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
[Susan R] My concern is centered around who is making the rules and where they are applying them. I believe that certain spheres of authority…Even though we are under pastoral/elder authority at our church, we still are not obligated to send our kids to activities or classes we do not feel would be beneficial to them, and this is not viewed as rebellion or being unsupportive of the church’s ministries, because the authority of the home trumps the church in those cases. If it was a rule at our church that all children attend every class or activity geared for them, we’d have to leave, because we can’t in good conscience sign on for that, even if the classes are generally a good thing.I am certain I am far from being alone in concurring that while the purpose and function of rules is essential (I’ve already addressed that in a post in Part 2) often it is the failure of agents or agencies in understanding and applying the appropriate “limits” or “boundaries” of their authority which results in the unnecessary conflict to which Susan alludes.
The divine institutions of self, marriage, family, government and church have appropriate limits. So when, under the liberties granted by God, an agent or agency, either directly related to or under the auspices of any of these institutions, develops rules for regulation and participation, no matter how sincere, they must consider and reject those rules that cause them to enter the authoritative realm of another institution, thereby wrongly producing a conflict.
Now, it goes without saying that if a body establishes itself with rules that attempt, regardless of the intent, to usurp the divinely established authority of another and someone joins themselves to that body and then complains about the conflict, it can’t really be said that the former is the guilty party seeing that the latter joined knowing full well or at least with the obligation to informed himself, that the conflict exists. While the former may be guilty of overstepping their boundaries they are not guilty of creating the conflict seeing that the latter voluntarily joined themselves to this body. But obviously this isn’t the issue, rather just a qualifying remark.
Susan’s point here, I believe, is tremendously ignored often within Fundie and Evangelical circles and a critical one to have properly synchronized before passing any regulatory legislation.
*Rules are an extension or expression of authority. Where the boundaries of the authority ends is the where the rules themselves and their demands should also end. The challenge then becomes investigating, researching, analyzing and determining the appropriate boundaries for each divine institution and upon that you will have boundaries for the reach of any rules such institutions seek to establish.
[Paul Matzko] I believe that Matthew 23 teaches us something very different from what you are proposing. You seem to be saying that although Christ is chastising the Pharisees for not digging in to the deeper meaning of the tithe, He is still tacitly approving of their tithing as a good thing.There is nothing “tacit” about it. Matt.23.23 “… These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”
[Paul Matzko] Four times Christ rails against the Pharisees’ hypocrisy for finding righteousness in their external behavior! I can’t think of a clearer way for Christ to say, “Your works mean nothing when done for self rather than Christ.” Observe how although the Pharisees appear righteous outwardly, Christ cautions us against being deceived by appearances; their righteousness is false.This is precisely why He woe’s them. For a) finding righteousness in their external behavior, as you have said and b) for the fact that they have selectively looked to law as a means of achieving their own righteousness. I referred to this self-righteousness problem and selectivity problem in Part 2.
Again, we’re overlooking the fact that the Pharisees were unregenerate men profoundly opposed to the things of God (they were plotting to kill the Son of God!). But a Christian is a hugely different animal. We could fill up pages on the difference, but a few are especially important: a believer has been credited with the righteousness of Christ (the only righteousness that counts), and also indwelt with the Spirit and “married” (Rom. 7) to the Lawgiver (Christ) so that their holy living is, in fact, the righteousness of Christ working out in them.
In short, there is no such thing as a category of righteousness called “our own” when we are believers. We can lose sight of that fact and think we are achieving our own righteousness—and that attitude might somewhat accurately be called “self righteousness,” but in truth, there is no such thing in the life of a believer. In his union with Christ, all right he does is God graciously working His righteousness out in their lives.
[John MacArthur] “Jesus’ point, however, was not to condemn their observance of the law’s fine points. The problem was that they ‘neglected the weightier matters’ of justice and mercy and faith - the moral principles underlying all the laws. They were satisfied with their focus on the incidentals and externals but willfully resisted the spiritual meaning of the law.”There is nothing here that conflicts with what I’ve been saying.
