Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1

I actually agree with most of this post, but when I read this example, my question became "Why would the school have this rule and that parents not?" Which is going to influence the decision making processes of the child more- his parent's input, or the rules at the school?

It isn't the presence or even the number of rules that I have concerns about, but the seeming assumption of the parents as being second in the chain of command when it comes to the role of schools and even churches. We are often asking kids to do/not do things that their parents practice on a regular basis, and on the other hand, there are behaviors and activities allowed and encouraged that some parents have objections to.

There are many clear guidelines that delineate the responsibilities of parents to children and the teaching/mentoring roles of older adult men/women to the younger adult men/women. The Bible doesn't tell older women to love and teach the younger women's children, but to teach the younger women to love their own husband and children.

If we can get these obvious methods of discipleship and edification down better, I think the 'rules' issue would become less of a point of contention.

Parents, or for that example umm... Government and the cops - they do have rules against teens drinking that should deter students. - I can't speak for Wisconsin, but in NY there are pretty strict laws against drunk driving that are very serious. - No one is saying that those are legalistic requirements. So, I really didn't like that example either.

Has anyone read the book "Why Christian Kids Rebel" by Tim Kimmel? I'm planning to write a review of the book this week.

It is a very interesting book that deals with the subjects of parenting kids who will not rebel against their faith. Many of the principles would apply to the Christian School movement as well. I think it would be a good addition to the articles that have been on SI in the past couple of weeks about rules and schools.

While I do not agree with everything in this book I recommend it as a good read for parents and Christian school workers.

Aaron, your argument begins with these paragraphs.

I would recommend going over this again. But instead of a consideration of "sin," do this twice. First, apply the logic to "inner sin." That is, a sin of the heart that exists independently of rules. For example, the student who doesn't touch a girl, but lusts continually.

Next, apply the logic to "external sin." That is, the breaking of rules that have been established. For example, the student who breaks a rule that prohibits all physical contact, but does so without any hint of porneia in his heart.

I think that will help. You do however, have a point. To my mind, this is all a question of how sanctification works. Just like salvation, it is entirely the work of God (monergism). And we work.

I would recommend two passages for your thesis:
Romans 6 seems to say that doing sin makes us more enslaved by death. Thus, harder in the future to resist. Obviously, there are sins that master us more than others.
Matt 19:16-24 seems to say that there are some external conditions that make it harder to be saved. I want to be careful not to contradict that God's grace is enough for anyone to repent, but Jesus is saying that people who are accustomed to wealth find it harder to follow Him.

Why? Why does the Bible use fear of punishment as a motivation to do right if such action is "worthless"? On what biblical basis do we conclude that such action is "worthless"?

Reading these discussions, and resisting the urge (until now) to comment, I think much of this discussion on rules is misguided. The fact is that the Bible makes rules. And the Bible appeals, at times, to what some would call "base motives" as reason to obey the rules. It seems to me that some are simply trying to be "more Christian than Christ" or "more biblical than the Bible" in this regard.

Yes, we should focus on the heart, but that is usually insufficient, particularly in formative years. Walls help to guide until one is sufficient strength to stand on their own.

A school exists to turn out a product. Why should they not have standards that assist them in turning out that product. Consider a manufacturer. They have certain standards because they desire to turn out a certain product. We all applaud that because when we go buy something we want to know that it is worked. And people will lose their jobs for violating those standards. But somehow, when we get to a Christian school for instance, we throw all of that (or a lot of it) out in the window under the guise of avoiding legalism. Truth is, that the process for turning out a mature believer is greatly enhanced by standards of conduct. It seems in this regard that the children of darkness are indeed more wise than the children of light.

I grew up in Christian education that most would consider legalistic and I never heard anyone suggest that keeping the rules would make one spiritual. I never heard anyone from outside my circles say that. The only people I have heard say it are people who are quoting other people. It's all secondhand. Now, perhaps there are some who think that keeping rules will make them spiritual.

But look a little deeper: Will keeping rules make one spiritual? Yes, it will. The Bible plainly teaches that avoiding certain things and doing other things will in fact have a direct affect on one's spirituality. Sure the heart is connected, but that is the nature of humanity. "Meaning well" (i.e., having the "right heart") is not sufficient. But walls help to "guard the heart." The heart is affected by our circumstances and our lives. We cannot disconnect them.

Go back to the prom rule discussion. There were many who decried that rule as legalistic. But I imagine that most of those people have no problem with a rule about being late to class. Here's the irony: No that I know of suggests that being late to class is a great temptation to compromise moral integrity, or that it will greatly damage one's testimony, or that it will put a person in a place that is not healthy for their spiritual life. The prom is clearly presents all of those possibilities. So some, in the name of biblical Christianity, are willing to regulate the less dangerous and less important and unwilling to regulate the more dangerous, more important, and more directly tied to biblical revelation. I find that odd.

As people of wisdom, we should be able to acknowledge that certain things/places/atmosphere present temptation that would be better avoided. Why encourage or permit young people to put themselves in a place of overt temptation? Will all fail? No. Will some? Sure. Again, wisdom seems to be missing here too often.

I think comparing the home to gov't or the home to the church or gov't to the church blurs too many lines. Each has its place and purpose, and I don't believe I can apply the same principles in exactly the same way to each relationship in the life of the Christian.

If we are talking about Christian schools, I am assuming we are talking about Christian parents. If the parents do not, in fact, believe in 1) the illegality of teenage drinking 2) avoiding the abuse of alcohol- the problem is not going to be solved by applying rules and restrictions to the children. That would be a case of parents not being equipped, mentored, or held accountable to bring their children up 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord'. You might make somewhat of a difference in the sowing/reaping aspect of a young person's life by enforcing rules that their lazy parents won't, and that's not a bad thing- but what about the long term? And aren't the future repercussions what we should be most concerned about? Sometimes rules are just a Band-Aid that temporarily hide a festering wound- they do nothing to address the infection.

