Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1
“Young Fundamentalists” are generally not fond of rules, especially in ministry settings. Exactly why this is the case is an interesting study in itself. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that many of them grew up in rules-heavy Christian schools in an era full of glowing idealism about what these highly-disciplined, conscientiously spiritual educational environments would produce. The inflated hopes of those days were sure to result in disappointment. And maybe the current rules angst is the result of a generalized disgust with the whole concept and all that seems connected to it. In defense of those who feel this way, it is only too easy to find examples of rules excesses and absurdities.
Whatever the reasons, young Fundamentalists are often eager to cast “man-made rules” in a negative light and to argue from Scripture that these rules are dangerous at best, and downright hostile to Christian growth at worst.
My aim here is to offer a “young Fundamentalist” perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to Scripture and wisdom.
Points of agreement
I count myself among those who believe any Christian ministry that seeks to grow believers must aim to develop principled and discerning servants of God. Young people (or old ones, for that matter) who merely conform to a slate of rules in order to avoid punishments have not arrived at “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13 NKJV), no matter how wise and comprehensive that slate of rules might be.
In fact, seeking to instill understanding of the reasons for rules is not aiming high enough either. Since we’re commanded to love the Lord our God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30), we’re not truly living the life unless we obey in body, intellect and affections. We are not fully obedient until we do the right thing driven by both faith and love.
But should we conclude that “man-made rules” do not contribute at all to walking in a manner worthy of our calling? Is it accurate to say that rules contribute nothing to sanctification? Should we even believe that they are—as some suggest—inherently dangerous and often hostile to growth in grace?
Argument from the nature of sin
Sin interrupts fellowship with God, dulls spiritual senses, weakens resolve, perverts affections, damages body and mind, poisons relationships and forms enslaving habits. I’m taking it for granted that I don’t need to prove that here. We’ve all seen it in our sins if we’ve been paying attention, and finding examples in Scripture is almost as easy as opening the Book at random and reading.
Given that sin does so much harm, may we not conclude that it is always better to do right than to do wrong? To put it another way, isn’t a believer who avoids a sin because of a rule-and-penalty better off than a believer who sins?
Perhaps some confusion on this point is due to binary thinking about the relationship between the inner man—the heart and mind—and outward behavior. Is it true that a believer either obeys with faith and love or sins? What if he obeys without faith and love or—as is more often the case, obeys with incomplete faith (and understanding) and less than pure love? Is this “sin”? Even if it is, is it no better than the sin the rule is intended to prevent?
I believe the dynamic between inner man and outward conduct is far from binary (all or nothing) and looks more like this:
- Best: do right out of faith and love
- Good: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)
- Bad: do right with some evil motive
- Worst: do wrong
Many gradations are possible between these levels, and it’s debatable whether “doing right with some evil motive” is doing “right” at all, but this scale illustrates the complexity of the possibilities.
To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.
So has the teen in scenario A been helped along in his journey toward Christlikeness? Absolutely. Would it have been better if he did the right thing out of faith and love without a rule? Definitely.
But this is where an important point comes into focus: the truth is, he can act out of faith and love without or with the rule. If he has the necessary faith and love, the rule is useless (1 Tim. 1:9) but harmless. If he lacks the necessary faith and love, the rule is a lifesaver, and those responsible for his care have done him a great service.
The argument from the nature of sin, then, is this: sin is so damaging that reducing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers. Not sinning is always better than sinning, even when understanding is lacking and love is not the primary motivation.
Argument from the nature of holiness
Just as sin is inherently damaging and habit-forming, every act of obedience is inherently helpful and habit-forming (1 Tim. 4:8). Obedience deepens fellowship with God (1 John 1:6-7), sharpens spiritual senses, strengthens resolve, tunes affections (1 Pet. 1:22), nurtures body and mind, enhances relationships and forms liberating habits.
And let’s not undervalue good habits. Habits are simply choices we make repeatedly until they become so much a part of us they no are longer made consciously. Growth in sanctification consists largely of old habits losing out to new ones (this includes habits of intellect and affections as well as habits of body). This is the Lord’s work in us, but our obedience is required and that obedience is frequently the tool He uses to produce yet more obedience (Phil. 2:12-13).
Admittedly, it is possible to obey a rule—even in the sense of “a generalized application of Scripture” (see below)—and not obey God in the fullest sense. That is, pleasing God could be furthest thing from the complier’s mind. He is not obeying fully because his affections are not God-ward in the act. But even though he is not obeying at the subjective level, he still obeying at the objective level and making a better choice. By doing so, he is getting a taste of clean living whether he wants one or not. I believe these “tastes” are always habit forming to some degree in the life of a regenerate, Spirit-indwelt person.
The argument from the nature of holiness, then, is this: obedience is so helpful that increasing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers even when their faith is incomplete and love is not their primary motivation.
Summary
I’ve argued here that rules in ministry settings (especially schools) are not as dangerous or hostile to growing in grace as many suppose. I’ve done so on the basis of the nature of sin and the nature of obedience. But the case is far from complete. It barely scratches the surface.
In Part 2, I’ll offer an additional argument—this time, from the nature of rules themselves, then address a series of objections, including these:
- If what you’re saying about rules is true, shouldn’t we make as many as possible? (We know that leads to disaster!)
- Doesn’t Jesus’ handling of the Pharisees show that rule-making is inherently hazardous?
- Doesn’t Colossians directly forbid rule making (Col. 2:20-23)?
- Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 13:3 teach that doing good without love is worthless?
(Part 2)
Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia, and served in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.
- 75 views
But Larry, you realize that each of those things that you mention is an exercise of some sort of authority or sphere of responsibility. Certainly a leader is held to a higher standard; why a learner, which is the opposite of a leader? You haven’t made a connectionIt is about opportunity. Certain opportunities requires certain commitments.
