"...(W)e cannot rely on an artificial system that’s built simply on the accounting of 'external wrongs' to discern the level of spiritual vitality."

Nice statement.
Would someone from Northland be willing to share some specific ways this statement would impact what is being done at the school?

Personally, I think rigorous disciplinary systems have alot of value. Glad not to be under one anymore but it did me good. The world is full of people who make unreasonable demands on you and it's almost cruel to send young people into such a world without giving them some lessons on how to "put up and shut up." Seriously. I know this is almost rank heresy in our day of warm and fuzzies, but learning to say yes sir when you think the guy is unfair and out of his mind is an important life skill.

Random side note:

C'mon guys, you have to pick one and go with it!

This all sounds great on paper. I really like the chart of what they are moving away from and what they are moving toward. But I think many would say this has not been their historic practice. Or while it's been the goal, it hasn't always been the reality. I am supportive of Northland's statement, but since this is NOT always been how they've handled students, specific repentance would be remarkable and helpful here. "The rule against ____________ and our demerit system penalizing students for ___________ was wrong and did not fulfill these objectives."

Don, on one side I am tempted to agree with you. We will have to deal with stupid rules all our lives, and learning to deal with them well is indeed a useful skill. I also went to a Christian institution with a lot of those types of rules, and not only did I survive, I think I acquired some invaluable lessons from it, just as you did. However ...

The problem with that approach is that although you learn some good skills from it, there are obvious downsides that we have to deal with as well. I'll list just a couple.

1. Maintaining such an atmosphere breeds disrespect for (or at least an avoidance of) authorities/institutions which would normally be worthy of our respect, not just our obedience. While the student with the right attitudes toward rules learns to conform outwardly, he also learns to see the authority as petty and something to be avoided when later given a choice to do so. Having survived 4 years of this, there's no way I would ever (willingly) place myself under that type of authority again. I see it as a "one time only" thing. When I see churches or businesses, or other organizations that lean this direction, I avoid them like the plague, and would continue to do so.

Even military academies, much more strict in discipline (in certain areas) than Christian colleges, have a tiered system where over time, levels of freedom increase along with levels of responsibility, and certain types of infractions no longer even apply. This is true in some Christian colleges, but not to the same extent. It's also true that part of what they are trying to accomplish is unit camaraderie, and it's OK with them if students see their commanding officers as a type of adversary. In fact, it's OK if they are hated, as long as they are obeyed. I'd argue that's not what we want in a Christian institution.

Also consider military boot camp. It is an environment with special goals that lasts for a very limited time. No person would want to stay under that environment forever, even career military types. The lessons you learn there are basic and important, but that sort of environment is very limited in long-term usefulness. You'll note that it is accomplished in significantly less than 4 years time.

2. A Christian college, at least, *should* be much more concerned with actual spiritual development instead of just "learning to deal with stupid rules." Patience in tribulation is something that *is* good to learn (even though stupid rules are only minimal tribulation), but it's just one aspect of the Christian life. And when levels of spirituality and maturity are judged more by the attitude toward stupid rules (which anyone can learn to fake, and I met plenty that did) than by actually understanding the students and what their motivations are, then you simply have a factory that generates a lot higher percentage of ersatz product than really ought to be the case.

3. Similar to 1., valuing such an atmosphere creates and maintains more of an adversarial relationship between the administration and the students than one of trust. As a student, I was never genuinely convinced that the administration at the institution I attended was *really* more interested in my spiritual development than in keeping everyone "in line." I would never have opened up about my heart motivations or struggles to someone that I could trust not to see helping me with my spiritual struggles to be more important than "turning in" for "attitudes and thoughts not in line." As a result, I opened up to no one in *any* type of authority, and that means they lost some avenues through which they might have been able to be a positive spiritual influence.