I want to make it clear that it isn't having rules I am most concerned about, but the lack of emphasis on equipping and supporting parents and concentrating on kids instead, as if the parents are a lost cause, and the idea of schools enforcing rules of conduct in the home (that aren't already specifically covered by God's Word or the law of the land).

A few random thoughts...

I certainly see the necessity of a school having rules on a purely "instutional level" (i.e., wearing a tie to class), and I also appreciate the value of a structured environment, where class begins on time, there is no talking during class, etc., etc. To me, all of those things are more in the category of doing things "decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). They apply to one's sanctification only in a secondary sense -- i.e., talking in class is not immoral, but doing things disorderly is. In other words, the rule itself drives the serious person to an inner heart issue while also accomplishing the desired end outwardly.

What I have never bought into, and what was culture shock to me when I first entered Fundamentalism, was an extra-Biblical layer of rules which sort-of relates to sanctification, sort-of relates to building a fence around God's Law, sort-of flows out of conviction -- but when push comes to shove -- can only finally be justified on an institutional level...except that somehow we still end up looking down on others who do not practice that same "standard."

I have yet to see that type of rule-making bear the fruit of holiness in anyone's life.

(I think Susan is on a similar wavelength with her concern about the school's rules interrupting the God-given relationship of parents and children.)

One of the great victories within Fundamentalism over the last decade, as I see it, is the putting away of some of these childish things.

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

Like a lot of issues in popuar discussion, I think the rules discussion is of limited value, at best, because it fails to address more fundamental questions in ethics and theology.

Part of the inadequacy of the rules in Christian school is rooted in the fact that I really question whether most churches have a good understanding of what the rules in the Bible are about. Oliver O'Donovan has a superb treatment of this in "Resurrection and Moral Order."

In the context of treating the value of "quandary" situations in ethics, he notes that a "code presents the moral law 'straightforwardly" in that it "presents it as a catalogue of moral claims . . . without conveying any principle of order by which the relations among them may be understood as a moral whole" (199-200). Such codes are perfectly legitimate and necessary, as O'Donovan observes, for didactic purposes. However, they are not sufficient: "The items in a code stand to the moral law as bricks to a building. Wisdom must involve some comprehension of how the bricks are meant to be put together" (200). Crucially, O'Donovan notes that "[t]his has an immediate bearing on how we read the Bible." It is inadequate simply to quote the numerous moral commands in Scripture. Indeed, it would be inadequate even if the Scripture recorded every possible moral prescription (ibid.). "We will read the Bible seriously only when we use it to guide our thought towards a comprehensive moral viewpoint, and not merely to articulate disconnected moral claims." As O'Donovan notes, contra objections to "totalitarian theological construction," developing such a comprehensive moral vision is our only choice if we wish to take the Scripture seriously as a guide to ethics (ibid).

Rule codes are not evil; they are helpful for specific purposes. But they often appear arbitrary because I think that, for most Christians, they are arbitrary. A "because the Bible says so" is fine for a child; just like "because my daddy told me so" is fine for a child. However, if that level of understanding persists, it will result in a wholly arbitrary conception of rules. The issue to which O'Donovan directs our attention is that moral codes, like the Ten Commandment, provide a short summary of prescriptions and proscriptions that arise out of a comprehensive conception of the moral order. An analogy would be rules for building something; no one thinks the numbered list in the instruction manual is somehow valuable in itself or arbitrary. Everyone understands that the list of instructions is based on the designer's knowledge of the order of the object, and based on that order he prescribes certain actions if one wishes to achieve harmony with that order (say, by having a working bike or bookshelf).

So, churches will necessarily if passively teach legalism if they teach rules apart from the context of the moral order from which and in which those rules derive their rationality and relatedness to each other. Rules by themselves, as O'Donovan notes, do not tell us how they are to relate each other; that assumes a moral order, just as intructions to build a bike assume one knows what a bike is.

So, in application to school, it's easy to see that if schools simply have rules, with no order in which their relations can be discerned and their rationality understood, the rules are arbitrary, and kids understand this just as well as adults. The inability for an administrator to explain a specific rule (something people from certain colleges have surely encountered) is rooted in the fact that the rule is either arbitrary or the administrator does not understand the order in which the rule is rational and the set of relations in that order within which it coheres.

A significant source of the tension in Christian school rules clearly derives from confusion in the rules and administrators' minds between the types of rules they are lumping together and the different purposes and orders to which those rules are related. So Larry, for example, cites the rule of not being late to class, but this precisely misses the point and evinces the conflation I'm talking about. Class order and student's maximal capacity to learn are two interrelated goods, both of which can be made more probable through a set of rules (although most colleges don't, because the rightly assume students know that the purpose of class is learning, that being in class is necessary for this, and that if they don't want to achieve educational ends, that's their problem). This is a straighforward, pragmatic rule predicated on achieving two interrelated goods of education: one, class order, which is subordinately related as an extrinsic good to the other, student learning, which is an internal good of education.

Now, it is a completely different matter when a school has a rule, say, about going to the prom. If the rule says this activity is wrong, it is doing so with reference to some assumed moral order and idea about the human good. But not only this, it is also dictating to the student what means are harmful for attaining the good in question (say, sanctification). Here Susan's questions become very important because it is hardly clear that a school, as an educational institution, has the right much less duty to dictate what the moral good is for a student, or to tell them authoritatively through presciptions about the moral order, and this more so if the alleged good is unique to the church, as santification is. This kind of prescription derives binding authority in my view, as a Protestant, from Scripture or natural law, and can be mediated through the authority of a parent to a dependent child.

