Reflections on the “Legalism/Rules” discussion
It’s now been about a month since my articles on “Legalism and the Christian School Movement” appeared here on SI. They were followed by a series by Aaron which asked the question “Are Rules Dangerous?”. Both of these article series provoked substantial debate and discussion.
Toward the end, I became immersed in several other projects and bowed out of those discussions. Here now are my reflections on the debate.
1). I think much of the reason for the debate was the failure to articulate what was meant by rules. This started with my articles. While I was narrowly referring to Christian School and Christian College rules, my content certainly could be applied more broadly. I admit that I hoped it would be applied more broadly.
But some tried to broaden my arguments on rules to either support or disagree with me. So let me try to clarify. I am concerned about extra-Biblical rules, the methods by which they are enforced, and the messages we send by having and enforcing them. The fatal combination, in my view, is this: When we take rules that are only loosely derived from Scripture, inflate their importance by enforcing them as though they are the equivalent to God’s rules, and then fail to inform our students of the process by which we have derived these rules from Scripture, we do them a disservice. All of the effects I warned about come into play when these three elements are present.
2). A good pastor friend of mine and I spent many hours discussing this article series. One of those discussions was particularly worthy of repeating here. He asked how I would respond if someone came to church dressed inappropriately. After some discussion of just how inappropriate we were talking about (not a bikini, for instance) I responded that I would probably see that they were talked to about it lovingly and carefully as a matter of discipleship. He then remarked “So you do have rules. They’re just internal and enforced on a different level.” And that is a great observation. It’s not rules that I’m opposed to (as I hope was always clear). It’s an enforcement mechanism divorced from a discipleship process. I admit I was surprised when he called my internal processes “rules”; I certainly never had thought of them that way. By the way, inappropriate dress for church is a very complex discussion – informed by such issues as rural vs. urban, climate, tradition, and most importantly, the attitude of the wearer. Oh, and Scripture too! Someone should start a thread!
3). I want to salute those who answered my challenge by saying they would be recommitting themselves to personal discipleship processes in association with their rule systems. I have no argument with you. It’s not as though I expected people to tear up their rule books mid-year. But I am concerned that many parts of Fundamentalism don’t have the foggiest idea of how to do discipleship. It is not a program. It is a relationship.
4). Aaron’s series certainly provoked still more interesting discussion. I freely admit he hit the mark with a few points. But I am still concerned that we are very far apart on the issue of Sanctification process. In fact, this is a huge dividing point among fundamentalists. Aaron is, apparently, comfortable with rules – even extra Biblical ones -- as part of that process. He is convinced that he has done a service to someone if he enforces a rule that prevents them from sinning, even if they only obey against their wills. I’m troubled with this. Not so much because I deny the accuracy of the observation. Of course if my rule keeps a teen from, for instance, an act of fornication that they might otherwise have engaged in, I have helped that teen on some level. But I’m pretty sure that we’re not asking or answering the right questions with this example. And I’m not sure that any such rule would do more than the actual commands against immorality, properly taught, would do.
On the www.standpointconference.com website, we recently published our affirmations, which include this one:
We affirm that sanctification is grace-based rather than a process that occurs due to mere obedience to rules. While we acknowledge the role of rules in the individual life of a believer and the necessity for them in certain organizational settings, and acknowledge the proper role of obedience to Scriptural commands, we deny that rules have real transforming power and deny that they can produce true inward holiness.
Therefore, we disagree with those who would attempt to define holiness as obedience to a list of rules, and strongly reject all teaching that tends to persuade people that submission to rules equates with the transforming power of the Spirit of God.
I believe that this affirmation is Scripturally correct. And I believe that Aaron and some others would disagree with some aspects of it, or at least with where it leads, logically. The fact that we disagree is not an issue of separation or anger. But it does indicate that we have woefully failed to develop the doctrine of Sanctification. There ought not to be such a large area unexplored. With rigorous doctrinal development after analysis of Scripture, we could then develop processes that work with Sanctification for our churches and schools.
One of Paul Matzko’s posts demonstrates this need very well:
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.
Paul, that statement is shocking to the Fundamentalist mind. Those kinds of questions make us question our assumptions and traditions, making us fall back to make sure they are in accord with Scripture. By the way, I wish you had written my articles.
So I end my reflections with this: Let us dig into the doctrine of Sanctification with great energy. I am engaging in a study of it, and intend to post some reflections for discussion in the months ahead. I invite you all to join me. Perhaps it’s where this discussion should have begun.
I forgot to mention that I was interested in the whole “zones of authority” debate. Whether schools have the right to enforce rules once students have left the school grounds and are back in the care of their parents is not what interested me, though.
The third point of my article raised the issue of whether Churches had the right to spin off ministries that had an enforcement mechanism that was outside of that which the Lord has authorized for the church – that of confrontation hoping for repentance, followed by, in cases of unrepentance, church discipline. I admit that I didn’t give thought to whether or not the parents had the right to give some of their rights as parents to the school, and that this would form the basis of the school’s authority to discipline as it does. If one accepts this reasoning, their agreement with the school’s handbook would constitute the school’s right to enforce according to that handbook. This, of course, removes the entire objection in my 3rd point. I will have to think about that some more.
It does not, however, in any way impact my first two points.
I suspect that this is the actual philosophical basis that some schools have chosen; it’s why the in loco parentis argument is made (other than the obvious legal reasons).