The discussion needs to focus on how schools can be coextensive with the church without being the church.Idon’t think a school should be coextensive with the church. It is a ministry of the church.
For example, schools as schools don’t care about the private morality of their students (unless it’s really scandalous). If a student at University of Michigan files for divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences, UM doesn’t care. A church, however, would care. On what grounds should a Christian school (say university) care about something like that?Because the Christian school has a different purpose … turning out disciples who love Christ. A school should care about private morality because the world is run by private morals. We make a huge mistake if we think private morals are simply private. They are not.
Character formation takes place all through the life, not just in the classroom. And the school should have a vested interest in the character of its students.
The requirements of a deacon as one with a higher level of opportunity/commitment translates to students of a school?Yes. Or a SS teacher or nursery worker or choir member.
[/quo A deacon is a spiritual leader in a church,He is actually a material servant to the church, not a spiritual leader, per se.
Where is the Biblical mandate for school administrations to dictate extra-Biblical rules in the private lives of believers?But you have already acknowledged that this is okay.
[Aaron Blumer] Whatever the reasons, young Fundamentalists are often eager to cast “man-made rules” in a negative light and to argue from Scripture that these rules are dangerous at best, and downright hostile to Christian growth at worst.I’m still waiting for someone to define the term ‘young fundamentalist’ :(
My aim here is to offer a “young Fundamentalist” perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to Scripture and wisdom…
Personally, I don’t think that YF’s [of which I claim to be one] are necessarily ‘anti-rule’ as they are anti-rules that they do not seeing as backed up by exegesis and scripture. Someone pointed to this earlier when he talked about the Deuteronomy ‘women cannot wear pants’ rule. Someone else might argue that it’s foolish to ban PG-13 movies on the basis of content when PG movies aren’t all that much better, content wise [if you can find them anymore].
Another, perhaps better, is the concept of tithing. Many a key was pressed in favor of or against tithing when I was at grad school on our internal discussion boards…I was looking over my notes from that a couple of weeks ago. Some of us are convinced that tithing isn’t scriptural and argued vehemently [but politely] that to create a system of mandatory and extrabiblical giving of 10% is basically to create a legalistic method of earning salvation or at least their own personal righteousness before God and others. Some of us simply couldn’t afford to give 10% of a student’s wage [which went straight to our school bills anyway]. And finally some of us heard tithing all the time, were used to it, and defended it because of Malachi 3 and other passages. Yet others defended it because that was what they had been taught and didn’t want to break with the tradition.
The point is that the students/audience of a young fundamentalist gathering want to know/should know the underlying basis for the rules. And it falls upon the administrators and parents to communicate the foundational principles for those things.
To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.What if teen A avoids the party, but spends his entire night bitter because he knows that he is capable of attending the party without drinking, and wants to spend some time with his teammates and friends? Is he any more ‘right’ with God and others because of this? Of course not - his sin of anger and jealously condemns him just as much as breaking the school rule would have. As a matter of fact, the rule now creates a third opening - attend and lie about it.
So has the teen in scenario A been helped along in his journey toward Christlikeness? Absolutely. Would it have been better if he did the right thing out of faith and love without a rule? Definitely.
But this is where an important point comes into focus: the truth is, he can act out of faith and love without or with the rule. If he has the necessary faith and love, the rule is useless (1 Tim. 1:9) but harmless. If he lacks the necessary faith and love, the rule is a lifesaver, and those responsible for his care have done him a great service.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Authorities overlap at times, but one can ‘trump’ the other based on Biblical principles. For instance, I must obey the speed limit because 1) it is the law 2) it does not contradict Scripture. But if it became a law that families can only have 2 children and any conceptions after that must be aborted, then Scripture trumps the law. We are not supposed to forsake the assembly of believers, but if an unbelieving husband doesn’t want his wife to attend church, it might be best for her to submit to her husband and win him with her meek and quiet spirit. Would you remove a woman from the church roles or begin the process of church discipline in such a situation as that? Would a school accept the Christian children from such a home, knowing that the father might not support the school’s off campus rules? Could a school still call itself a ‘ministry’ then?
That is why I use the term as I do- a school has a limited sphere of authority, and should only enact and enforce rules that pertain to or affect their function or purpose. A family attending a movie does not affect the school’s ability to educate children, and it is a decision appropriately left to parents, because quite frankly, you can’t enforce it. There is no way a school is going to be able to enter homes to make sure that there are no DVDs or subscriptions to movie channels like HBO. There are also movies on regular cable, edited for time and content, but that still contain profanities, obscenities, and sexual situations. It is a bizarre idea to make a rule that a person can’t attend a movie theater, but it’s ok to watch the same movie in one’s home- and that makes the rule absurd. Neither can a school enforce a rule that girls and boys can’t be in the same room together. At what age does one begin to enforce this rule? Eight years old? Ten years old? When they enter puberty? How alone does one have to be to be ‘alone’? Can they sit in the next room? On the front porch? Take a walk around the block? Is it OK for them to be ‘alone’ for 5 minutes? 15? 20?
If you can’t outline the parameters of a rule such as “Students of the opposite gender shall not be alone”, then you can’t enforce it, and if you can’t enforce it, it’s ill-advised.
Employers who penalize employees for breaking the law are within their rights, because the employee has broken the law. What Biblical ‘law’ is a family breaking if they attend a movie, wear pants, listen to CCM, or leave their kids alone with their friends on occasion?
If, however, the school is part of a church, and the student’s families are all members of that church, then there is an appropriate venue for applying these ‘rules’ and a more Biblical means of enforcing them.