Anything beyond goods proper to education is necessarily outside of the domain of a school qua school, and thus any rules that only derives meaning, authority, rationality, and coherence (with other rules) by reference to some extra-educational end and order yet use the school's coercive power for their implementation puts into question the prior domains of legitimate, binding authority: the parent (for dependent children) and the local church (for all professing believers). The only conceivably legitimate instance in which this kind of boundary crossing occured would be in the context of parent's schooling their children, in which case educational ends and other ends would naturally overlap, or a local church operating qua local church in an educational capacity, which would demand for consistency total co-extensiveness between the members of the school and the members of the local church.

Rules, Standards, Applications sometimes have to change because the assigned meanings in different contexts have changed. The Bible forbids crossdressing. That truth does not change. However, the cultural application of that truth does differ in different cultural contexts (men wearing ear rings for example). The Deut 22:5 command is essentially restated by Paul in 1 Cor 11. Paul (me gonoito) actually makes a rule about worship attire based in part on the truth in Deut 22:5. Standards, rules, applications have to be reasonable, rational applications of exegetically, theologically based truths. The eternal truths never change, but in some cases the cultural application changes because we are living in a rapidly changing culture where the norms have in many cases been turned upside down. Throwing out morally based standards based on the fact that those standards have to be adjusted according to their cultural meaning would be an over reaction and in my estimation a wrong reaction.

I assume you didn't, but I think it is far from self-evident that your way of thinking the biblically mature way and those who differ is immature. That's not to say it isn't, but to say that it isn't self-evident.

I don't find this a good example because it is pretty far out of mainstream. If we are going to reach for the absurd, fine, but let's recognize that it is absurd and absurdities don't make good case studies.

I think you are too easily glossing over this. It is not merely "institutional." It deals with turning out a product. Having a food product from from e coli is not merely an institutional goal. It is a moral necessity. Having a car with a gas tank that doesn't explode is not merely an institutional goal. It is also a moral necessity. So while there are institutional rules and a larger category of moral rules, they are not easily divisible in all cases.

So I would just caution us against the simplicity that I am reading here. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I think there is some confusion being created because we are not being precise in our understanding of the application of Scripture and the role of an institution in creating a product.

Exactly. But if people don't explain rules or the purpose for them, that does not mean the rules are bad. But as Christians, don't we have to recognize that "well educated" does not mean only equipped with facts and skills, but also with a biblically trained moral compass.

It seems to me that some are almost arguing that we can have rules, provided that they don't address any area of biblical morality. In other words, its okay to have a rule about being on time to class, but not about where a student may go or what kinds of events he may attend.

Actually neither. Rules don't produce anything except an atmosphere or a set of boundaries within which a good product may be accomplished. My wife can good a good meal without any of the regulations of a major food producer. The food producer can produce good food without the rules, but in order to achieve a product consistently, certain rules proscribe boundaries that do not guarantee success but do make it more probably.

Again, I disagree. If a heart is bound after foolishness (in the Proverbial sense), rules can protect that heart from disaster until such a time as the foolishness is driven out. In the end, I think rules are about protection. I don't need a rule about drinking in my life. I am not tempted in the least to partake in anyway (not even cough medicine for you legalists out there ). Other areas of my life do need rules and guidelines to guard my heart and my affections. We often need rules to protect ourselves from ourselves. It is a part of the heart standard.

If we think of rules as boundaries of protection in which a product (a mature, well-educated person) can be achieved, our attitude towards them changes.

BTW, we should put all this discussion in the context of "idols of the heart." What is going on in our heart that makes a particular rule distasteful to us? Is it legitimate? Is it merely the desire for self-autonomy? I don't think an article (or a rule) can ever adequately address that. And I think that is more important.

Thanks Dave, and all for the interaction.

Larry makes a good point. On reflection, I should not have said worthless. But worthless for sanctification.
Common grace is not worthless, but it doesn't save or sanctify.

[Note: I have not read all the comments, so forgive me if this has been addressed].

When reading this article I was confused by your use of the word "ministry". Obviously, the article is in favor of man-based rules in a ministry setting, yet the only clear examples given were for a Christian School environment. Therein lies the problem. It is not the aim of a church to produce an intelligent person. Nor is it our aim to produce a productive, contributing member of society. Of course, these are good things--but they lie outside the scope of our Matthew 28 mandate. Schools have the right--indeed, the necessity--to govern children with rules in order to produce responsible, disciplined, and productive adults. While right and appropriate in the sphere of education, such a concept is foreign and counterproductive to the mission of the church.

If this mindset it transferred to the Church it does so at the expense of the Gospel. In your article, you define "Good" as "doing the right thing to avoid punishment (lacking in faith and love". Yet where does Scripture define good in this manner? At most, this definition of good is moralism, not Christianity. While it may produce some benefit for society (retrains wrong behaviors), it only has negative spiritual value. Such moralism, far from leading one to God, results in tearing the person further away. It was this mindset that birthed the "Christendom" of Medieval Europe. Compare your definition of good with Paul's words in Romans 14:23 ("...whatever does not come from faith is sin"). Likewise, Hebrews 11:6 says "And without faith it is impossible to please God". Not only is such a view incompatible with the Gospel--it is antithetical to it. It is the Gospel itself that demands there are only two ways: the way of life or the way of death, the way of hope or the way of hopelessness, the way of holiness or the way of sin. Noting this clear teaching in Scripture, the Early Church document titled the Didache begins with this statement: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways." Yet here I sense this teaching is dismissed as "binary". Was Cain's sacrifice "good" in some sense? He did, after all, obey God by bringing a sacrifice--yet God passed over Cain's offering because it was not given with a right heart. There is nothing good about obeying God's rules without the right motive. The prodigal's older brother obeyed every command from the Father, but he never gave the Father his heart--and was ultimately just as far from the Father as the prodigal in the pig pen. Without an obedient heart, all is sin. If Scripture is clear about anything it is this.

