A Pair of Shoes & Divine Certainty

Clothes shopping has always been a dreaded nightmare! Whether if I'm buying clothes for myself or for my wife Alex, it's when we try out the new item and then discover that it doesn't fit properly. Then comes the awful dread; to return the garment to the store where it was bought, complete with the receipt, only to be looked upon with a degree of suspicion. After all, no business wants to refund. They are there to make money by selling its merchandise rather than be the centre of some kind of experimentation.

Maybe that was the reason why most respectable clothing stores have fitting rooms. A splendid idea. Then again, I recall using a fitting room to try out trousers of slightly different sizes - and still get it wrong. How come that the item seems comfortable enough whilst being tried at the store, but trying it on again at home and yep, it has shrunk? Or expanded? Or fail to notice such abundance of material around the hem which will get caught on the bicycle chain whilst out riding? Perhaps I could ask: What sort of metamorphosis does the garment go through whilst sitting in the train or bus heading for home? Coming to think of it, a perfect fit after arriving home can be considered a cause for celebration.

But not this week when it came to a pair of shoes. Not for me, but for my wife. The type of shoe she likes and usually wears was - surprise surprise - out of stock. So after spending what I believe was excess time looking at and trying on several alternatives, we settled on this particular pair of her size. She tried them on. And she smiled broadly, declaring that she felt comfortable in them. Then she paid for them herself, using her own debit card.

After arriving home, she tried on her new shoes again prior to going back out to buy some groceries.

"How do they feel?" I asked.

Yes, they are okay. But...

I felt my skin beginning to crawl.

...But...That dreaded word, But...

I new straightaway that not all was well. And of course, I was right. She eventually asked for them to be returned to the store where she bought them. And so feeling rather sheepish but obliged as a husband should be to the call of duty, I returned the shoes to the same staff members who served us the day before. The assistant was just about to process my debit card when she noticed that my card number did not coincide with the printed receipt. She explained that because she used her card to purchase the shoes, I cannot use my own card for refunding, although she would have done so had I brought her card as well.

The next day, on my way to visit the gym, I tried again, this time with my wife's card. Alas! This time there were different staff members on duty who were unfamiliar with us, and as far as they were concerned, I could have flown straight in from Timbuktu. Because of my wife's absence, this different staff member refused to refund altogether, even if I had her debit card and a joint account. She explained that this would be fraudulent. And here is the twist: Had I brought my wife's card in on the previous day, there would have been no problem. The simple reason was that the staff who initially served us has seen my wife buy the shoes. But this new assistant did not, and therefore "went by the rules". So I walked out feeling very flustered with the shoes still in my backpack together with the gym gear. Indeed, I was tempted to throw the shoes into a rubbish bin and forever forget about them.

Was I trying to commit fraud? Personally, I don't think so. Both our cards have the same surname and the same account number. It was obvious that we have a joint account. The funds in this account has always been available for both of us simultaneously. Yet I do understand the precautions the shop must take in order to avoid involvement in a fraud case. In surprise, I asked how could I possibly steal from my own wife. At the time, the thought that among professionals in particular, each partner having their own separate account did not cross my mind. Instead I walked out feeling humiliated at the thought that I was considered a potential fraudster. Indeed such an accusation did not bring any glory to God, or any feeling of well-being or accomplishment.

It's a case of my word against some smartly-dressed faceless bureaucrat in the head office boardroom without any verification process for refunding put in place. Of course, he was right and I was wrong. But this is the risk with buying clothes, or any other merchandise. It's always their word against mine. But rules must be obeyed. Rules are in place because there must have been cases of genuine fraud in the past, maybe even between married couples, an area where trust between partners should be most essential.

And this is always been an issue of trust, or lack of it. For example, why is it so essential to buy a ticket before boarding a train? Why can't I just pay the fare, board the train, and that's the end of it? Instead, I must hold a ticket for the inspector to check before boarding the train, or in this modern day, activate an electronic barrier gate. And once on board the train, the conductor enters the carriage with his loud order, Tickets please! Just paying the fare and boarding is not enough. Instead, the conductor earns his living this way because, with the absence of both him and the platform ticket inspector, there would be no small numbers of fare-dodgers. And that is where such a small card is always my protection against a curious conductor or other staff member to approach me and ask whether I paid my fare, and if so, having made the correct payment. Holding a ticket is actually for my own protection against accusation of theft.

It all boils down to one little word: Sin.

As I attended a midweek meeting at The Kerith Centre, the talk was about universal sin and how it affects every aspect of our lives. The need to buy a ticket before travel is the consequence of sin. Because without a need for a ticket, not only anyone could board a train without first making the appropriate payment, but there would be a great many who would vie for the chance. Hence such people are enslaved to their sinful nature. Yet if I was to say that attempting to avoid the fare is repugnant, and I would ensure that I always pay what is due, is that arrogant self-righteousness? Or acting like a Pharisee? No, it's neither. Rather it's out of being a slave to righteousness, according to Romans 6:18. Being a slave to righteousness is a wonderful thing, a desire to do the right thing, to make the right choice, even if this entails a degree of loss or suffering. For God has regenerated me and then placed his Holy Spirit within me. As such I recall, for another example, an occasion when I could have easily walked out of the busy Leisure Centre without paying for the gym session, and none would have been the wiser. 