[Paul M] The “weightier matters” that Christ is referring to are not laws which are somehow more important than tithing. He is not proposing a distinction between greater and lesser categories of the law. Christ is pointing at the spiritual principles that undergird the law: “justice and mercy and faith.” The Pharisees are condemned for blindly following the law without seeking the true meaning of the law.Maybe, maybe not. But doesn’t detract from my case either way.
[Paul M] Christ immediately follows that exhortation by saying that although external obedience is important, what is of greatest importance is that we “cleanse the inside of the cup and dish.” Without a cleansed “inner cup,” the “outer” is dirty! We must first cleanse the inside so that the outside can be clean. Matthew 23 tells us, in the strongest possible language, that our external behavior is inherently unrighteous without the internal cleansing power of the Spirit. There is no gradation. For the Pharisees, doing the right thing (tithing) for the wrong reason (self-righteousness) is no more righteous than doing the wrong thing in the first place.Paul, I don’t think you can say “external obedience is important” and also say “external behavior is inherently unrighteous.” But in any case, I’ve never said that external behavior is any way meritorious without the “internal cleansing power of the Spirit.” But every true Christian has experienced the latter and the entire series has been about what good rules can do for believers (when they are good rules, well executed).
It may help to look at my comments on Part 2 as well, where I’ve made several of the same points.
Comparing any regenerate person to a Pharisee is a pretty big stretch to begin with, but when we do it (and I am among those who do in preaching, etc.) we have an uphill task to show how those similarities are possible between children of light and some of the worst children of darkness the world has ever seen (I mean, these guys couldn’t even appreciate the miraculous blessing of a blind man made to see… because it happened on the Sabbath).
In my conclusion—in Part 2—I point out that the Pharisees’ root problem was unbelief and that Christians who get pharisaical in their thinking resemble the Pharisees only insofar as they get forgetful of the gospel.
If you are enthralled by the gospel, you can have ten zillion hair splitting rules and never think for a minute that by following them you have produced your own righteousness, because you know that whatever good these do is only as God uses them graciously to help us avoid the damaging effects of sin and strengthen the habits of clean living.
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.
[Susan R] My concern is centered around who is making the rules and where they are applying them. I believe that certain spheres of authority, such as that of the home, are sacred, and should not be intruded upon unless it is clear that they are violating Biblical principles, and then we have appropriate principles to govern our intervention when approaching brethren who are overtaken in a fault.In an effort not to talk past each other, I will seek to clarify the problem I see once again. Rules are an inevitable part of shared experience in the planet earth. Rules govern relationships on many levels. Whether we like it or not we must live under authority that impacts the sphere of the home in order to have relationships. Please let me illustrate the point. Two young people are in a dating relationship. The girls father (who has proper biblical authority over her) explains that there should be no physical contact, no single dating, etc. The boys parents (who have proper biblical authority over him) are fine with hand holding, a kiss good night, and single dating, etc. So how is this relationship to go forward between these two young people who are “crazy” about each other? Has the father of the girl over-stepped his authority by making a rule that impacts another person’s home? I would not certainly think that to be the case. The father is entirely correct in the exercise of his authority, and if the boy wants a relationship with the girl then he will honor that rule that is not his or his parents. Furthermore, though the parents disagree it would be wrong for the parents of the boy to encourage disobedience of the girls parents rule on these matters though this is not their own rule. Finally, there is another option—do not have a relationship at all because you cannot submit to the rule of the girls family. How you raise the kids in your home will and does have impact on the homes of those in your church and school. Your rules about curfews, entertainment, music, etc. will affect the families your children have relationships with. Are you trying to control that other family by your rules within your home? What should that family do—denounce your family rules to your children? They have choices to make and explain to their own children. “We watch y, but Tim’s parents don’t allow him to” so “Tim’s parents are jerks because they are trying to infringe upon our freedoms” or “Tim’s parents love Tim and are trying to parent him the best they can, and we just disagree on this matter, so let’s give up our freedom here so you can have Tim over.” Your “sacred” realm of authority in your home will inevitably impact my “sacred” realm of authority. You might respond that was not the “intent” of your rules, just an un-intended consequence of differing views on the matter and your desire to execute your responsibilities within the home faithfully (and if I am spiritual I should be able to see that, accept it, and determine the if and when of the ongoing relationship). If we all deify our “home” authority as the most absolute than the debate on the topic is really useless because the only way to protect my family rules from impacting your family rules is never to have any relationships—home church, home school, home college, home government, etc. But such isolation seems entirely contrary to the Scriptures, and so we must learn to relate to one another realizing that my “rights” to authority are not supreme but loving my neighbor as myself is the law of Christ. So when I choose to give up my liberties for the pursuit of God-centered relationships I am pleasing God (spiritual value, Scriptural thinking).