Go ahead and add rules to a Christian School. The School is not Christ's Body nor is it His Bride. But the moment this is applied to the Church we are messing with what belongs to Christ. We are His, and only He gets to make the rules. It is a sin to take away the word of God, and it is an equal sin to add to it. By adding rules to the Church we are boldly and heretically declaring that Christ is not sufficient---and that He needs our mortal, finite wisdom to sanctify His Bride. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I am sure not going to claim that.

OK, so here's an anecdote that illustrates how rules can be "dangerous."

For several years before our family moved to a large IFB ministry with a Christian school, my son played basketball in a variety of settings: his former Christian school...the YMCA...the local public school...his driveway (at the parsonage on church property, I might add). Regardless of the setting, one of the constants was he always wore basketball shorts (the almost-to-the-knee variety). At the new ministry setting where I was on staff, we lived near the church -- a biggie, big-wig one in IFB-dom. For a few weeks, he, another staff kid, and sometimes some other guys played basketball at the church's outdoor basketball court dressed as one always would normally be dressed to play basketball.

Until the pastor decreed that staff sons were not to be around the facility in shorts, not even to play basketball on the outside court--no one, in fact, was allowed to play on the outside court in shorts. They could play in the gym in shorts, but they had to wear sweat pants from home to the gym. When I asked the pastor about this rule, his response was that it was a "modesty issue." "How so?" I queried. There was a great deal of himming & hawing, but no backing down on the modesty line. "So," I observed, "it's OK for the school's basketball team to be 'immodest' before a gym packed with fans, then?" "That's different. They're in an official uniform," replied the school administrator. I tried to point out that I had to give my son some kind of reasonable explanation why all his life he was allowed to wear bball shorts, the school team could wear bball shorts, he could wear them in the gym, but he couldn't on the outside court--because outside he was immodest??? After much discussion, the powers that be finally backed down on the modesty argument, but resorted to the authoritarian approach: "It's an institutional rule. I want it in place, am not going to change, so just accept it."

My son never understood. Neither did his dad! Some of the subversive things about this are that the rule 1) created an obvious disparity between our family's standard and the institution's--we were forced to comply with an arbitrary decree imposed from the top; 2) highlighted the hypocrisy of the institution; 3) revealed a lack of sound reasoning (an official uniform mitigates against immodesty???); 4) undermined trust in the church's and school's leadership; 5) created a suspicion toward me because I dared to challenge the pastor's decree; 6) developed a cynicism--especially in my teenagers--toward any top-down mandated rule that lacked clear sense or explanation (& there were lots of them!); and 7) revealed the true heart of the institution & its leadership as being more concerned with image than anything else. As it turned out, what the pastor didn't want was the possibility of anyone driving by the church and seeing a bunch of kids in shorts playing basketball on the parking lot--thought it looked too tacky. About the same time, we saw another expression of that "heart" when it was announced from the pulpit that church members shouldn't wear shorts (and ladies shouldn't wear slacks or sleeveless tops) if there was a chance they'd run into others from the church--although if you were out of the area on vacation or something, then it'd be OK.

And we wonder why our young people are disillusioned??

it is really good to see other points of view!

i didn't read all the comments yet, so maybe someone mentioned these things?

aaron wrote: "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."

this logic assumes a few things. First sentence "rules." Last sentence: "the right thing."

Now you see, this is a fallacy, setting up rules to equal the universal right thing. I'm talking about moral rules, too, like movie attendance. If the rules say not to attend movies, that means it is universally wrong? That for every person, it's the right thing not to attend the movies?

Another example, something that grates on me personally, so forgive the heat emanating from this paragraph . Several mission boards have a rule that missionaries can't adopt children (they often make exceptions for infertile couples, so i'm not talking about that). I understand that this might be a practicality for the organization, but does this rule reflect the heart of God? Is it a godly standard? A thousand times, no! I think that it is an ungodly rule! I am amazed by it. But with your above logic, are these missionaries being obedient (to God?) by doing the right thing (not adopting) when they are motivated by faith and love. . . . ? Maybe God will judge them for not adopting; I would be afraid as a mission board of making that rule, you know?

Aaron wrote: "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."

OK, i'm reading a bunch of parenting books right now, so this is coming fresh from that. I don't think it's correct to say that every act of obedience is inherently helpful, deepens fellowship with God, etc. Why. Because some kids, when "made" to obey are internally seething with anger, revenge and bitterness. These things develop over months and years and lead to depression, violent expressions of anger, turning away from parents' faith, etc. So i don't think that's necessarily a true argument.

On the other hand, i do understand the idea of wanting to create an environment (italic "environment") where spiritual growth is encouraged. Rules seem to be the way that schools try to do that. Not the only way, but one main way. It's interesting if rules really are necessary for that. I just don't know. But could there be a better way to do that?

So what if a parent says, 'It's okay for my kid to be late to class." You are fine with overruling the parent. But if a parent says, "My kids can go to heavy metal concerts and drink with their friends" (over 18, their senior year), you would say that the school cannot overrule that (I presume). Or a parent says "My kid can go to the prom and slow dance with his date" or "my daughter can go to the prom and wear an immodest dress to the prom." And the school can't overrule that. And that makes no sense to me. Honestly, it doesn't. I am not trying to be hard to get along with here. It just makes no sense. Again, it's this willingness to make rules about less important stuff while not having rules about more important stuff.

But the biblical principle doesn't address "how far" one go go. Schools must have a rule of some sort, it seems to me. Even public schools get this. Furthermore, what's wrong with redundancy?

But what if they don't do anything? Can the school have second dibs?

First, why isn't the school an appropriate authority? Second, expelling a child doesn't deny them academic instruction. Third, it directly affects the ability of the school to carry out its mission. The school may not expel the child (or might). But they have a substantive interest in the issue.

Where does a school have biblical authority to demand a student be on time for class? Again, how is this not a glaring inconsistency in legislating the less important while ignoring the more important.

