Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1

[Aaron Blumer] To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.

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.

I think that part of this is a difficult (new) problem as part of the idea of the separation of church and state. - I think that the problem with rules stems from walking the fine line between saying that a rule is part of a spiritual sanctification and it’s just good government. On one hand - rules are a problem if they’re mandated as part of spiritual growth. - I.e. - Given your example - spirituality isn’t even discussed. But what makes rules bad is that they give those who keep them assurance of righteousness.

Obviously organizations like schools have to govern kids - so obviously we can’t toss out rules.

People love to trust rule-keeping - that can be spiritually dangerous. how do we protect them from that?

Why is this a big deal? - Governments and other organizations have lots of rules without producing self-righteous hypocrites - why do schools/churches fall into this trap?

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.

Thanks for a well-thought, well-written article. A society without laws would be completely uncivil, dangerous, and totally corrupt. Even in the Garden of Eden God had a rule. Christ did not come to abrogate the prinicple of law. The Law was never evil. Man is evil. Law has a restraining influence on depraved humanity, a soteriological purpose in guiding one to see his or her need of Christ, and an educational purpose in that people realize there are objective standards of right and wrong. Law, however, cannot save or inherently sanctify. Only the grace of God effectually working in the human heart can do that.

There is no inherent conflict between a parent having rules in their home and a school having rules for their students. There is no school worth its salt that does not have rules governing conduct. Those who compare the Talmud and Mishnah to a simple student handbook in a school are comparing apples and oranges, or should I say apples and watermelons to be more accurate in the analogy. If the parents are in fundamental disagreement with the rules of a particular school, they have the option of sending their children to a school with which they are in agreement. The only compulsory education is the public school monopoly which forcibly takes our money and compels our children to attend government schools. The reductionist ethic regarding rules in the public schools has not created a healthier, more civil, more moral environment in which children and teens are being educated. The morals in public colleges are near total corruption where the rule is “don’t have sex in your dorm room while your other roomate is present”.

The rules in our Christian colleges are much less today than they were 30, 40, 50 years ago. I think the real culprit is the autonomous idea that says, “I don’t want anybody telling me what to do”.

Aaron, your argument begins with these paragraphs.

Sin interrupts fellowship with God, dulls spiritual senses, weakens resolve, perverts affections, damages body and mind, poisons relationships and forms enslaving habits. I’m taking it for granted that I don’t need to prove that here. We’ve all seen it in our sins if we’ve been paying attention, and finding examples in Scripture is almost as easy as opening the Book at random and reading.

Given that sin does so much harm, may we not conclude that it is always better to do right than to do wrong? To put it another way, isn’t a believer who avoids a sin because of a rule-and-penalty better off than a believer who sins?

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.

Best: do right out of faith and love

Good: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)

Bad: do right with some evil motive

Worst: do wrong

Best: do right out of faith and love

Worthless: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)

Bad: do right with some evil motive (but if evil is the lack of good, then doing right simply to avoid punishment is evil.)

Bad: do wrong

Worthless: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)

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 need to see how extrabiblical morality fits with 1 Tim. 4:1-5 and Col. 2:20-23.

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).

I need to see how extrabiblical morality fits with 1 Tim. 4:1-5 and Col. 2:20-23.

What do you mean by “extrabiblical morality”?

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 :)

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.”

As with my above comment, I have to wonder what we are talking about here. It is hard to respond without knowing what we are talking about.

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.

That certainly has the affect of trying to win the debate by defining those who see it differently as “childish.” Perhaps you don’t mean such …

Once we get outside of the lowest common denominator of necessary “institutional rules,” let’s focus on substantive Bible teaching. When we get “really good” at that, we can start worrying about adding rules

I also wonder why “substantive Bible teaching” is somehow set against rules. I think that is a common underlying theme in these threads: If we have Bible teaching and discipleship, we don’t need rules. I don’t see that distinction in the Bible, and wonder where it comes from here.

Can you imagine Ford saying, “Let’s not have rules, just make cars.” Or Pfizer saying, “Let’s not have rules, let’s just make medicine.” Or Nabisco saying, “Let’s not have rules, let’s just make food.” I can’t imagine any of that, and I imagine no one here can because they recognize that rules aid in turning out of a product. No one at Ford, Pfizer, or Nabisco would say that working on your care, whipping up a homebrew medicine, or baking cookies means you need to have the same rules as they do (though they might be helpful). But neither do they consider them “extra.” They are a part of producing a product.

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.

I believe that Joseph has made a very profound statement with the following:

“Susan’s questions become very important, but 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. 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.”

