Of In Loco Parentis and Demerits

I went to a Christian school with demerits and survived it just fine, so I know they can "work," however, the "long and honored tradition" you mention has not led to noticeably high moral and spiritual values among students of the institutions you mention.

I think it's important to realize that demerits really serve to keep a student in line and provide external punishment and motivation, and when used in a "spiritual" sense can cause confusion when for example an infraction for forgetting something can be seen (by the count of demerits) to be "equal" to something with spiritual significance (like a bad attitude). Military schools have completely different goals than Christian schools. Even though some things (development of leadership and character) may appear to be the same, the desired product is much different. The idea that character can be molded sufficiently by molding externals is one that is common in our society, but should not be brought into our Christian schools. External molding is helpful, but should not be the primary method of character building.

Discipleship and demerits CAN work together, but having seen first-hand the same spiritually toxic environment that was mentioned by a poster on another thread, I can say that demerits unfortunately usually substitute for good discipleship rather than enhance it, as it's much easier to give an off-the-cuff admonishment and a few demerits than it is to come along side a student and really try to help them. Even though I survived a school that used them, and even learned to thrive (in a fashion) even with them in place, it was clear to me that as long as the externals were seen to be good, what was in the heart was assumed to be good as well. The key to being seen as a good student was "keeping your nose clean." Many people (including myself) could do this easily even with a bad heart attitude. The whole environment was about "turning people in," supposedly for their own good, when no real concern was (usually) shown for fixing the heart issues that led to the infraction that resulted in demerits. There were some notable exceptions to this, and those exceptions are the men and women I remember as having really helped mold me while at school.

I don't think having or getting rid of demerits is the real issue. They are a tool, nothing more, one that can be used well, or badly. If Northland believes they can disciple more effectively without them, then this change might work for them. The real issue is how real discipleship is done, and maybe they believe the lack of demerits will help *force* them to do real discipleship as the alternative would be to overlook failures and sin in the lives of the students. When discipleship is done right, they could have demerits or not have them, and still see much better results in the lives of their students.

I for one am grateful for Rob's notation here.

It's important to remember the historical setting of anything. When you consider that the leadership of the last generation, or the one that is just now passing of the scene, inherited the leadership of institutions in a day when their was a legal responsibility to reprent "mom and dad." I think it does suggest why some generations see the demerit system as "normal," and even consistent with "wisdom." Younger generations that are used to thinking of autonomous (legal and otherwise) 18 year olds - would not have the same "view" as those who come from a generation that see 20 year olds as essentially "mobile minors." Some of this debate then is sourced in a generational debate. Thanks Rob - the point is an important one.

This is not to suggest that their aren't other discussions as to a philosophy of Christian discipline and such.

Straight Ahead!

jt

But that would be a separate thread, no?

I think the key to understanding a demerit system is something Rob noted in his original post: the objective is leadership, not spirituality.

BJU, for example, used to be proud of being called the "West Point" of fundamentalism.

I've been waiting for someone to talk about "in loco parentis". Do a little Googling. It has an interesting legal history. I don't know that it says anything spiritually profound, but it does explain what the folks at BJU were thinking when they proclaimed it.

Susan,

A quick thought. Your statment I'm sure is sometimes true - but I don't think it's a universal norm that ministries don't first of all consider the source or context of "social norms/practice." Especially because when you change anything along those lines - people will struggle one way or another (just on change alone). That being the case most leaders count the cost before adopting social "change in course."

My guess is here, most Christian institutions that adopted the demerit system were looking for some way to help back up order vs. chaos. I think you and others have done a good job of showing there can be another way, and I'm not locked in at all on the demerit system.....but I think Rob's point does a good job of explaining the historical setting as it developed.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Sorry guys. I have a few thoughts and citations based on my search. You've already hit some of the highpoints since this post. I have a bit more to add, but it's going to have to wait a few days. Slammed by 1000 details and emergencies right now. In fact, I just posted a prayer request about it here at SI.

In any case, I will be back to comment.