But that's not a problem of the rules, and you don't solve that by doing away with them.

But the solution isn't to do away with the rules.

Sure, to some degree. And serving them includes helping them to understand the world and their responsibilities as parents. And in the end, if a parent doesn't like a school's policies, they are free to seek education elsewhere.

I think this is totally wrong. Give me a morally trained person any day over one who gets all A's. It is much more important to build character than intelligence. But I don't think we have to change.

But you would have to show this more effectively than you have (at least that I have read and I admit to not reading everything you have said). I think the mistake here is assuming that education can somehow be separated from morality, and that a school can effectively educate without the ability to enforce basic christian morality.

How about a rule that "A guy and a girl cannot be in a house without one of the parents being present"?

They can. I think the flaw here is that we assume that if someone isn't discipling someone they should, that no one else can do it.

So you think a church can discipline someone but a school that is part of a church cannot?

But wasn't much of this carrying out the great commission (or at least attempting to)? What's the alternative? Don't reach the kids unless we reach teh parents first? I don't think that flies. Sometimes, in the building of disciples parents are obstacles to overcome.

How many Christian schools are you familiar enough with to make this assertion?

Like being on time to class? Or yelling the hallways during their free period? Again, sorry to beat an old drum, but what if a parent says "My child doesn't have to be on time for class. Quit giving him (or her) detentions." Or "My kid can yell whenever they want to." Or "I gave my child permission to send text messages during class." Can a school override that? Extreme example? Perhaps. But doesn't it at least show that your position cannot be consistently held. Parental authority is sometimes misguided. It is not absolute.

But on that note, I am going to bail out here unless I just can't help myself.

Thanks one and all.

Random thoughts.

Larry- I agree with most of what you are saying. You are mistaken though to think that the no pants on women was not a mainstream idea in fundamentalism. I was part of many different fundamental churches in many parts of the country and that was an issue in the 80s and even into the mid 90's. Just an FYI. Although I would agree that now it is a mostly fringe issue now.

Susan - While I understand what you are saying about churches reaching kids, I think you are overreaching. Many of us, who are in full-time service were bus kids. Of my mom's 6 kids 3 of us are in vocational ministry. Only one is not activei in church right now. I often wonder what would be had someone said, "We shouldn't reach these kids until we reach the parents." Oh BTW, I was one of those unsaved Christian character award winners, so I can relate to what you are saying.

Byce, good thoughts as always.

Anne, I was suprised to hear you say that Mission Boards forbid parents from adopting. I would like to know the rationale behind that one is.

Charlie,

Misses the point in this respect (as well as others, but I will comment only on this one). We recognize that within the church there are various activities/functions/offices/opportunities which require more of the participants than it does of others. Take, for instance, the office of deacon. There is a requirement for deacons that regular church members do not have. Or SS/Bible study teacher, or a nursery workers. And we recognize that this higher level of opportunity requires a higher level of commitment in certain areas. And we recognize that one can be be removed from the higher level of opportunity without being removed from the church.

So to say that the school cannot exercise any more discipline than the church is misguided. It doesn't apply anywhere else in the church, and we instinctively recognize that. And we have biblical mandate for it .

Again, I think this should be just basic stuff. As I said earlier, I think there is a rush to be more biblical than the Bible that leads us to overlook some of these basic realities of life.

I'm not advocating that we not reach kids, but that we reach for the parents with all the compassion and fervor that is usually reserved for the kids, and that long term discipling take place that involves the entire family whenever possible. I served on bus routes where I never even met the parents of the children I was picking up. It grieves me mightily to this day. I keep a picture of one boy in particular that was in my Sunday School class to remind me what an oblivious wretch I was.

I didn't get any Christian character awards in school- I got caught reading Stephen King and Sidney Sheldon novels in class and in Chapel a few too many times. I got awards in everything else though.

The requirements of a deacon as one with a higher level of opportunity/commitment translates to students of a school? I don't instinctively recognize any correlation at all. A deacon is a spiritual leader in a church, and a kid in school... is a kid in school. Where is the Biblical mandate for school administrations to dictate extra-Biblical rules in the private lives of believers? Or even Biblical ones, like how much and how often one should read the Bible, pray, witness, give to the poor...

I like Bro. Charlie's outline. Made perfect sense to me.

Let’s distinguish between types of “rules” here.
I don’t think anybody disputes the usefulness or necessity of functional rules that arise naturally from the situation. Fire drills. Don’t cheat. Etc.
I think that everybody accepts that Scriptural rules are all good – but even they can be misused. Note, for instance, how in I Timothy 1, attempts by the false teachers to use the law “unlawfully” produced a bad effect despite the inherent goodness of the law itself. Today, even Scriptural rules can be misused if they become a mere checklist by which I pridefully define myself as spiritual because of my external conformity.
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.

For me, the fact that they failed to produce the promised fruit in the Christian School movement or in Fundamentalist youth groups in years gone by is only a secondary reason to distrust them. The first is that they are “extra-Biblical” and “rules” – two things that, put together, ask the question “By what authority do you put this rule on people?” I don’t mean that as a rebel statement. I’m asking, sincerely, what are the Scriptural guidelines by which such rules can be generated, applied, and enforced? I think the making of such rules has far outpaced the detailed Scriptural analysis needed to answer that question.

In some ways, surely. If you intercept a member of your church on the way to commit adultery and drag him kicking and screaming out of the motel, you may have saved him from the immediate consequences of that sin. You may or may not save his marriage. I doubt you’ve saved his purity in any internal sense. I’m pretty sure that Heaven will not accord him any degree of innocence for being dragged from the room. He may or may not learn a lesson. If he does, it may only be “hide my sin better”. If he does learn a lesson and repent and spend all his days thanking you for your “enforcement” action, then praise the Lord! You were used by Him to help a brother.