This opens up numerous other avenues of discussion, including at least the following: is homeschool the best Biblical option? does a local church have any Biblical authority to operate a school? if so, under what parameters?

Larry, I did not mean to call any individual childish — just comparing what I believe to be Biblically mature or immature ways of thinking.

Since you asked for a specific, I will use a well-known example. There was a time when Fundamentalists argued from Deut. 22:5 that women should not wear pants. All theology and hermeneutics aside, that was a ridiculous argument.

Once the folly of that line of thinking was realized, it became a “fence” issue — the standard protected men from lust. Of course, it is hard to argue with someone who just has “a conviction” about it. (No matter that by saying as much they are professing to be the “weaker brother” of Rom. 14 and 15.)

When all of those arguments failed, we found out it was just an institutional issue all along — done for the sake of uniformity and professionalism. (But then, to go to Susan’s point, why and how did we think we could or should regulate it outside of the school setting??)

Now, we as a movement we are finally dropping some of these issues from our rader screen — and I view that as a positive step. I do think that they clouded the minds of many people, and diverted our attention from “substantive Bible teaching.” I do believe there is a real danger there.

“Can you imagine Ford saying, ‘Let’s not have rules, just make cars.’ Or Pfizer saying, ‘Let’s not have rules, let’s just make medicine.’”

Here you are jumping back to purely institutional rules. Both Catholic schools and Baptist schools have to have a start time to the school day. Students cannot show up at either 6 a.m. or 7 p.m., depending on their preference. This is not to be confused with the sanctification process — and would not be in too many people’s minds.

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.

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).

When I started reading your post, I thought to myself, “This is pretty good stuff. It understand the issues.” And then I got to this part and chuckled because you make my point in your first half and then claim I contradict you (if I understand you correctly).

My point is that we acknowledge that rules exact for order to achieve the product, in this case, an educated student. So we acknowledge that rules are necessary and acceptable for the end of producing an educated student. If we acknowledge that part of an educated student is a morally educated student who does not learn certain things by experience and is protected from certain things by wisdom, then we recognize that other rules are indeed wise and appropriate. They should be related and springing from a larger moral order. Our goal in on time class appearance is not people in seats for the sake of people in seats. Our goal in rules about personal relationships is not simply to police personal relationships. Both have reference to a higher order, to the desired product.

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.

Now this seems completely off base, and it removes any sense of discipleship from anyone but the parents, which is completely fallacious. A school, driven by biblical revelation, can indeed say what is helpful and harmful in attaining to a biblical education. In fact, it must do so. Your whole paragraph here approaches the idea that we can educate without morality, something that is patently absurd. It ignores the whole issue of authority. While a child is under the authority of their parents, they are also under other authorities in varying degrees. And we must recognize them before we create some huge problems.

Larry, I did not mean to call any individual childish — just comparing what I believe to be Biblically mature or immature ways of thinking.

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.

Since you asked for a specific, I will use a well-known example. There was a time when Fundamentalists argued from Deut. 22:5 that women should not wear pants. All theology and hermeneutics aside, that was a ridiculous argument.

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.

Here you are jumping back to purely institutional rules. Both Catholic schools and Baptist schools have to have a start time to the school day. Students cannot show up at either 6 a.m. or 7 p.m., depending on their preference. This is not to be confused with the sanctification process — and would not be in too many people’s minds.

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.

[Larry] Can you imagine Ford saying, “Let’s not have rules, just make cars.” Or Pfizer saying, “Let’s not have rules, let’s just make medicine.” Or Nabisco saying, “Let’s not have rules, let’s just make food.” I can’t imagine any of that, and I imagine no one here can because they recognize that rules aid in turning out of a product. No one at Ford, Pfizer, or Nabisco would say that working on your care, whipping up a homebrew medicine, or baking cookies means you need to have the same rules as they do (though they might be helpful). But neither do they consider them “extra.” They are a part of producing a product.

This is understood, and is completely applicable to an educational institution if the product desired is a person with a measured level of mastery of a set of knowledge, that also has learned some discipline and regulation of behavior. Assuming that is what a Christian school is attempting to produce, then no further teaching about the rules or about sanctification is at all necessary. If the desired product, however, is a complete secondary education of a person who desires and is prepared to serve the Lord, then a large set of rules may, in some instances be helpful to that end (if they are taught and explained well), but they not only can not produce the product, if they are abused or explained poorly, they may, in fact, help produce the opposite of the product desired. I don’t think anyone here is arguing for no rules at all (certainly the Bible expresses plenty of them). However, rules that are designed to keep students “pure” through behavior modification are bound to fail in that attempt. Those rules may accomplish students “looking” good in the eyes of the world and other Christians, but I assume that is not what the intent is either. Rules can produce good medicine or good food, but because of God’s standard for the heart and the inner motivations, cannot produce good Christians in the same way.