…But it has been proposed that off-campus rules are a good and even necessary thing to prevent sin in the life of a student when their parents are ‘falling down on the job’. I see this idea and the implementation thereof as fraught with problems when talking about applying the dress code or entertainment choices to the home. It’s fine if the parents are 100% on board with the school standards and they’ve chosen the school because it continues to emphasize what is being taught at home, but what about using off-campus rules to govern homes that are not ipsy-pipsy with the school’s standards? Aren’t we setting kids up for conflicts between the school and the home? How is that Scriptural or beneficial to the child?
I believe that Christian schools can and do get it wrong on some of their rules. However, this does not mean that schools with rules that reach beyond the campus are trying to use those rules to govern homes. The schools did not demand that you enter the relationship, last time I checked. They have simply identified core areas of concern within which they believe the shared experience of Christian education is not counter-productive. The specifics of the rules may be up for debate, but having a relationship with the school requires that parents and students learn to discern where they can and will place their own view of life under the authority of another for something bigger than themselves. It may be that the “off campus” rules are too much and so the parents don’t send their children to that particular school. It may be that they (parent and student) appreciate the benefits of the school as more valuable than the freedoms in off campus limitations so they choose to limit themselves where they would not normally be self-limited. Are you setting your kids up for conflict with the school? Sure you are if you do not approach the matter with biblical wisdom—privately demanding your own way but sending the kids to the school anyway. But if you talk honestly with your children about the areas of disagreement, the reason for self-chosen submission to rules that would not be your own, etc. then you have removed the potential conflict at the outset. And this has in no way limited your parenting, but actually put it on display. In effect, by choosing to send your child to that particular Christian school YOU have made the RULE for your own family because the benefits for your children outweigh the restrictions on your freedom in the matter. The school has not gone out in effort to force you to follow their rules at gun point. Rather, they have simply identified the groundrules for the relationship you will have with them. So choose the Christian school and college that best meets your needs as you raise your children. Enter into the relationship with those partnering schools and understand the basis for that relationship may (or may not depending on your choice) restrict your liberties outside the school. Realize that by choosing that school you are making the rules for your children, not the school, and hopefully you are doing so because you see the values of that Christian education as more important than those freedoms.
I don’t think we are talking past each other. The question is whether or not Christian Schools (the who) have the right to make any rules that extend beyond the walls of their building (the where). I am arguing that they absolutely do and you are arguing that absolutely do not. Your answer is founded upon the fact that “parents alone” have the right to govern what happens outside the school walls. I am answering that line of reasoning by stating that though this sounds great, it is not sufficient because anytime people enter into relationships the “private, home” rules impact that relationship (as illustrated by the dating analogy above). Hence, to argue that Christian schools have no rights to make rules that extend beyond the school walls is a wrong argument. Christian schools are identifying the rules that will govern the shared experience for all who enter into the relationship of that institution, and it is entirely within their freedom to make whatever rules they want. Likewise, it is entirely within my freedom to reject those rules and not send my child to that school. I am neither denying parental authority (I choose what schools my kids go to) nor school authority. If a family is 100% behind the school rules, then they have no conflicts. If they are not, then actually parent by making hard choices for your children (the “you” is not you—Susan, but you Christian parents generally). If the benefits of the school outweigh the limitations, put them in the school and teach them the importance of living for more than one’s own little kingdom. If the benefits do not outweigh the limitations don’t enter into the relationship with that school, choose a different one.