Which, I’m sorry, makes me want to laugh hysterically. I would donate my appendix to see a church consistently and fairly enact and enforce such rules as “No movies” or “No kids alone”. And if I’m reading you right, you must apply these rules in the church, if in fact students of the school are being held to the same standards as the deacons of the church.
We do agree that there is no mandate for parents to enroll their kids in a Christian school, so if parents can’t fully support the rules, they have no business putting their kids in that situation. It happens anyway, of course, which is why there is so much chaos surrounding this issue, and it’s why the questions Paul raises in his post need to be asked and answered. It’s also why I home educate- I don’t know of a Christian school in my area that I could fully support for its rules and/or its academics. And if one attends a church that has a school, and one can’t support the rules of that school and thus does not enroll their children, what does that say about the church and the school? Do you believe the church would not pressure the parents or view them as less ‘spiritual’ for not enrolling their kids there?
Larry- we may be talking past each other, or maybe we just don’t speak the same language. In any case, I wish you to know I hold you in high regard, even if I don’t quite understand where you’re coming from on this topic.
That is why I use the term as I do- a school has a limited sphere of authority, and should only enact and enforce rules that pertain to or affect their function or purpose. A family attending a movie does not affect the school’s ability to educate children, and it is a decision appropriately left to parents, because quite frankly, you can’t enforce it. There is no way a school is going to be able to enter homes to make sure that there are no DVDs or subscriptions to movie channels like HBO. There are also movies on regular cable, edited for time and content, but that still contain profanities, obscenities, and sexual situations. It is a bizarre idea to make a rule that a person can’t attend a movie theater, but it’s ok to watch the same movie in one’s home- and that makes the rule absurd. Neither can a school enforce a rule that girls and boys can’t be in the same room together. At what age does one begin to enforce this rule? Eight years old? Ten years old? When they enter puberty? How alone does one have to be to be ‘alone’? Can they sit in the next room? On the front porch? Take a walk around the block? Is it OK for them to be ‘alone’ for 5 minutes? 15? 20?
If you can’t outline the parameters of a rule such as “Students of the opposite gender shall not be alone”, then you can’t enforce it, and if you can’t enforce it, it’s ill-advised.
Employers who penalize employees for breaking the law are within their rights, because the employee has broken the law. What Biblical ‘law’ is a family breaking if they attend a movie, wear pants, listen to CCM, or leave their kids alone with their friends on occasion?
If, however, the school is part of a church, and the student’s families are all members of that church, then there is an appropriate venue for applying these ‘rules’ and a more Biblical means of enforcing them.
Which, I’m sorry, makes me want to laugh hysterically. I would donate my appendix to see a church consistently and fairly enact and enforce such rules as “No movies” or “No kids alone”. And if I’m reading you right, you must apply these rules in the church, if in fact students of the school are being held to the same standards as the deacons of the church.
We do agree that there is no mandate for parents to enroll their kids in a Christian school, so if parents can’t fully support the rules, they have no business putting their kids in that situation. It happens anyway, of course, which is why there is so much chaos surrounding this issue, and it’s why the questions Paul raises in his post need to be asked and answered. It’s also why I home educate- I don’t know of a Christian school in my area that I could fully support for its rules and/or its academics. And if one attends a church that has a school, and one can’t support the rules of that school and thus does not enroll their children, what does that say about the church and the school? Do you believe the church would not pressure the parents or view them as less ‘spiritual’ for not enrolling their kids there?
Larry- we may be talking past each other, or maybe we just don’t speak the same language. In any case, I wish you to know I hold you in high regard, even if I don’t quite understand where you’re coming from on this topic.
Nice article.
Are young fundamentalists really against rules? I was not aware of that. I am not sure if I am a young fundamentalist but here’s what I think:
1. We need rules. You can’t function without them.
2. In fundamentalism, there is a tendency to think that the schools with the most rules are the most spiritual. This is not true. Someone once told me that Clearwater Christian College was liberal because they allowed a couple to hold hands and Bob Jones was fundamental because they did not allow this. I was also once told that Baptist College of Ministry was more spiritual than Bob Jones University because they did not allow ladies to wear pants and BJU did in certain circumstances. To me, it is this kind of thinking that is being rejected by young and not-so-young fundamentalists. It is very prominent in fundamental schools.
3. Years ago, a Christian college President told me something that I really appreciated. He told me that the “student is more important than the rule.” So, if he had a young person who committed an offense worthy of being expelled. He would pray, speak with the parents, and even call the Pastor before making a final decision. After seeking after wisdom, this leader told me that there were times, he chose to keep that person in school even through the rule said to expel him. That is the way is should be. This holds the student accountable but it also recognizes the imperfections of leadership and seeks to exalt God, Who makes no mistakes. It can also stifle the “witch hunt” environment that happens from time to time in so many of our schools.
4. Some rule systems leave little room for forgiveness and restoration. This undermines the gospel.
5. Many rule systems, especially in Christian schools and colleges, are plagued with social problems. Certain people are exempt from certain rules while others are not so lucky. Usually, the ones who are exempt are tied to someone in power or someone with money.
Are young fundamentalists really against rules? I was not aware of that. I am not sure if I am a young fundamentalist but here’s what I think:
1. We need rules. You can’t function without them.
2. In fundamentalism, there is a tendency to think that the schools with the most rules are the most spiritual. This is not true. Someone once told me that Clearwater Christian College was liberal because they allowed a couple to hold hands and Bob Jones was fundamental because they did not allow this. I was also once told that Baptist College of Ministry was more spiritual than Bob Jones University because they did not allow ladies to wear pants and BJU did in certain circumstances. To me, it is this kind of thinking that is being rejected by young and not-so-young fundamentalists. It is very prominent in fundamental schools.
