squadron of Roman soldiers, the Temple guard, and his friend, Judas, to betray him with a kiss.

This is the God who I believe in. Personally intervening in the affairs of mankind, by taking on himself, the iniquity, the unfairness, the monstrousness of man's inhumanity to man, in order that once and for all, Gods very creation, you and I, can be set free.

I'll sign of with the words to a song by Samuel Lane from his album, The Fire (Vineyard Records UK). You can find it here http://vruk.bandcamp.com/track/o-my-soul or here http://www.vineyardrecords.co.uk/web/songs/o-my-soul/ Have a listen. See where God takes you.

Lord, I look to Your cross
And the life You laid down
You are my God

 Lord, You had mercy on me
Drew the line in the sand
You are my God

I will worship You, I will worship You
My redeemer lives, Jesus I worship You

 Lord, How You love each one of us
Risen one so glorious
You are our God

Lord, How You saved us all
Let our joy be restored
You are our God

 We will worship You, we will worship You
Our redeemer lives, Jesus we worship You

Oh my soul, praise
Oh my soul, praise
Oh my soul, praise
Praise Him