@timdavis
I don’t think you have made a case at all for schools to extend rules in to the home or make rules that parents ought to be making. What you are illustrating with the overlapping authorities of different sets of parents whose children interact is just a fact of life.
This happens all the time, regardless of whether or not the kids involved go to a school with a hundred-page handbook or not: when my son’s friends come over, I expect them not to jump on the sofa and I will tell him so to his face, regardless of whether or not he can do it at home. If he wants to tell his parents and other friends that I am a bit of a tyrant, then he can go ahead with my blessing. The same goes with the eventual dating of my daughter.
I think you have exactly illustrated the point Susan and I would be making — that each home and set of parents is different and must be allowed to work out the parameters their children can operate within, and especially as their boundaries overlap with the boundaries of their friends and peers. This is nothing short of learning basic life lessons and the reality all around is in all realms of life: home, family, church, work, school, world.
I curb my child’s freedom when it interacts with someone else’s. That my kids grow to understand this would be a major accomplishment that I am excited for them to learn. If the school is doing the curbing already, for everyone equally, and according to the most sensitive parents’ standards, then we feel there is much less chance for learning these valuable lessons, and much greater chance to mess the kid up.
This is kind of snarky, but what kind of society do you live in? I know I am in Holland (and we can pray in public school) and you are in US (with increasing losses of freedom under the guise of protecting people), but I think the old quote is still something that parents try pass on to their kids: “your freedom ends where my nose (and my daughter’s) begins.”
I don’t think you have made a case at all for schools to extend rules in to the home or make rules that parents ought to be making. What you are illustrating with the overlapping authorities of different sets of parents whose children interact is just a fact of life.
This happens all the time, regardless of whether or not the kids involved go to a school with a hundred-page handbook or not: when my son’s friends come over, I expect them not to jump on the sofa and I will tell him so to his face, regardless of whether or not he can do it at home. If he wants to tell his parents and other friends that I am a bit of a tyrant, then he can go ahead with my blessing. The same goes with the eventual dating of my daughter.
I think you have exactly illustrated the point Susan and I would be making — that each home and set of parents is different and must be allowed to work out the parameters their children can operate within, and especially as their boundaries overlap with the boundaries of their friends and peers. This is nothing short of learning basic life lessons and the reality all around is in all realms of life: home, family, church, work, school, world.
I curb my child’s freedom when it interacts with someone else’s. That my kids grow to understand this would be a major accomplishment that I am excited for them to learn. If the school is doing the curbing already, for everyone equally, and according to the most sensitive parents’ standards, then we feel there is much less chance for learning these valuable lessons, and much greater chance to mess the kid up.
This is kind of snarky, but what kind of society do you live in? I know I am in Holland (and we can pray in public school) and you are in US (with increasing losses of freedom under the guise of protecting people), but I think the old quote is still something that parents try pass on to their kids: “your freedom ends where my nose (and my daughter’s) begins.”
[Aaron Blumer]…Aaron,
I see an old lady who needs help crossing a busy street. Which is better…
1) Help her across because I know she’s rich and she might include me in her will
2) Help her across because I know this would please my Lord and exhibit His character in a visible way
3) Let her fend for herself
Does anyone really want to say that option 3 is better than option 1?
…
Your question is too vague.
Which is better for the lady? Which is better for me? Which encourages my sanctification? Which signifies my sanctification?
Your question is too vague.How is it vague to say, “Does anyone really want to say that option 3 is better than option 1?”
You want to parse it out to infinity. Why? To avoid giving a direct answer? To avoid giving the obviously right answer because it would show a chink in your armor?
None of your hypothetical questions really address the real question: Is 3 better than 1 in any situation?
I don’t think you have made a case at all for schools to extend rules in to the home or make rules that parents ought to be making.Several days ago I asked some questions that no one that I have seen has attempted to answer. You appear to be on the side that schools can’t make rules that extend outside the school property and outside the school mission, so to speak. So let me again ask these questions, and ask you to give a response to these situations.
So what about a pregnant 11th grader? Should she be allowed to continue to come to class?