3. Years ago, a Christian college President told me something that I really appreciated. He told me that the “student is more important than the rule.” So, if he had a young person who committed an offense worthy of being expelled. He would pray, speak with the parents, and even call the Pastor before making a final decision. After seeking after wisdom, this leader told me that there were times, he chose to keep that person in school even through the rule said to expel him. That is the way is should be. This holds the student accountable but it also recognizes the imperfections of leadership and seeks to exalt God, Who makes no mistakes. It can also stifle the “witch hunt” environment that happens from time to time in so many of our schools.
4. Some rule systems leave little room for forgiveness and restoration. This undermines the gospel.
5. Many rule systems, especially in Christian schools and colleges, are plagued with social problems. Certain people are exempt from certain rules while others are not so lucky. Usually, the ones who are exempt are tied to someone in power or someone with money.
Wow! This thread took off fast!!
I am among those who have not read through each and every sentence in the thread so far. If my comments have already been addressed… Sorry.
Count me as one of those who really has a problem with “rules for the sake of rules”. But then I come to passages like Romans 12:1-21. A list of 20+ “rules” (depending on how you count them). Rom 13 - Rules. Rom 14 - Rules. 1 Thessalonians 5:11-22, a list of 11 rules.
In answer to the title of the thread: how can “rules” be dangerous when The Giver of every good and perfect gift directed holy men of God to write down lists of rules for us?
My personal opinion: we try to equate spirituality with the fruit that we see.
* Naturally, being apple growers, we expect to see apples. If we don’t see apples, then we are (obviously) not seeing spiritual fruit.
* Then we travel to Georgia, where they grow peaches. They think that apples are altogether NOT spiritual fruit, since they are used to growing peaches.
* Then we run into orange growers in central Florida. Same problem
* And what about those guys who grow corn?
I grew up in a VERY conservative OSF church, and went from there to two VERY conservative OSF educational institutions. “Short hair” on men was an expected evidence of an obedient walk with God.
Today, one of my best friends has been gloriously saved from a “Biker” lifestyle. He still wears long hair, a beard and earrings. He is quite obviously a born again believer in Jesus Christ. We see the evidence in his life, his walk, his talk. By the joy of the Lord in his life, we observe that he is walking obediently with his God. He does not need to cut his hair to make that known to us. It is obvious every time we see him.
Does the illustration make any sense?
I am among those who have not read through each and every sentence in the thread so far. If my comments have already been addressed… Sorry.
[Paul J. Scharf] My counsel: Once we get outside of the lowest common denonimator of necessary “instituational rules,” let’s focus on substantive Bible teaching. When we get “really good” at that, we can start worrying about adding rules :)Paul, did you mean that we should focus on the principle first? And then, having understood the principle, get into specifics of what the practice of that principle might look like?
[Matthew 22:35-40] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,In this passage, didn’t Jesus tell us that the principle is to be the basis, and the practice would flow out of that?
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Count me as one of those who really has a problem with “rules for the sake of rules”. But then I come to passages like Romans 12:1-21. A list of 20+ “rules” (depending on how you count them). Rom 13 - Rules. Rom 14 - Rules. 1 Thessalonians 5:11-22, a list of 11 rules.
In answer to the title of the thread: how can “rules” be dangerous when The Giver of every good and perfect gift directed holy men of God to write down lists of rules for us?
My personal opinion: we try to equate spirituality with the fruit that we see.
* Naturally, being apple growers, we expect to see apples. If we don’t see apples, then we are (obviously) not seeing spiritual fruit.
* Then we travel to Georgia, where they grow peaches. They think that apples are altogether NOT spiritual fruit, since they are used to growing peaches.
* Then we run into orange growers in central Florida. Same problem
* And what about those guys who grow corn?
[Romans 12:4-6] For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:Personal example (::SCREECH!:: ANECDOTAL INFORMATION ALERT!! RUN SCREAMING FROM THE ROOM!!!)
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith…
I grew up in a VERY conservative OSF church, and went from there to two VERY conservative OSF educational institutions. “Short hair” on men was an expected evidence of an obedient walk with God.
Today, one of my best friends has been gloriously saved from a “Biker” lifestyle. He still wears long hair, a beard and earrings. He is quite obviously a born again believer in Jesus Christ. We see the evidence in his life, his walk, his talk. By the joy of the Lord in his life, we observe that he is walking obediently with his God. He does not need to cut his hair to make that known to us. It is obvious every time we see him.
Does the illustration make any sense?
Authorities overlap at times, but one can ‘trump’ the other based on Biblical principles.I agree. A parent can trump the school, but that brings some ramifications. I have told people before concerning church, “This is what we believe and practice. This may not be a good place for you.” And I don’t look down on them for choosing to go somewhere else. If a parent trumps the school, the school has the right to say, “We need to part ways.”
That is why I use the term as I do- a school has a limited sphere of authority, and should only enact and enforce rules that pertain to or affect their function or purpose.Perhaps our difference is in the purpose of a Christian school. I view it more as a disciple making ministry in the context of academic education—educating a worldview. The function of educating a worldview involves much more than simply classroom/on premise issues. A worldview is about a life.
A family attending a movie does not affect the school’s ability to educate childrenI disagree entirely. Depending on the movie, it does affect the school’s ability to educate a worldview. I think movies are more subtle than people realize (and I am not against going to movies, necessarily).
… and it is a decision appropriately left to parents, because quite frankly, you can’t enforce it.Actually, you can enforce it the same way you enforce other rules. How can you enforce any rule? How can you enforce rules against cheating? You can’t unless you know about it, and then you enforce it.
Now, I am not saying a school should have a rule about guys and girls being alone. I can’t imagine why a parent wouldn’t (but some don’t). But I am saying there is a direct place in which a school may have a rule that a parent doesn’t. A parent tends to say, “My kid would never do that.” A school is not nearly so jaded about the inherent goodness of a child.