But the question becomes more murky with an extra-Biblical rule. 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? This is the kind of question that we must answer as those who would disciple Christian young people. Heb. 5:14 suggests that they need opportunities to discern in order to grow mature enough to discern.

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.
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.

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?

I’m just saying that a social gathering can be a setting in which Christ can be represented. The Fundamentalist assumption that because it’s not a church youth meeting it’s unsafe divorces us from evangelism opportunities. No, I am not suggesting that we risk our teens on uncertain chances to evangelize. I’m suggesting that if we keep them isolated, they won’t know any unbelievers.

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.

Now, I understand you can’t make rules for a Christian School that differentiate between a variety of motivations. I’m just calling the premise into question.

I’m saying that, in some instances, the rule may be useless because of his faith and love – even if he goes to the party.

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.”

Obedience forced is not obedience. Such obedience may be somewhat helpful, in that it might mitigate the effect of sins that might have been. But I deny that mere compliance without heart in any way deepens fellowship with God. It surely does not sharpen spiritual senses. Only the exercise of discernment to the point of maturity builds such senses (Heb. 5:14). And I’m certain that your verse about tuning affections is not about enforced rules. I Peter 1:22 specifies that their obedience was “through the Spirit”.

Susan,

I am somewhat at a loss of how to respond here, and I probably shouldn’t, since I said I was done. But I am truly boggled by this. It makes no sense to me and it leads me to believe, perhaps naively that we must be talking past each other.

Let me hit a few highlights.

First, spheres of authority. You have said this several times, as have others, but I haven’t seen any support or interaction for it. You say that parents, church, and state are clearly laid out and seem to say that those are the only ones that are legitimate. But elsewhere you acknowledge that an employer can bring consequences on an employee for things off the job (drugs/alcohol). And BTW, everyone acknowledges this, and you don’t even have to be arrested for it. If you fail a random drug test, there are consequences. We also acknowledge the authority of store owners to set prices for products and we tell our children you have to pay the price he asks for it … You have to submit to his authority on that matter. We acknowledge the authority of a neighbor to set boundaries for his property and ask you not to come into it. Do you realize that some professional athletes (probably most) have clauses in their contracts that they can’t do certain things like play basketball, ride motorcyles, etc. Why? Because they are interested in a product. Again, this is just so obvious to me that it seems we must be talking past each other. I can’t imagine what the disagreement is.

Does a school have a sphere of authority? Most, that I know of (public or private/Christian) do have a sphere of authority that is well recognized and often directly acknowledged in the enrollment documents. In fact, it has already been acknowledged here.

And yes, schools should take it up with the parent and not the child. I don’t think anyone here disputes that.

Second, the whole church/school confusion. The school should be viewed as an entity within the church, not as the church. To participate in it requires a higher level of commitment, just like being a deacon, a SS teacher, a nursery worker, a choir member, etc. We all recognize that these opportunities require extra commitment that we don’t require out of all members. And if someone fails in one of these areas consistently, we might ask them to step down from being a deacon, but that doesn’t remove them from the church. Again, I think this is self-evident, which is why I am confused. A person who routinely doesn’t attend choir practice is going to be asked to step down from the choir. A person who has a conviction for child abuse for which he has repented and served his debt will not be allowed in the nursery though he can and should be a member of the church. So there, something that took place off of church property has ramifications for involvement.

As for the Deut 22:5 issue, to my knowledge I have never been involved in a Christian school and am not directly familiar with any Christian school who uses that verse to deny women wearing pants. I have heard it preached, but my point is that I don’t think it was mainstream. It may have been popular in your circles, but remember fundamentalism is much larger than that and always has been.

So in the end, I just don’t get the angst here. If a school exists to turn out a product, they have a legitimate role in the students life that the parents acknowledge by having their children in the school.

I can see your point if the role of a school is only the communication of information. But I think you denied that. I certainly would. So, again, I am sure it is my problem, but I just don’t get it.

Yes. Or a SS teacher or nursery worker or choir member.

He is actually a material servant to the church, not a spiritual leader, per se.

But you have already acknowledged that this is okay.

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.

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.

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?

In this passage, didn't Jesus tell us that the principle is to be the basis, and the practice would flow out of that?

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?

Personal example (::SCREECH!:: ANECDOTAL INFORMATION ALERT!! RUN SCREAMING FROM THE ROOM!!!)
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?

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."

Thanks Paul. If I might offer a reply.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I said I would drop a long time ago, and didn't manage to get it done ... ... But I will note, for the record, that I never said anything about decrying something publicly which we practice privately. My comments were about doing something publicly vs doing something privately. If you decry something publicly and then do it privately, you are a hypocrite. That was not what I understood the situation to be.

As an example, I have no problem going into a bar or a restaurant with a bar to eat. But certain people do. And so when I am with those people, I don't do it. I won't ask them to go. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It is an act of Christian love to restrain my liberty around others who do not share my liberty.

Thanks again for the gracious interaction.

I do. The expectations of ethics and morality are the same whether one is a believer or not. But I realize that most do not. BTW, the law agrees with me. They expect employers to be honest, fair, judicious in their dealings. And they punish them when they aren't.

However, what it seems you are saying, in effect, is that a secular employer can have a higher standard than a Christian school. Again, I don't want to misunderstand and I should probably just shut up (do you get detention for telling yourself to shut up?), but this really confuses me.

I don't have a problem with that. I agree. Provide biblical basis and teach the heart.

Doesn't that make the school actually more important than the workplace? After the formative years (including school) are what produce the worker in the workplace.

So let me ask you: If an eleventh-grader goes out and gets pregnant, and then repents, what should the Christian school do?

So why does restoration mean having no consequences for behavior?

Well, that's just stupid.

But does the school have a vested interest in helping a student maintain moral purity? I think they do because it is a part of Christian discipleship.