What about a high school student who goes to a local arcade and is loudly cussing and being profane with the parents knowledge. Can the school do anything?
What about a student who crosses the property line and then turns around and starts yelling at a teacher using profanity because the teacher “treated him unfairly.” What if the parents agree?
[Larry] How is it vague to say, “Does anyone really want to say that option 3 is better than option 1?”Huh. I certainly have no problem answering Aaron’s question. 1 is better than 3.
You want to parse it out to infinity. Why? To avoid giving a direct answer? To avoid giving the obviously right answer because it would show a chink in your armor?
None of your hypothetical questions really address the real question: Is 3 better than 1 in any situation?
I don’t think I was over dissecting the question. My questions attempt to get to what I think is the real question. Motives also are important, I believe.
[Larry]So what about a pregnant 11th grader? Should she be allowed to continue to come to class?not knowing personal history or situation of any of these teens is a little hard, but i’ll take a stab:
What about a high school student who goes to a local arcade and is loudly cussing and being profane with the parents knowledge. Can the school do anything?
What about a student who crosses the property line and then turns around and starts yelling at a teacher using profanity because the teacher “treated him unfairly.” What if the parents agree?
Pg girl: Stated as is, I’m OK with it. Is she OK with it, is another issue.
Cussing guy: for starters, i’d talk to the parents and see how they are handling it (are they ignoring, supporting, or modeling this behavior? would they like counseling? are they watching their kid go thru a bad time spiritually and are sad b/c they really can’t change his heart?) If the parents are trying to do right, ask how the school can help. Ask what support or requirements they can work together on. start regular prayer meetings or pray in teachers meetings. See what happens. Tricky thing is that an issue like this is rarely in isolation in the kid’s life, and a lot depends on the parents’ attitudes.
Profanity-but-not-on-school-property & parents are OK with it: meet with parents and find out why the kid is in the school; maybe point out that their goals and the school’s are not in unity, that their child really isn’t having a learning experience if their kid is cussing his teachers like that. Depending (on a lot), come to agreement about change in kid’s behavior or parents withdrawing him from school. pray.
instead of seeing these as all negative, disciplinary issues, they are opportunities to model a lot of real-life happenings. i don’t think a school should necessarily be governed by an attitude of fear about how one kid’s sin will destroy others’ lives. Or the idea that it has to have a pretty high “perfect” rating, like the greenhouse thing. It could make a lot of the other christian kids a lot stronger and more committed.
but … . what do i know? maybe that’s pie in the sky. i just know from life, that banging down a rule without much consideration or seeking the Lord isn’t really the mature way to handle people.
[timbdavis] The question is whether or not Christian Schools (the who) have the right to make any rules that extend beyond the walls of their building (the where). I am arguing that they absolutely do and you are arguing that absolutely do not. Your answer is founded upon the fact that “parents alone” have the right to govern what happens outside the school walls. I am answering that line of reasoning by stating that though this sounds great, it is not sufficient because anytime people enter into relationships the “private, home” rules impact that relationship (as illustrated by the dating analogy above). Hence, to argue that Christian schools have no rights to make rules that extend beyond the school walls is a wrong argument. Christian schools are identifying the rules that will govern the shared experience for all who enter into the relationship of that institution, and it is entirely within their freedom to make whatever rules they want. Likewise, it is entirely within my freedom to reject those rules and not send my child to that school.Bro. Davis- I agree with most everything you’ve said here, as I’ve never stated that schools do not have ‘the right’ to make off-campus rules, but that they have no Biblical mandate. I’ve outlined the authority structures that are given Biblical mandates, and not one of them is a ‘school’. God ordained gov’t, home, church, and the master/servant relationship. These often overlap, and I’ve acknowledged that more than once, and working out these differences is one of the more interesting and sharpening aspects of interpersonal relationships- but one authority always holds sway over the other, or a compromise is reached, or we shake hands and part ways on that topic- based on the specifics of the situation.