It is a bizarre idea to make a rule that a person can’t attend a movie theater, but it’s ok to watch the same movie in one’s home- and that makes the rule absurd.I don’t think it’s bizarre. Perhaps inconsistent. It’s not a rule I would have. But bizarre? I don’t think so.
Neither can a school enforce a rule that girls and boys can’t be in the same room together.Who said anything about being in the same room? I said in the house alone. As in latchkey kids. Your questions I think tend towards the absurd, and I reject arguments from the extreme in most cases, though I think it can help to show the validity of a position. What age? Any age, if you understand kids and their inclinations these days. “Alone” means what I said … in the house without parents present.
Again, it’s a matter of wisdom. I don’t think parents should go to bed and leaves their kids up till who knows when. I just don’t think it’s wise or necessary.
I don’t know where to draw the line on all this stuff. I am only marginally involved with a Christian school (as a soccer coach) and I am more than fine with that level of involvement. I don’t want to get into the other aspects of it.
If you can’t outline the parameters of a rule such as “Students of the opposite gender shall not be alone”, then you can’t enforce it, and if you can’t enforce it, it’s ill-advised.Why can’t you outline the parameters? What is confusing about “in the home without parents present”? Perhaps there are some nuances there I am missing, but I think it’s pretty clear.
Employers who penalize employees for breaking the law are within their rights, because the employee has broken the law.But what gives the employer the right to discipline someone for something that has nothing to do with the workplace? If I buy your argument, nothing, it seems to me. With all due respect, I think you are being inconsistent here. Earlier, you argued about teenage drinking, (and I quote you): Where does the school have the Biblical authority to say “No- an arrest, fine, and parental punishment are not enough, and in order to be fair and consistent with the enforcing of our rules, we’re going to pile on a two week suspension.”
Now you say an employer can penalize and employee, but apparently a school can’t penalize a student under the exact same scenario. And I would argue that a school has more of a vested interest than an employer does. As an employer, why do I care if a worker gets arrested, so long as he shows up and does a good job? As a school, my product is not what a student can do, but what a student is.
Again, I think it is inconsistent on your part.
If, however, the school is part of a church, and the student’s families are all members of that church, then there is an appropriate venue for applying these ‘rules’ and a more Biblical means of enforcing them.I think schools should be a part of the church. It doesn’t take an act of church discipline to tell a nursery worker that they need to step aside, or a choir member. Why does it take an act of church discipline to tell a school student they need to withdraw? And why doesn’t it take an act of church discipline to enforce rules on being late? Again, I think there is some inconsistency, that you want to relegate certain things to church discipline and other things to school authority. I don’t think that stands well.
I would donate my appendix to see a church consistently and fairly enact and enforce such rules as “No movies” or “No kids alone”. And if I’m reading you right, you must apply these rules in the church, if in fact students of the school are being held to the same standards as the deacons of the church.I don’t think you are reading me right. The point about deacons/SS teachers/nursery workers/etc. deals with the evident reality that some people are held to a higher standard based on opportunity and responsibility and agreement. I don’t suggest that students be held to the same standard as deacons. I don’t think they should. But don’t we recognize that certain opportunities bring certain requirements that others don’t have? When I worked in retail sales, the company expected managers to work 56 hours a week. Everyone understood that management and manager trainee had certain obligations that others did not have. And it wasn’t an issue. Again, that’s part of what I don’t understand.
I coach soccer. We expect the team members to show up for practice, do their running, show up for games. If they don’t, they don’t play on the team. But we don’t enforce that on everyone. Some kids are welcome to go home immediately after school. But if you want to do that, you can’t play on the soccer team. Again, it’s a clear instance where we recognize that certain privileges bring a higher level of commitment and accountability.
But we say it’s okay in lesser things (like soccer practice, being on time to class, etc), but not okay in bigger things (like walls of moral purity, relationships between guys and gals, worldly influences, etc). I don’t get that.
And if one attends a church that has a school, and one can’t support the rules of that school and thus does not enroll their children, what does that say about the church and the school?Nothing necessarily. A person can attend a church and not be a part of a lot of ministries in the church for various reasons.
Do you believe the church would not pressure the parents or view them as less ‘spiritual’ for not enrolling their kids there?Perhaps, but it need not be so. It may be true; it may not be.
Larry- we may be talking past each other, or maybe we just don’t speak the same language. In any case, I wish you to know I hold you in high regard, even if I don’t quite understand where you’re coming from on this topic.I completely agree. And I appreciate the interaction.
Now, I really have to stop this. I actually have a life that doesn’t involve Christian school rules. Someone please make a rule for me … :D
I can’t respond to everything, but a few thoughts may be of value…
One thing I think many are missing: when I talk here about what rules can do, I’m assuming that we’re talking good rules. “Other things being equal” is assumed. I probably should have given that more emphasis. Scripture incorrectly interpreted or applied in rule form can’t help anybody except perhaps from whatever good may arise just from being more disciplined and learning to obey authority. There is value in that, but that’s another subject.
[Quote=Mike Durning] [if] I forbid a student to go to prom – in effect dragging him kicking and screaming from a situation that he does not perceive to threaten his purity. Have I really helped him? Or would a long open discussion about prom have helped him more? Here’s what I can concede. There are trade offs whenever an authority figure makes the decision rather than the believer himself, if the believer chooses not to reflect on the matter. In reality, an authority saying “don’t do x or you’ll experience penalty y” does not prevent anyone from thinking it through and discerning. You do not have to actually fact the temptation to discern right from wrong. It only takes a little imagination and reflection in applying the Scriptures.
So this is a false disjunction. You can “drag him kicking and screaming” and have a long open discussion.