Instead, I got to the back of an ultra-slow-moving queue in order to pay for the gym session. A slave of righteousness indeed, as I felt compelled to join that queue. Generally, I hate queuing up. Especially at a superstore checkout line. Queuing up behind a customer with a stack of redemption vouchers has tested my patience to the limit, but my master has not given me any other option. But the promise is there, life and peace in Jesus Christ, to where such servant-hood will lead.

Oh the wonder of grace! As a sinner, I have no chance of trying to reconcile myself to God on my own efforts. The worst thing about all this is that James had written that if I keep the whole Law yet stumble at just one point, I have broken the whole Law (James 2:10). It becomes obvious. I don't drive, but if I did, and went above the speed limit, I would be stopped if caught by the Police and issued a ticket, later to appear in Court. It doesn't matter how well I have kept the law before then. I'm a lawbreaker and guilty. A penalty must be paid. Unless a good friend or relative comes along and pays the fine on my behalf. Then I would be set free, no longer under condemnation, neither under any form of probation.

As such, reading Paul's letter to the Romans, especially chapters three and four, and find to be terrifically inspiring. Here the apostle takes the account of Adam and Eve as historical, unlike many Christian grads of our day who reduces the historicity to a mere analogy. Just as Adam disobeyed, so we are all sons of disobedience, slaves to sin, and subject to death. So Christ, the second Adam, is obedient, and through his obedience, we are forensically declared righteous in God's sight, the righteousness which comes from Heaven and is imputed into us. A free gift, given for eternity! And because it's a free gift of eternal life with God through faith in Jesus Christ, it cannot be lost or forfeited. Neither it is given on a probational basis.

It is the reality of this free gift that makes me want to love and serve God. The question of Eternal Security of the believer, I think, makes a big impact on how the Christian perceives God. But living in a body of sinful flesh, often doubts of my salvation comes to mind, especially if I have sinned in one way or another or failed to live up to my expectations. These times of doubting might have originated from my Roman Catholic childhood upbringing. And yes I do sin, even if I'm a slave of righteousness. Maybe that is why John the Apostle wrote that if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and call God a liar. It all seems hopeless at first.

But if we confess our sins, then he is ready to forgive us from our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:8-10). And it is to Christian believers John is addressing. If this is so, then John is backing what Paul earlier wrote to the church at Corinth that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor can corruption inherit incorruption (1 Corinthians 15:50). So our bodies are corrupted by sin, according to the apostle. Maybe that is why when a believer dies, his spirit and soul goes straight to Heaven to be with the Resurrected Jesus, whilst his body goes to the grave, to await the resurrection, to be exactly like the glorified body of Jesus Christ. Isn't that wonderful? 

Therefore, I am more than willing to be a slave of righteousness; to queue up at the Reception rather than walk out without paying. Ditto at the train station. Even if the barriers are open and the premises totally understaffed, I will still pay the fare (there are automatic ticketing machines). Or for that matter, accept the ill-fitting shoes, or take my wife to the shop and she can be refunded at last, or even give the shoes away to charity. That's a lot better than chucking them into the bin, as I nearly did.

Shoes & Ties - Just Shoes & Ties.

Something has made remarkable headlines this week, not just in the national newspapers but also from the BBC National News. It was about one headmaster of a school at Margate in Kent, who turned away up to seventy pupils on the first and second day of the new term, mostly due to inappropriate footwear. Parents complained. Whether there might have been a genuine case of convalescence from a serious foot injury where a softer shoe is required, nearly all of the cases were to do with the footwear not being leather or not entirely black. Students of both genders were refused admission and were sent straight home instead. Even if this meant a journey on the train to an empty house whilst the parents have already gone to work.

Matthew Tate, the new head teacher of Hartsdown Academy, who was enforcing the rules, spent his time at the school gates very much like a bouncer at the doors of a nightclub, inspecting the uniform of every pupil as he or she approached. It is quite a contrast to the days when I attended school back in the 1960's, when the headmaster remained concealed in his office, and not make an appearance to the pupils except at morning assembly, when everybody - pupils and staff alike - watched him stand at the pulpit set up on the stage a metre or so above floor level. We too had uniform in our day. Black trousers, a black blazer sporting the school badge on the left breast, a grey shirt and of course, the school tie which was striped with yellow, red and black. As with the shoes, apparently everyone wore black, but I cannot recall any incident between staff and pupil regarding footwear.

And no member of staff stood at the gates inspecting every pupil. It was far more important for them to meet in the staff room - that one location totally hidden away and fully off-limits to every student - where the day's issues, including private light chatter, home affairs and disputes were discussed over coffee. And the only reason why a pupil may knock on the headmaster's office during the day was because a teacher sent him there to receive a caning, as corporal punishment was the norm in those days. But seldom the punishment was about uniform.