Of course. Do you want them not to investigate? What if the parents don't know it? And the school does nothing and then the daughter turns up pregnant, and the parents are surprised, and now the school is implicated because they knew or suspected and did nothing because "It wasn't my time to watch them." And the parents say, "Why didn't you tell us?" And the principal says, "Because it wasn't our time to watch them."

Don't you see the problem there?

Or what if the parent says, "I don't have any problem with them being there alone and making out so long as they don't consummate it." Can the school then say something? Where does it stop? Do you really believe that the moment the child walks across the property line that the school has no interest anymore? What if a very visible athlete for the school is found in a local arcade cussing and causing problems? Should the school just ignore it? Or what if he steps across the property line and turns around and starts yelling at a teacher and cussing them out? They aren't on school property and school is over so they are under the jurisdiction of the parents. And what if the parents agree with the child that the teacher being cussed out was unreasonable? Does the school say, "Fine, no problem. It's your time to watch them. See ya tomorrow"? I can't imagine you think that this is that cut and dried, and that the school has no legitimate interest in these types of things.

I think the school has a legitimate interest. Just as in the church proper, the interest doesn't stop when the person leaves the property.

But why?

Could be. Could also be that we are sinners, and we underestimate the sin issue in our lives.

I agree generally, though I wouldn't necessarily require students to be members of that church, but of a church of "like faith and practice." Otherwise, consider the case of a pastor of a small church who has kids that he wants to put in the school, but he can't because he can't be a member of that church. And what about his deacons who say, "Pastor, I can't serve here any more because I want to put my kids over there and I have to join there to do it." Lots of consequences that I am not ready to embrace.

Even in your scenario you still have the same bag.

Anyway, I need to stop here. (Didn't I say that already???)

I said before that I love rules, and I really do. But what I don't love is authorities overstepping their bounds, whether it's a church, a school, or a gov't doing it.

But if the focus of this thread is supposed to be about the contribution to sanctification that rules can provide... my first thought is 1 Timothy 1:9. The law is for the lawless, because the mature and conscientious man will not engage in behavior that is harmful to himself or others. IOW, if there were no speed limit on the roads, the wise and prudent will still drive a reasonable speed on highways, in residential neighborhoods, rural roads... because they understand that their desire to get someplace fast is not worth risking an accident or mowing over some poor kid. The speed limit is for those who couldn't care less about others and don't have a big enough dose of risk aversion in their psyche to be a careful driver. Hopefully the law keeps most of them from being completely stupid, and if they do break the law, there are consequences that one hopes will at least make them think twice the next time. Or maybe the 55mph speed limit keeps them down to 75mph when if there were no limit they'd be driving 120mph. In any case, lives can be saved by the presence and enforcement of speed limits. I've heard it said that all a locked door does is keep honest men honest. I didn't understand it at first, but I do now, and believe it wholeheartedly.

Boundaries serve two purposes- to keep some things in and other things out. They are necessary and healthy in every area of life. I think they can sometimes contribute to keeping someone out of trouble until they reach a level of maturity where they can fully understand the reason for those rules and the implications of violating them. I will walk down the road with you that far- but I won't hold hands.

I cain't help it though- when we start talking about rules, I'm instantly thinking 'authority' and 'consequences'. That leads me back to spheres of authority, and what, in a sense, is the appropriate 'chain of command'. Which comes back to husbands/wives, parents/children, masters/servants, church/congregation, gov't/citizens. These often overlap, but IMO there is a serious problem when one has to 'take over' from the other because someone feels another isn't meeting their personal standard of spiritual growth or holiness.

I've learned alot about rules and restrictions with my firstborn, who is now 21 and serving in Iraq. I can see where rules without relationship confused him, where inconsistencies were a vexation, where the negativity was a discouragement, and restrictions quenched his spirit. Been there, done that, and looking for a better balance now. This discussion has given me alot to think about, and I feel privileged to be part of this forum.

An accurate correlation would be if the forum policies included such rules as not being allowed to use obscenities in your home. If we get a report that you cussed at the neighbor's dog or while fixing your lawnmower, we will send our illustrious Forums Director Jim Peet to question your wife and kids, and if they corroborate the report, you can be banned.

Is it wrong to use obscenities and euphemisms? Some who participate here would probably say it's not prudent, but that it isn't sin because the meaning of words changes over time...- that's definitely another thread. But how many here would continue to post if the forum membership policies included rules governing behavior and belief while not actually participating in the forum? What if we had a dress code? Specified that no member can ever watch a PG-13 or R-rated movie, or read books that contained profanities/obscenities or sexual situations? Jim would be a very busy guy.

The idea of a shared interest is probably why many parents send their kids to Christian schools with strict regulations. They want a place where their rules are everyone's rules. That's fine and dandy, and understandable, but I don't believe one can call it a Biblical mandate for schools to govern behavior in the home.

To be frank, I am disturbed by your view of sin and sanctification, Aaron.

Isn't sin "missing the mark" of Christ's righteousness? This is an all or nothing proposition. Either we perform up to the standard of Christ's righteousness (which is impossible except for the grace of God) or we do not. I do not see any "gradation" in this idea. So any given action or thought is either righteous or unrighteous. This is not an archery competition in which you earn more points the closer you are to the bullseye.

I think you've confused the idea of sin with the symptoms of sin.

What you reduce with rules (in theory) is the harmful effects of sin, not sin itself. The person who avoids a bad choice for the wrong reasons is still missing the mark of Christ's righteousness. They have committed a sin no less than the person who makes the bad choice. All that has been avoided are some of the external, harmful effects of sin.

This leads to a separate, but related question: is there a Biblical basis for preventing the harmful effects of sin? I'm open to correction, but I doubt it. I see the goal of the gospel as the reconciliation of sinners with the Savior, not the avoidance of the bad consequences of the Fall. I hope that our preoccupation with keeping our kids from "scarring their lives" does not keep our children from seeing the depth of their sin and their need of Christ. Do we run the risk of so sanitizing our kids' lives that they do not deeply feel their desperate need for salvation? A passive, cultural Christian is worse off than a believer who hits bottom before clinging to Christ like a dying man or woman.