I don’t think the dating analogy holds up as a comparison to the function and purpose of a Christian school. The family rules that set boundaries for our children are in place regardless of where they go, so right there we have overlap. If they went to public school, and the school had an activity or assignment that I found morally objectionable, my child would not participate- parental rules take precedence over school. If my kids are at church, at the grandparents, at a friends’ house- they are still held accountable to abide by our standards, as well as taking into account the standards of the home/institution/activity- parents again dominate, but also show respect for others- there again is the overlap. I totally get the give-and-take involved, the surrendering of liberty at times to benefit someone else- but that is NOT what we are talking about here.
Example- if we don’t watch tv, and the kids go to someone’s house who does, I do expect those parents to be supportive of that, and I work very hard to create open communications and a sense of mutual regard in my relationships with other parents- but I don’t expect them to not watch tv or abide by any of my family’s standards when my kids aren’t there. My influence in that home is nil once my child leaves their property. That is the conflict of authority I see when a Christian school makes extra-Biblical rules like those regarding entertainment and clothing when a student is not on campus or involved in a school activity.
I also don’t believe that a school can truly be consistent with these kinds of rules, nor can they adequately enforce them. The ‘worldly entertainment’ statute comes to mind- how does a school define ‘worldly entertainment’? Is it just movies shown in public, or all movies, or movies that are PG-13 or R… what about movies like The Patriot, which is rated R for war violence but does not contain nudity or sexual situations? What about parents who have a TV Guardian thingy or a ClearPlay DVD player, which removes objectionable material? In my experience, what schools do is forbid attending a movie theater. But if it is OK for the student to rent a movie at Blockbuster and view it at home or a friend’s house, what are the Scriptural grounds for forbidding movie theaters? As a kid I saw these conflicts all around me, and it was incredibly confusing. Why could I watch HBO at my youth pastor’s house, but not go to the theater on a Saturday afternoon? It made no sense to me then, and it makes no sense to me now.
So again- I’m not objecting to the presence of rules, or the ‘right’ of an institution to have 100 page handbooks, or our own freedom of choice when it comes to how we educate our kids. But there is no Biblical support for a school to create off-campus rules on areas that are not clearly laid out in Scripture.
not knowing personal history or situation of any of these teens is a little hard, but i’ll take a stab:Thanks, Anne. All your answers (except the first which is inexplicable to me) confirm for me that you believe that the school has a legitimate interest outside the school property. And that has been my point all along. They do have a legitimate interest in what goes on outside, and they should handle it. They do not have to say, “Well, that’s not our sphere. That’s the parents.”
Of course the school should try to help the parents. And the way it is carried out may be different in different schools, some better some worse. But the fact is that the school has a legitimate interest in what goes on outside the school.
Huh. I certainly have no problem answering Aaron’s question. 1 is better than 3.Thanks Dan. You said the question was vague, and I couldn’t understand how “1 better than 3?” is vague. It seemed pretty straightforward. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone here has argued that motives are not important.
I don’t think I was over dissecting the question. My questions attempt to get to what I think is the real question. Motives also are important, I believe.
But what do we do when we don’t want to do something that is a right thing to do? What do we do when we want to do it for wrong motives? It is good to do it anyway, and change the motives and desires.
You don’t not do something just because you have a wrong motive. You do it, and confess the wrong motive.
So what about a pregnant 11th grader? Should she be allowed to continue to come to class?Is she repentant? Yes., she should come to class. Is she unrepentant? Then what is her family’s church doing in this situation? Can the school work with the parents and church to bring about the girl’s restoration in some way? If she’s disruptive and affecting the ability of others to receive an education, then there are definitely grounds for removing her.
What about a high school student who goes to a local arcade and is loudly cussing and being profane with the parents knowledge. Can the school do anything?Let’s say the school principal, who is a closet Pacman addict, hears the student cussing and being profane. He should contact the parents and pastor for a sit down and see what they think is best. Punishment or restitution should be mutually agreed upon.