With regard to Aaron’s example of the party and drunkenness, I actually find that one interesting. If it in fact prevents an accident occurring that takes someone’s life, then it was a useful rule. It’s even useful if it kept someone who wasn’t tempted to get drunk from “falling” into that sin at a party. However, if all it did was to prevent someone from committing in actuality what they have already committed in their heart (i.e. they wanted to be at that party getting drunk, but didn’t want the punishment), it had no moral effect whatsoever, only a perceived behavioral effect. This is, of course, apart from the legal implications.

This conversation really appears to me to be an examination of differing spheres of authority. I’m wondering if I should ever send my kids to a Christian school (that I know will of course have rules, most of which I will probably agree with) if that school’s authority does not stem either from the local church of which I am a part, or from the group of parents that together send their kids to that school, and therefore have the direct responsibility for making those rules. When the school as an institution derives its authority only from itself (and I realize it may claim the Bible, but will have its own applications of biblical rules and principles), and then acts as the substitute moral authority for my children, is it really right for it to do so, or for me to send my kids there? This question is one of the reasons I home school. College will be another question, but is a little different because my kids will legally be adults, and will have some say what authority they are willing to put themselves under.

Edit: Looks like I was writing this as you wrote your last couple posts, and it did not take the new information into account.

This is understood, and is completely applicable to an educational institution if the product desired is a person with a measured level of mastery of a set of knowledge, that also has learned some discipline and regulation of behavior. Assuming that is what a Christian school is attempting to produce, then no further teaching about the rules or about sanctification is at all necessary. If the desired product, however, is a complete secondary education of a person who desires and is prepared to serve the Lord, then a large set of rules may, in some instances be helpful to that end (if they are taught and explained well), but they not only can not produce the product, if they are abused or explained poorly, they may, in fact, help produce the opposite of the product desired.

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.

I don’t think anyone here is arguing for no rules at all (certainly the Bible expresses plenty of them).

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.

Rules can produce good medicine or good food

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.

… but because of God’s standard for the heart and the inner motivations, cannot produce good Christians in the same way.

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 :D). 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.

[Mike Harding] 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…

Good point.

Let me point out that the thread title is, “Are rules dangerous?”

Pastor Harding makes the point that we should make rules. I agree. But we should still not loose sight of the dangers of them.

[Larry]

Worthless: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)

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”?

…

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.

Larry wrote: “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.”

This was in answer to my statement: “There was a time when Fundamentalists argued from Deut. 22:5 that women should not wear pants. All theology and hermeneutics aside, that was a ridiculous argument.”

Perhaps I am missing something here. I do not get the part where this is absurd. It actually was woven into the fiber (excuse the pun) of the mainstream of Fundamentalism for many years — and still is in some places.

Larry wrote: “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.”

I would personally favor TEACHING Biblical morality — not inventing man-made “rules” which go beyond it (in violation of 1 Cor. 4:6).

Also, I reject the notion that schools “produce a product” in the same way that Ford produces cars. That comparison is at best demeaning to the education process, and at worst mind-numbingly dangerous.

A real education prepares children to become adults (“grow up in Christ”) by making mature decisions under guidance while learning how to think (learn.)

[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.

[Larry] 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.

It’s okay to have a rule about being on time, because that is directly directly related to the school’s purpose and ability to function. But when it comes to where a student can go and what events they can attend, that decision rests with the parents, not the school. And the problem this creates IMO is that one can have a rule about kids going to movies, but are you going to have a rule that student’s parents can’t have HBO and Cinemax, or rent DVDs from Blockbuster? Maybe the school has rules about dancing, but what are you going to do when the student attends an out-of-town wedding and is caught on tape doing the Electric Slide with Aunt Lucy and Uncle Dave?

I think many ‘rules’ are already covered by clear Biblical principle (such as fornication and lewdness) or by the laws of the land (underage drinking), so a school repeating these rules is redundant. Parents, law enforcement and the church have first dibs when it comes to these infractions.

But then let’s say that a student is arrested for a DUI. Law enforcement suspends their license and charges a fine, and the parents ground them until they are 30. The church may get involved at some point, hopefully to provide counseling for the family to address this young person’s problem. Then the school suspends or expels them… why? In light of the fact that consequences have already been meted out by the appropriate authorities, how is denying this child academic instruction going to benefit the child, and how does the infraction directly affect the function of the school? “The bad apple”, you might say, “spoils the bunch.” But what if the child has repented as a result of the consequences already experienced? Where does the school have the Biblical authority to say “No- an arrest, fine, and parental punishment are not enough, and in order to be fair and consistent with the enforcing of our rules, we’re going to pile on a two week suspension.”