Susan,

I guess this was my point. It is ok in some people's mind to question my reason for the rule without knowing what my reasoning is. It seems as if there is a natural assumption that one school that has strict rules must have them because they believe that they must control the children and "make them holy" by the rules. Granted that there are probably some places out there in which that is the case, but this does not necessarily mean that all places have that purpose in mind behind their rule. Because a school has certain rules that reach beyond the bounds of the school walls does not mean that the school is trying to govern the home. No one that I know of has said that the school has a divine mandate to govern behavior in the home. However, some have at least implied if not directly stated that they know without a shadow of a doubt that this is what the school is trying to do. I would like to know how they know this. Is it because they have asked every school leader that has strict rules the reason for those rules? Or is it because they have assumed something that might not be true. And if there is 1 school that has strict rules but views them simply as their shared present day applications of biblical truths in which they can come together for the purpose of a distinctly Christian education without believing that those rules are the means to sanctification (and I believe that is what my kids school is and have talked with the leadership on the subject) than we ought not be as dogmatic as we are on throwing off all extra-biblical rules in Christian schools. However, this does not mean that you have to send your kids to the school I send my kids to. What I find interesting is that I am fine with the stricter rules that may impact my home life, but am being told by some in this thread, if I read it correctly, that such rules are necessarily and inherently ungodly and wrong and sinful. And this itself is an extra-biblical rule itself that is intended to influence my family and home life. Meanwhile, I am saying to those bothered by extra-biblical rules in Christian schools, it is ok for you not to agree with me. Go to a Christian school that does not have such rules. I still think I'll see you in heaven. So while the libertine (no-extral biblical rules is what I mean here) is demanding that I never ever ever have any extra-biblical rules or I am dishonoring God and ruining mychildren, the legalist (me in the scenario; i.e., the one who prefers a school with rules that match my own at home at the majority of points) is saying that the libertine is free to do what he wants in this matter. I'm not (nor have my posts ever) judged anyone for wanting to have a school without extra-biblical rules.

The other point I would highlight, and have sought to in each of my posts, is that you can't really get away from rules no matter how hard you try. This is not a justification for useless, overreaching, counterproductive rules making. It is simply a matter of living under authority structures that God has established. Parents make rules that children do not adopt when they become adults, but they are stilled called upon to obey them while in the home. The government has made plenty of extra-biblical rules, over reaching its God given purpose, and those rules very much impact my family, but I am still called upon to obey government. As a pastor, I have recently had to put in place very specific rules for our building due to both Scriptural and functional issues that arose. They are extra-biblical rules governing who could be in the building and where, etc. Outside the context of our situation people would probably think they are simply attempts at "control" by the pastor, but in our context the church very clearly understood their need and purpose. I fully expect that those in the church will obey those who have rule over them as the Scripture calls them to.

It would seem that we need to get beyond simple categorization, broad brush strokes in the discussion, and easily chosen illustrations which don't take into consideration of context for the rule making. The issue that caused me to join SI was the concern in the discussion of rules and the Christian school that we have become binary (either or and that is all) on the subject. Just because there are people/schools that may trust in their rules to produce sanctification it does not follow that all extra-biblical rules are ungodly in the Christian school and out of place. There may be perfectly good reasons for people like myself (who fully believe in total depravity, the need for heart change from within, progressive Spirit-produced sanctification through the Word) to place their children in a Christian school that has extra-biblical rules that match my own convictions on major points. And where I do not agree with the school's extra-biblical rules I am still scripturally free to give up my liberties in those areas (last time I read 1 Corinthians and Romans) for a bigger purpose in my family. This provides me great opportunities to speak to my children's hearts about differences in application of biblical principles and how to be charitable to a brother/sister in areas. It gives me opportunity to help them learn to not demand their rights but give up their rights. In this process I have not abandoned my leadership in my home, I'm actually employing in ways greater than if I never had any conflicts. Some might say that I am simply letting the school be in charge and I'm blindly following, but that is not true. I have chosen to send my children to the School. I have led them to see where home and school might differ on the rules application. I have encouraged and helped them to put into practice biblical submission to God who calls on us not to demand our "rights" or "liberties" but to act with selfless love toward fellow believers. The point here is not to emphasize the "I have" except to demonstrate that these are actual choices of leadership that a parent can (and in my case seeks faithfully to) make within a biblical worldview.

If the discussion is simply "there is a danger is extra-biblcal rules" and we should be careful in light of that. I'm fine, probably would have read and never go invovled in the discussion. But the tenor of the discussion seemed to me to be "extra-biblical rules" = legalism = sin and should be stoned (that is with stones) or crucified. This, in my opinion, makes absolute something that cannont be demonstrated from Scripture as absolute. In so doing it is wrong, and I will repeat, ironic that we now have an extra-biblical rule that says "all extra-biblical rules are wrong!"

If I were arguing that all extra-Biblical rules were legalistic, or attempting to make rules about rules, then I'd understand your response. 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. Please ready my post #72.

Assumptions are made all the way around- humans do that, no matter how often we shouldn't. A strict school might get a "Pharisee" or "legalistic" label, but a school that doesn't attempt to govern off-campus behavior will get a "liberal" stamp. I think each family has to choose a method of education that best fits the needs of their children and family, period. I think we agree on that. 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 doubt I could find a school that reflects our family's standards. We are very strict compared to most folks I know and probably most folks here on SI. But that is our home, and we have a Biblical mandate for that. 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.

Hope that explains better what my concerns are. I think we agree more than we disagree on this, but it's hard not to talk past each other sometimes.

@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."

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?

Huh. I certainly have no problem answering Aaron's question. 1 is better than 3.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?