What about a student who crosses the property line and then turns around and starts yelling at a teacher using profanity because the teacher “treated him unfairly.” What if the parents agree?The student is still involved in with the school if he is in a ‘conversation’ with the teacher about school- ditto if he were on the phone or using a telegraph. As for the parents agreeing- are they agreeing that the teacher needed to be cussed out or that the teacher treated the student unfairly? If they believe that their child has been treated unfairly, then a pow-wow with the teacher would be in order, but I think the child should make some sort of restitution for being disrespectful. Like washing and waxing the teacher’s car, raking their leaves, mowing their grass…
If the purpose of a school is to make disciples (and here we go again assuming kids in Christian schools are actually saved) then we need to take the time to assist families in discipling their children, and not just have a list of hard and fast rules that kick people to the curb every time they make a mistake, act immaturely, or give in to temptation.
I totally get the give-and-take involved, the surrendering of liberty at times to benefit someone else- but that is NOT what we are talking about here.How is that not what we are talking about here, with respect to school. In a school setting, a parent surrenders somethings to be a part of the educational process … things like the right to leave the house at 8:30 because the kids actually have to be at school at 8:30, or the right to take four week vacations in February, or the right to certain kinds of entertainment that may not be wrong, but are forbidden by the school.
But there is no Biblical support for a school to create off-campus rules on areas that are not clearly laid out in Scripture.So does this mean that the school is sinning by doing such? Can the school create “off-campus rules” (like not standing across the street and yelling at teachers and holding up signs about the teachers) while still being in the bounds of Scripture?
Dan,
To answer your question, I think for purposes of the point I was trying to make “better overall” probably works. I suspect that in a moral universe where every act has moral significance, a believer is helped toward sanctification in some (often very “small”) way whenever he chooses a morally superior act to a morally inferior one. (I expect some to start crying “Moralism! Moralism!” at that, but now that I’ve had a bit of time to chew on that question, I think I’m ready for it if it comes up).
About school authority. I’ve been a bit puzzled at some of the discussion on that point. As far as I can tell from Scripture, believers are free to bring themselves into situations where they voluntarily place themselves under some authority. To me, a school is one of those. Scripture specifically vests authority in homes, churches and civil governments. The rest are voluntary societies of one sort or another. So a school only has the authority parents give it when they sign up and agree to whatever terms they agree to.
When you have a church-school situation, it’s more complicated… and another reason I don’t like the church-school arrangement. Schools are better off independent whenever possible, IMO.
That said, if a school has rules that reach into the home or reach off school property, they are free to do that… and parents who do not want that arrangement are free to not sign up.
Edit: where it gets out of line is when you sign up under one set of terms and the school reinvents them mid-stream… that is, if you enrolled with a “on school property only” approach and they start making new rules governing life off school property half way through the semester, there is really a bad-faith situation going on on the part of the school. Depending on what sort of formalities were involved in enrolling, it might even be breach of contract. (But I’m no lawyer)
To answer your question, I think for purposes of the point I was trying to make “better overall” probably works. I suspect that in a moral universe where every act has moral significance, a believer is helped toward sanctification in some (often very “small”) way whenever he chooses a morally superior act to a morally inferior one. (I expect some to start crying “Moralism! Moralism!” at that, but now that I’ve had a bit of time to chew on that question, I think I’m ready for it if it comes up).
About school authority. I’ve been a bit puzzled at some of the discussion on that point. As far as I can tell from Scripture, believers are free to bring themselves into situations where they voluntarily place themselves under some authority. To me, a school is one of those. Scripture specifically vests authority in homes, churches and civil governments. The rest are voluntary societies of one sort or another. So a school only has the authority parents give it when they sign up and agree to whatever terms they agree to.
When you have a church-school situation, it’s more complicated… and another reason I don’t like the church-school arrangement. Schools are better off independent whenever possible, IMO.
That said, if a school has rules that reach into the home or reach off school property, they are free to do that… and parents who do not want that arrangement are free to not sign up.
Edit: where it gets out of line is when you sign up under one set of terms and the school reinvents them mid-stream… that is, if you enrolled with a “on school property only” approach and they start making new rules governing life off school property half way through the semester, there is really a bad-faith situation going on on the part of the school. Depending on what sort of formalities were involved in enrolling, it might even be breach of contract. (But I’m no lawyer)
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.
Discussion