I do think there is a serious problem with keeping rules being perceived as a sign of spiritual maturity. How many kids that live like the Spawn of Satan on weekends win Christian Character awards at their school? I need both hands to count the ones that I’ve known personally. I’ve watched girls who’ve had abortions wink out tears of gratitude as they walk forward to graciously accept their trophy or certificate. Gag me with a pitchfork.

I know, I know- my lack of objectivity is leaking out onto my keyboard. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-ashamed005.gif

IMO the school is servant to the parent. The purpose of a school is to provide academic instruction, which of course has moral implications, but the primary purpose of a school is not to build character or enforce moral conduct. I’ve always viewed schools and tutors as ‘tools’ that I use to obey the Biblical mandates directed at parents. At no time does another person or institution relieve me of that duty.

Rules that keep order and enhance an institution’s function are necessary and prudent. But I am wary of rules that go beyond that into spheres of authority clearly reserved for others.

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 :D. 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?

Perhaps I am missing something here. I do not get the part where this is absurd. It actually was woven into the fiber (excuse the pun) of the mainstream of Fundamentalism for many years — and still is in some places.

First, I don’t think it was ever mainstream fundamentalism and second, I don’t think hardly anyone would say that now. It is clearly an absurd thing that was out of the mainstream.

I would personally favor TEACHING Biblical morality — not inventing man-made “rules” which go beyond it (in violation of 1 Cor. 4:6).

I do too, but I am not sure that is a valid distinction here. Again, what do we mean by “man-made rules”? Attending class on time is certainly man made. No where in Scripture is that found. But all agree that it is a good one. Not going to prom is considered by some to be man made (and legalistic) but is it? No valid case has been made that I have seen.

Also, I reject the notion that schools “produce a product” in the same way that Ford produces cars. That comparison is at best demeaning to the education process, and at worst mind-numbingly dangerous.

So you don’t think a Christian school exists to produce Christ loving disciples who are prepared for the next stage in life? Perhaps we just differ on what education is.

A real education prepares children to become adults (“grow up in Christ”) by making mature decisions under guidance while learning how to think (learn.)

Sounds like a product.

It’s okay to have a rule about being on time, because that is directly directly related to the school’s purpose and ability to function. But when it comes to where a student can go and what events they can attend, that decision rests with the parents, not the school.

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.

I think many ‘rules’ are already covered by clear Biblical principle (such as fornication and lewdness) or by the laws of the land (underage drinking), so a school repeating these rules is redundant.

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?

Parents, law enforcement and the church have first dibs when it comes to these infractions.

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

Then the school suspends or expels them… why? In light of the fact that consequences have already been meted out by the appropriate authorities, how is denying this child academic instruction going to benefit the child, and how does the infraction directly affect the function of the school?

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 the school have the Biblical authority to say “No- an arrest, fine, and parental punishment are not enough, and in order to be fair and consistent with the enforcing of our rules, we’re going to pile on a two week suspension.”

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.

I do think there is a serious problem with keeping rules being perceived as a sign of spiritual maturity.

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

Gag me with a pitchfork.

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

IMO the school is servant to the parent.

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.

The purpose of a school is to provide academic instruction, which of course has moral implications, but the primary purpose of a school is not to build character or enforce moral conduct.

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.

Rules that keep order and enhance an institution’s function are necessary and prudent. But I am wary of rules that go beyond that into spheres of authority clearly reserved for others.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] @Susan: I’m with you totally on the principle that parents ought to make many of a school’s rules obsolete. But in the scenario where the school has a good rule and the parent doesn’t, what happens if you remove the school’s rule? Then you have a child with nobody watching for his soul (unless his church does it, which would also be better than the school). So my view is that the school is not preventing the parent from being a parent if they have the same rules.

Can you give me an example of a ‘good rule’ that a school would have but a parent might not- a rule that ‘watches for a child’s soul’? Again- we are talking in the context of a Christian school that accepts children from Christian homes, and rules that apply to student conduct off-campus.

If a parent is not enforcing Godly rules at home, such as ‘flee fornication’ or ‘thou shalt not steal’, are school rules really addressing the issue Biblically? Shouldn’t someone, like a pastor, be paying this family a visit to see why they think it is OK for their kids to have sex or shoplift? I think we agree- this would be a matter better suited to church counsel and discipline.