4. Finally, as others have said, it would be one thing if they would make it crystal clear which rules are simply for discipline and training purposes, without any spiritual value of their own, and not try to place a non-intentional infraction of one of those on the same level as real spiritual problems, such as the pride or covetousness that Greg mentioned. When falling asleep in class (which I'm not saying is OK) is considered to be the same as direct disobedience, students learn the wrong lessons, and that's a plain and simple fact.

All this to say I'm not sure what the best balance is for a college or other institution, but if wearing a watch on your fingertips instead of on your wrist is seen as rebellion, there is something very wrong going on.

I'm not sure what ya'll are talking about when you use the term "stupid rules", but I think a Christian institution that attempts to prepare students to deal with unreasonable people by acting in an unreasonable manner is violating Scriptural principle. I also don't believe that one must experience something in a 'controlled environment' to be prepared for it to happen for real... and where would you draw the line? After all, a large percentage of women are going to experience violence of a sexual nature at some point in their lives- why not prepare them for that by having some college professors sexually harass the female students? Or appoint some male students to the Sexual Harassment Preparedness Team? The guys are going to have to face dealing with seductive women all their lives, so some of the more attractive female students could be chosen for the Sluts R Us Council on Male Purity. I'm exaggerating to prove a point (that was fun), but I don't think Christian authority acting in an unChristian manner teaches students anything except to not have any respect for that institution, and to leave asap for saner pastures.

Now, strict academic requirements and standards of personal conduct are another thing entirely, and I don't think those are stupid at all. But having a 4.0 GPA and abiding by all the externals can be done on autopilot by a committed church brat who isn't even saved. Been there, done that. Shouldn't do one and leave the other undone.

I agree with Jim.

It was my parent's job to teach me how to "put up or shut up." It was not the school's. I wonder if the viewpoint is not related to our extended adolescence combined with the informal "in loco parentis" viewpoint we use with Christian colleges.

I'm reminded of a very helpful quotation I learned in my (public) high school sophomore speech class: "Inanimate objects cannot be stupid." The teacher shared it when some of us seasoned, knowledgeable sophs decreed a particular assignment "stupid." 37 years later the lesson--even the scene--sticks with me. Good teacher!

Anyway, perhaps what Don means is we can't learn to be good disciples until we learn how graciously to handle what we perceive to be unreasonable demands. That "handling" may be submission. Or it may be seeking to understand the reasonability [for example, building/fire code regs are pretty reasonable if one understands what's behind them--I may not like how much it costs to comply, but the "rules" aren't stupid]. Or it may mean working to change the rules [girls don't have to wear nylons all day & can wear pants at BJU????]. Or it may mean looking for a legitimate way to get oneself out from under unreasonable, oppressive, abusive "authority." Only if one can't realistically escape that situation should "submission" be called for. I think, by the way, that many in fundamentalism run too quickly to the "if you don't like it...think it's 'stupid'...you just need to submit!" line. That's how authoritarian, dictatorial "pastors," which seem to abound in vast segments of "fundamentalism," treat/beat their people.

I think the natural sinfulness of humanity will distort any system it encounters given the chance. Multitudes of rules cause no more likelihood of self righteousness than libertine "grace" living. In each case, a standard is set and some will inevitably feel they have "arrived" and rank better than others for meeting it.

When I graduated from Northland in 2009, I filled out a exit survey where I wrote down several things concerning the demerit system/school handbook. This is my essential concern: by making heavier burdens to bear via the school demerit/handbook system, you create those whose consciences are seared. Let's take an example:

It was my duty as a room leader my Junior year to read the four-page primer on music out loud to my roommates, defining what music it was okay to listen to, and what music was taboo. The list was fairly precise; it forbade pretty much anything that might be construed as "worldly" by an objective standard set by the Fine Arts department. This extended to what you listened to privately, although practically no one followed the primer. At the end of the talk, each roommate (myself included) had to sign a form that stated that we would abide by the standards. This was mandatory; anyone who didn't sign the line had to speak to Student Life. It was stated that in order to be in the dorms, one must sign the line.