[Quote=Mike Durning]
[Quote=Mike Durning] Obedience forced is not obedience. … I Peter 1:22 specifies that their obedience was “through the Spirit”. Where is it written that forced obed. is not obedience? As you mentioned earlier, God does appeal to multiple motivations in Scripture. One of them is the fear of His discipline and/or fear of the consequences that flow somewhat naturally from sin. How does that differ form the fear of the penalty a rule may impose? They are all “forced” in the same sense. Bible is not afraid of the fear motive… though it also calls us to a higher one.
[Mike Durning] Extra-Biblical rules, in the sense that they are reviled by the Young Fundamentalists, are those that have spiritual overtones because they are derived from applications of Scriptural principle, and then are applied to everyone with an enforcement policy that has little or nothing to do with Scriptural means of discipleship or sanctification.My whole point is that rules derived from appllications of Scriptural—whenever they are accurate—do not have “little or nothing to do with Scriptural means of discipleship or sanctification.”
One thing I think many are missing: when I talk here about what rules can do, I’m assuming that we’re talking good rules. “Other things being equal” is assumed. I probably should have given that more emphasis. Scripture incorrectly interpreted or applied in rule form can’t help anybody except perhaps from whatever good may arise just from being more disciplined and learning to obey authority. There is value in that, but that’s another subject.
[Quote=Mike Durning] [if] I forbid a student to go to prom – in effect dragging him kicking and screaming from a situation that he does not perceive to threaten his purity. Have I really helped him? Or would a long open discussion about prom have helped him more? Here’s what I can concede. There are trade offs whenever an authority figure makes the decision rather than the believer himself, if the believer chooses not to reflect on the matter. In reality, an authority saying “don’t do x or you’ll experience penalty y” does not prevent anyone from thinking it through and discerning. You do not have to actually fact the temptation to discern right from wrong. It only takes a little imagination and reflection in applying the Scriptures.
So this is a false disjunction. You can “drag him kicking and screaming” and have a long open discussion.
[Mike Durning]If we’ve done our work well, “man’s applications” are far more than a speculation. That’s a pretty dim view of, say 2 Tim. 2:15 (in which “rightly handling” surely includes applying to life). That our applications are subject to error I believe absolutely but we have no choice but to make these applications if we’re going to live the Book in any meaningful way.[Aaron Blumer] I believe the dynamic between inner man and outward conduct is far from binary (all or nothing) and looks more like this:Great point, Aaron. The very fact that God provides us with a variety of motivations in Scripture (love me, obey because of blessing, obey out of fear, obey to get my hand of chastisement off of your life) certainly implies that while we should aspire to the higher motivations, the lesser ones will do if that’s all that we can be motivated by.
• Best: do right out of faith and love
• Good: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)
• Bad: do right with some evil motive
• Worst: do wrong.
But the link between this and churches or schools implementing and enforcing extra-Biblical rules is nebulous. God’s commandments being good are a certainty. Man’s applications being good for them are a speculation.
[Mike Durning] Actually, what is the right thing? Detaching the word “drinking” from the word “party”, since I doubt they called it that, I would like to challenge the assumption, Aaron. It would be better if he did the right thing without a rule. But what if the right thing is to go with a few Christian friends, stand for Christ, and leave when the liquor comes out and things get out of control?Called it a drinking party because that’s what it is, not because that’s what they called it. Sorry, Mike. Absolutely wrong to be there at all. You can responsibly allow a kid to go where they’re behaving like that. I tried to come up with an illustration that would be obvious… I can’t think of a more obvious one yet. But the scenario is hypothetical in order to illustrate that it’s always better to do right than wrong. So suppose, in order to not miss the point, we say the rule is not “don’t go to drinking parties” but rather “don’t drink at drinking parties.” If the rule motivates the lad to abstain, my point is made.
[Mike] So, in some instances, a few Christian teens maybe might want to go for good reasons, for awhile. And the Pastors and School Administrators cry “Look, he goes to parties with publicans and sinners!” Sorry. I just couldn’t resist. ;)I don’t think Jesus was recommending that kids go hang out with other kids who are breaking the law. Verses about that are easy to find as well. :)
[Quote=Mike Durning]
[Aaron Blumer] Just as sin is inherently damaging and habit-forming, every act of obedience is inherently helpful and habit-forming (1 Tim. 4:8). Obedience deepens fellowship with God (1 John 1:6-7), sharpens spiritual senses, strengthens resolve, tunes affections (1 Pet. 1:22), nurtures body and mind, enhances relationships and forms liberating habits.I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, but when bundled with your earlier statement that a believer who avoids sin because of a rule and penalty is inherently better off than if he had succumbed to sin, we have a horrifying concept. These concepts become the justification for abusive leadership. Too often, it becomes “Any rule that may in any way rescue one person from a possible sin is justified by that chance. After all, we’re helping them.” Actually, the problem of abuse of authority is a separate one. There isn’t anything in my reasoning that says “people in charge have no restraints on them regarding what they do and how they do it when making rules.” No, that problem is solved in other ways and is not related.
[Quote=Mike Durning] Obedience forced is not obedience. … I Peter 1:22 specifies that their obedience was “through the Spirit”. Where is it written that forced obed. is not obedience? As you mentioned earlier, God does appeal to multiple motivations in Scripture. One of them is the fear of His discipline and/or fear of the consequences that flow somewhat naturally from sin. How does that differ form the fear of the penalty a rule may impose? They are all “forced” in the same sense. Bible is not afraid of the fear motive… though it also calls us to a higher one.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Rev Karl] “Paul, did you mean that we should focus on the principle first? And then, having understood the principle, get into specifics of what the practice of that principle might look like?”
Yes, Karl — I would focus on substantive Bible teaching — both as part of the classroom experience, and as a beginning point to dealing with this conundrum as to how to operate a school.