And that was especially during the Summer term, those three months separating the main Summer break from the Easter holidays. It was the time when quite a number of boys turned up at the gates without a tie on a hot day, and the staff in general turned a blind eye. As one classmate often sat at his desk with not just the top button of his shirt undone, but the second one as well, he apparently took pride in exposing an area of chest during lessons. And he was by no means the only one. Even in my class, it was not unusual to see several boys tie-less during lessons, yet no staff member in general had raised any real issues, at least not as I can recall.

Except on an easy target like I was during adolescence. Perhaps lacking masculine qualities such as being good at team sports - football and rugby in particular - one morning at the boy's changing room adjoining the school gym, the P.E. master thrust his finger down my shirt and demanded, Why aren't you wearing a tie? The one question I couldn't answer.

Maybe it was one of his off-days, perhaps an early-morning dispute with his wife, or his young son misbehaving over the breakfast table, a fellow teacher rubbing him up the wrong way within the privacy of the staff room, or perhaps sheer ennui over nothing of real significance happening, along with myself being at the wrong place at the wrong time, but seeing me without a tie gave him the satisfaction of venting his frustration. From that day on, I always arrived at school wearing the uniform tie - even on a hot day - for no other reason but to keep my nose clean and avoid punishment. But as far as I am aware, over the four years I attended that school, I recall only one other similar incident, when one female staff member, perhaps also moody that day, ordering a pupil in our class to "straighten his tie" - much to the boy's protest. 

But in all, it was a very different culture in my day compared with the present situation at that academy in Kent. But back then it might have had something to do with the two-tier schooling system based on selection. The Grammar school was where every pupil fortunate enough to pass his post-primary eleven-plus exam attended, in preparation for University. Those who failed, like I did, ended up in the Secondary Modern. Although I have never been inside a Grammar school, it would not have surprised me that the dress code there would have been a lot more strict. No pupil would have dared attended improperly dressed, especially without a tie! By contrast, my school prepared us for anything vocational ranging from manual labour up to office administration jobs, maybe even office management with a bit of luck thrown in, and that could have been the reason for our more lax dress attitude.

Since past Governments developed a sense of unfairness towards the disadvantaged over selection, many Grammar schools merged with the Secondary Modern to produce the Comprehensive. In the days of self-employment, at least one customer informed me of her son's Comprehensive school, when after the day is over, no pupil was allowed to take off his tie after leaving the gate until he reaches home! And so what appears to me as a super-strict dress code making its way into national news headlines. 

The majority of the public, nearly 70%, favoured the headmaster's actions, and deeply criticised the parents who for one reason or another, failed to dress their offspring to full standard. And according to the Media, of the seventy pupils sent home, 69 of them were to do with inadequate footwear, the one remaining, she left her blazer at the school at the end of the last term and therefore turned up on her first day without one. She was sent home with the others.

I'm not against the school uniform, if there is truth that the dress code is the equaliser, and also lifting up morality in the classroom, as well as achieving better exam results. But had I been that headmaster, I would have allowed the pupil into the school premises, but also have sent the pupil home at the end of the day with a letter to his parents explaining what the uniform consists, and give the parents up to a week's grace to amend any issues. It is during this grace period that the student still continues with his attendance.

Lately, the weather around here has been hot and muggy, with high humidity in the air. A few days earlier I took a train to Reading, a large town about eleven miles away. During that short trip I saw quite a number of office staff commuting and taking their lunch breaks. Very few went about wearing ties or even jackets. I couldn't help even noticing several office commuters wearing a shirt with both upper buttons undone. I also remember the continuous daily watching of foreign news correspondents delivering their reports wearing their shirts without a tie. And at present it is becoming the same with home reporters too. Then I saw a number of school boys and girls on their way home in full uniform, including blazer and tie. And I couldn't resist feeling that British society has become very unfair, in addition to our growing cultural hypocrisy. Even uniformed Police officers nowadays are seen tie-less, and Police uniform has always been very distinct. It is beginning to look as if the compulsory wearing of the tie is restricted to school pupils only.

I know, I know, I have an issue with ties! I have always seen it as a status symbol with a whiff of hypocrisy. But where school uniform is concerned, this is only a sticking-plaster to fix a much deeper wound. Is leniency of school dress code really the cause of moral decline in the classroom, of so much has been reported? Or is it the decline of belief in God and the veracity of Scripture the real cause of moral decline? I ask this question because the headmaster involved with this issue, Matthew Tate, professes to be a true Christian believer. So, did his action at the school gates brought these parents and their wayward offspring to faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour? O did it create hostility. Furthermore, did his actions bring glory to God in Heaven?

The only sure and more lasting fix in restoring classroom morality is a spiritual revival, which means most in the school, if not all, experiencing a rebirth through faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour. And that applies to both staff and pupils alike. Turning inadequately-dressed pupils away may bring only a temporal solution, but it still leaves the heart unregenerated, the sinful nature within each and every heart not dealt with, and brings no glory to God. His present actions might well have raised his respect and popularity among the majority of men, but not to the hosts in Heaven.

Matthew Tate claims to be a committed Christian believer. Therefore he should take a page out of the Bible and act and relate the same way his Lord Jesus Christ would have acted. And the Lord's way would be always welcoming and to give life to all who calls upon him.