I know students who wrestled with listening to whatever music they were normally used to listening to when this lesser thing was elevated to being a matter of conscience. Many student's consciences were deadened towards authority over the course of four years due to that and a great many other rules. I know. I'm one of them.

I understand institutional rules, but an institution can elevate so many rules to the realm of conscience that one cannot escape the inevitable consequences: at worst, a seared conscience before God; at best, a disrespect for authority. I'm excited about the direction Northland is going. It will be more difficult. It will take more time invested. But if the monthly demerit review is replaced by daily coming-alongside-of, I can't help but be thrilled. And if the coming-alongside-of concerns things that really matter, rather than "getting to the heart because you're not following the overbearing rules," then the Northland motto of "life touching life" will be further fleshed out for its students.

Yes, our definitions of "conscience" are indeed different. It is a matter of conscience Biblically speaking, and of submission, as you said. As soon as one with the position of authority says "don't do this", ones conscience enters into the picture. There's not a dichotomy. I suspect that many on this board will simply not be able to see the perspective I'm advocating: I agree entirely that submission should be the intended course of action when one signs the dotted line. But from an institutional perspective, wouldn't you want to do everything that led to the individual students being strengthened as disciples of Christ without a multitude of rules to clarify how one must do so in private, off-campus, and during breaks?

So, for instance, I would absolutely agree with a document that said "don't listen to these forms of music out loud, and if we find you listening to music with explicitly anti-Christian content, it could be cause for you coming in." That's part of discipleship. But to say "no listening to any CCM privately" is, I think too far. I grant, again, that the student should be submissive. But if you're wanting a student to do well "in the real world", to respect authority, and to follow Christ well without a weight of extra-Biblical rules that can distract from the Prize of the high calling of God in Christ, wouldn't you as that authority want to do everything so that you didn't needlessly burden the student with those distractions?

But, as I said earlier, many on this board will disagree at the fundamental level: some think that the abundance of rules aids in following Jesus. I seriously doubt it.

Chip,

I appreciate your perspective. I think we're speaking past each other. You're saying that it's "all about the students." I disagree. Inasmuch as you say "submission is the student's responsibility" you are absolutely correct. Never disagreed there. But as an institution that is performing discipleship (the explicit purpose of Northland's Student Life Department), there is a burden to not present a false picture of discipleship. There is a burden to not "lay a heavier burden than they can bear." Is it heavier than they can bear? In some cases, absolutely. Unless every student that's coming into Northland's doors is totally onboard at the outset.

I'll say this and be done; as I said, I doubt many could see this perspective. I agree 100% that the student's responsibility is solely his or her own. They will stand before God and deal with what He has for them. But, again, from an institutional perspective... and not just any institution, but an institution that has taken the place of church discipleship in many areas (Northland has indeed done that, as have many other similar Bible Colleges), why wouldn't you want prevent the consciences of students being seared when you see a disproportiante amount of students heading the direction of disrespect or seared consciences? If you were a pastor of a church (perhaps you are), and you saw that after decades of a particular practice that it was harmful to people, wouldn't you want to change? I believe this is precisely why Northland is changing.

You say it's a matter of the heart. I agree. But it's also a matter of the heart for those that are writing the rules. I'm somewhat surprised you disagree, or perhaps don't see the perspective that I'm speaking from.

Agree completely. There is a relationship between the excellence of strong discipline and character and spiritual vitality but the relationship is complex and somewhat removed. Unregenerates can have "good character" and live high quality, productive lives while being spiritually dead. When you're born again, that whole dynamic is transformed and disciplined living, good habits, etc., live in a whole different context than they did before. But you still can't say "He has good habits so he must love God" or even "His habits/personal discipline have improved so he must be growing spiritually." It's not that simple.
But it's also a mistake to swing to the other extreme and dismiss disciplined living as having no value in Christian growth or the glory of God.
(I'm not saying this is Northland's thinking--they don't seem to be quite saying that--but it is definitely the trend these days.)