Obviously, some rules are necessary to function. However, rules can quickly become a pseudo-structure to replace either true spiritual integrity or academic excellence.
One sad observation — I have spoken before about my upbringing in a Lutheran grade school. My training there easily gave me at least 10 times the Bible-knowledge base which the average Baptist kid will get from Sunday School, Christian school and AWANA combined.
Thus, at one level, I have a very hard time getting fired up about rules against pants, movies, music, etc. We have moved on to these “weak and beggerly elements,” having left the first things undone.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
However, rules can quickly become a pseudo-structure to replace either true spiritual integrity or academic excellence.Yes, but I think the attitude among some is that they always do this. Rules of all types can be a helpful aid to true spiritual integrity and academic excellence.
My concern is that we seem to be setting these things against one another, as in, “You can’t have a rule about X because then it won’t be heart obedience; it will be rule keeping.”
Larry said: “My concern is that we seem to be setting these things against one another, as in, ‘You can’t have a rule about X because then it won’t be heart obedience; it will be rule keeping.’”
There is a lot of truth in that. If I refrain from attending a movie simply because my school tells me I must, then at best I am “counting the cost” to obey the rule and be part of that school.
If I am counting on this to build me up spiritually, then I am functioning “under law,” not “under grace.”
If I watch the same movie at home on satellite, cable or DVD, then I am a functional hypocrite — at least if I am touting the rule or my ability to keep it — obeying the rule while still getting the value out of the entertainment. I actually heard this defended recently. It was said that watching a movie in one’s own home is OK as long as it is not known publicly.
There is a lot of truth in that. If I refrain from attending a movie simply because my school tells me I must, then at best I am “counting the cost” to obey the rule and be part of that school.
If I am counting on this to build me up spiritually, then I am functioning “under law,” not “under grace.”
If I watch the same movie at home on satellite, cable or DVD, then I am a functional hypocrite — at least if I am touting the rule or my ability to keep it — obeying the rule while still getting the value out of the entertainment. I actually heard this defended recently. It was said that watching a movie in one’s own home is OK as long as it is not known publicly.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Thanks Paul. If I might offer a reply.
It’s okay to do things simply because an authority says to do them, even if we wouldn’t do them otherwise. It’s okay to “count the cost.” It is a wise thing to do.
Consider 1 Thess 4:1-2: You received instruction (supplied in v. 1) or commandments (v. 2) so that you might walk and please God. The point there is that it is impossible to please God apart from these rules. It builds us up spiritually.
The concern of course is when we make rules that are not consistent with the biblical teaching and principles. But the concern of “going beyond” is a legitimate one that must be handled carefully. I share a concern about that, but I am not ready to ditch it just because some people do it wrongly or emphasize it wrongly.
If I refrain from attending a movie simply because my school tells me I must, then at best I am “counting the cost” to obey the rule and be part of that school.Perhaps, but by doing this, you may also be preventing certain temptations and inducements to sin. Again, attending a theater is not a big concern of mine, but that’s the illustration you chose. Furthermore, why is it wrong to count the cost? There are many things that we do because we count the cost. I drive the speed limit because I count the cost. That doesn’t make it wrong to do. Again, I would remind us that the Bible frequently uses threats of punishment to deter certain behaviors.
It’s okay to do things simply because an authority says to do them, even if we wouldn’t do them otherwise. It’s okay to “count the cost.” It is a wise thing to do.
If I am counting on this to build me up spiritually, then I am functioning “under law,” not “under grace.”Not biblically. Being “under the Law” in the Bible had reference to the Mosaic code, not to rules in and of themselves. The NT is clear that there are rules that are helpful for spiritual growth. You can’t violate God’s rules on purity and still be built up spiritually. The rules exist for protection and blessing. When we disobey them, we take ourselves outside the circle of God’s blessing and protection.
Consider 1 Thess 4:1-2: You received instruction (supplied in v. 1) or commandments (v. 2) so that you might walk and please God. The point there is that it is impossible to please God apart from these rules. It builds us up spiritually.
The concern of course is when we make rules that are not consistent with the biblical teaching and principles. But the concern of “going beyond” is a legitimate one that must be handled carefully. I share a concern about that, but I am not ready to ditch it just because some people do it wrongly or emphasize it wrongly.
If I watch the same movie at home on satellite, cable or DVD, then I am a functional hypocrite — at least if I am touting the rule or my ability to keep it — obeying the rule while still getting the value out of the entertainment.No, you’re not, unless there is a rule about watching movies on satellite, cable, or DVD. If the rule is only about location, you are not a hypocrite to partake somewhere else. If the rule is about content, and you don’t do it in one place and do do it in another, you are a hypocrite.
I actually heard this defended recently. It was said that watching a movie in one’s own home is OK as long as it is not known publicly.There is some truth in this. If people do not know, then they are not caused to stumble, or think that they can do it, when in fact they violate their conscience. That is, in fact, part of the thrust of the liberty passages. Don’t flaunt your liberty and cause someone else to stumble. The point is not an absolute prohibition but a love and concern for others.
I am going to have to drop the conversation here.
I think we disagree on some things, while others are more a matter of semantics/implementation, perhaps.
Your post leads into a number of in-depth topics which I do not have time to write on, and probably would best be dealt with in another format: Law of Christ (vs. Law of Moses); using the Bible as law vs. using it as grace; the use of Christian liberty, etc., etc.
(I will note my lack of concession with the idea that it is healthy for us to decry publicly something which we practice privately — then cloak our actions in the texts on Christian liberty. The passages on liberty are not given to promote hypocrisy and “law-keeping” — Gal. 2. One of my favorite jokes, when I am visiting a good-natured Christian home with a satellite dish, is to make a comment about how horrible it would be to allow satellite TV in one’s home — then watch for the reaction on their faces :O )
Let’s just use this as a jumping off point to go get going on some of that substantive Bible teaching!!:D
I think we disagree on some things, while others are more a matter of semantics/implementation, perhaps.
Your post leads into a number of in-depth topics which I do not have time to write on, and probably would best be dealt with in another format: Law of Christ (vs. Law of Moses); using the Bible as law vs. using it as grace; the use of Christian liberty, etc., etc.
(I will note my lack of concession with the idea that it is healthy for us to decry publicly something which we practice privately — then cloak our actions in the texts on Christian liberty. The passages on liberty are not given to promote hypocrisy and “law-keeping” — Gal. 2. One of my favorite jokes, when I am visiting a good-natured Christian home with a satellite dish, is to make a comment about how horrible it would be to allow satellite TV in one’s home — then watch for the reaction on their faces :O )
Let’s just use this as a jumping off point to go get going on some of that substantive Bible teaching!!:D
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Larry] But what gives the employer the right to discipline someone for something that has nothing to do with the workplace? If I buy your argument, nothing, it seems to me. With all due respect, I think you are being inconsistent here. Earlier, you argued about teenage drinking, (and I quote you): Where does the school have the Biblical authority to say “No- an arrest, fine, and parental punishment are not enough, and in order to be fair and consistent with the enforcing of our rules, we’re going to pile on a two week suspension.”I see the employer operating on different principles than a school. I don’t expect the workplace, for starters, to operate on Biblical principles. They are going to do what they feel is best for their bottom line, period. If the role of a Christian school is that of a discipleship ministry of sorts, then they should be able to provide a clear Biblical basis for off-campus rules of conduct and the accompanying consequences for violating them. Most employees are adults, while students are minors under their parents’ authority. The workplace is for adults to earn money to provide for their family, the school is for the teaching and training of young people in their formative years. Those are enough differences already for me.
Now you say an employer can penalize and employee, but apparently a school can’t penalize a student under the exact same scenario. And I would argue that a school has more of a vested interest than an employer does. As an employer, why do I care if a worker gets arrested, so long as he shows up and does a good job? As a school, my product is not what a student can do, but what a student is.
Again, I think it is inconsistent on your part.
The reason I see it as unBiblical for a school to pile on more consequences after 1) the parents have dealt with the issue 2) the church has exercised its role is that there is no Scriptural foundation that I can perceive for additional consequences from a school that is supposedly part of the church. A Christian school that doesn’t have restoration in mind along with the rules is dysfunctional. And that means that the rules cannot be applied in a general way, but on an individual basis.
I am such a stick-in-the-mud, by-the-rules kind of person, really. I love structure and boundaries. But I also see the need for authorities to be careful to remain within their purview. As much as I love my pastor, it isn’t his place to decide what’s best for my husband and I, or for our kids. He can counsel and advise, but there are areas that he cannot Biblically enforce rules of conduct that are not clearly outlined in Scripture in our personal lives. For example, I know a guy who has a tendency to get lost. His wife is his co-pilot, or they’d end up in Nebraska just trying to get across town. This upset their pastor, who felt that she was out of place to boss her husband around, which is what he felt she was doing. The husband told him that his wife-as-navigator was one way that she completed him, and it wasn’t his place to harm her testimony by telling the women of the church that she was not a good example of submission. Problems of this nature kept coming up again and again- the pastor felt that girls should learn how to sew by the time they were 12 years old, he wanted all the kids in Sunday School and children’s church (and these parents wanted their kids to sit with them), he didn’t want them to go out of town on weekends because they would miss church- they ended up having to leave.
Take our hypothetical rule of “Thou shalt not leave children who have reached puberty alone with the opposite gender” - when I asked the questions I did, it was for a reason. The school is not supervising the child at the time, the parent is (unlike conduct that takes place on campus where first person witnesses, such as teachers and students, are available). How does the school receive the information that Bobby and Jenny were left alone in the house while Mom went to the store? By hearsay, most likely. And so the ‘school’ (the secretary, the principle, the homeroom teacher?) investigates. My eyes are already rolling into the back of my head. It just gets too ridiculous for me, because I keep picturing Raymond Burr in a wheelchair interrogating the student and parents.
Not every rule leads to tyranny, but I stand by my opinion that extra-Biblical rules of personal conduct cannot be applied fairly and consistently in a church or in a school. We have a code of conduct for elders/bishops/deacons and their families that involves their personal lives. They are obviously viewed as leaders of a sort, given the commission to be examples and to teach others to follow. That is probably what is lacking here- if there were more Godly examples, people who were equipped to mentor and encourage accountability, then fewer rules would be needed because the influence of positive pressure would hold sway more effectively. But we’re lazy, so we have rules. That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.
For clarification- I think a Christian school can be done very well as an arm of the local church, under church authority every step of the way, with the students being children of the membership. Otherwise, I think you’re askin’ for bag full of angry bumblebees.
“This upset their pastor, who felt that she was out of place to boss her husband around, which is what he felt she was doing. The husband told him that his wife-as-navigator was one way that she completed him, and it wasn’t his place to harm her testimony by telling the women of the church that she was not a good example of submission. Problems of this nature kept coming up again and again- the pastor felt that girls should learn how to sew by the time they were 12 years old, he wanted all the kids in Sunday School and children’s church (and these parents wanted their kids to sit with them), he didn’t want them to go out of town on weekends because they would miss church- they ended up having to leave.”
Susan, I could not help but react to this.
You are kidding, right?
Just curious — did the pastor wear a long white robe and have a large golden ring?? :cry:
Susan, I could not help but react to this.
You are kidding, right?
Just curious — did the pastor wear a long white robe and have a large golden ring?? :cry:
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Discussion