The family IMO is a sacred unit and should be treated as such. There has been a long tradition of bypassing parents to reach children, starting with bribing kids with candy and free goldfish to ride the bus to Sunday School. Then we saved ‘em, dunked ‘em, counted ‘em, and let them go back into homes that were utterly wretched. I think this practice led folks into accepting the attitude that parents are non-essential and even obstacles to be overcome. We deal with ‘em when we have to, but most of the time they are useless, so we go after the kids, for whom we feel there is still hope. There is a resulting disdain for parents in many Christian schools that is IMO unBiblical and does more harm than good. I felt its full weight when I started to homeschool my kids. Like, wow.

Parents should not be considered as servants to the school. There is no Biblical support for schools to reign over homes or override parental authority on matters that should be handled by other clearly defined and God appointed authorities- the parent, the church, and/or the state.

Can you give me an example of a ‘good rule’ that a school would have but a parent might not- a rule that ‘watches for a child’s soul’?

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

If a parent is not enforcing Godly rules at home, such as ‘flee fornication’ or ‘thou shalt not steal’, are school rules really addressing the issue Biblically?

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.

Shouldn’t someone, like a pastor, be paying this family a visit to see why they think it is OK for their kids to have sex or shoplift? I think we agree- this would be a matter better suited to church counsel and discipline.

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

The family IMO is a sacred unit and should be treated as such. There has been a long tradition of bypassing parents to reach children, starting with bribing kids with candy and free goldfish to ride the bus to Sunday School. Then we saved ‘em, dunked ‘em, counted ‘em, and let them go back into homes that were utterly wretched.

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.

There is a resulting disdain for parents in many Christian schools that is IMO unBiblical and does more harm than good.

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

Parents should not be considered as servants to the school. There is no Biblical support for schools to reign over homes or override parental authority on matters that should be handled by other clearly defined and God appointed authorities- the parent, the church, and/or the state.

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.

[Larry] 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.

There seems to be a fuzzy concept of sphere sovereignty at work here. Or, rather, a confusion of entities. So, let’s see if we can start from a common base, which we may or may not be able to do.

First, I think we would agree that, regarding Christians, the institutions of family and church are both designed by God for the training and rearing of children - the family by virtue of its biological connection to the child, the church by that family’s membership. So, both family and church are legitimate and (hopefully complementary) sources for the instruction and discipline of a child.

Second, the Christian school, where one exists, exists properly only as an extension of the church’s (or for a denominational school, group of churches’) discipleship, particularly directed toward the academic and intellectual nurture of the children. Without that important qualification, we will have a purpose statement something like “to produce mature disciples,” which confuses the school with the church.

Third, the school is empowered by the church and family to create appropriate organizational structures and regulations to carry out its purpose. Its sphere of authority extends in those areas only which directly affect its ability to carry out its function. It does not have the authority to act in matters of Christian discipleship except as they relate to academic and intellectual nurture.

Fourth, since the Christian school derives its authority from the church, its authority cannot exceed that of the church, and the measures by which it operates must be in accordance with the church.

From these outlined ideas, I derive a number of applications, which I will attempt to illustrate.

First, all “discipline” done by the school must be in accordance with the church’s goal and method of discipline. If you don’t expel high schoolers from the youth group (church) for going to the movies, why would you expel students from the school for that offense? What about going to the movies has more to do with the Christian school than with the church?

Second, “moral” matters not intricately connected to academic nurture should be referred to the appropriate church leadership for handling. For example, in the Presbyterian Church of America (mine), only the session (group of elders), acting as representatives of the whole congregation, can discipline members. So why should a school administrator not on the session be the primary person handling matters of moral discipleship? Of course, this can be mitigated if the school leadership are also church leaders. However, matters of discipline which primarily involve scholastic behavior do not need to be referred to church leadership, since the school is empowered to enforce those regulations.

Third, the school does not have the authority to set regulations involving non-scholastic Christian discipleship, other than the regulations which the church enforces. So a school ought not mandate church attendance unless the church mandates church attendance. If the church does mandate attendance and a student/member fails to conform, then the school may not punish except in accordance with the church (back to application 1). Also, a school could not make a rule such as, “Each student must pray 10 minutes in the morning before coming to school.” This rule falls outside its sphere.

Well, I think that’s enough to get the outlines of my position.

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 don’t see the contradictions that you do. I have said that I believe it to be sensible for any institution to have rules of conduct that relate to its function and purpose, as well as its property. It is not intuitive that any institution can create arbitrary rules for the private lives of the individuals that may use or attend that institution that aren’t already addressed elsewhere. IOW, it could legitimately be a rule at work that if you are arrested for abusing drugs or alcohol, you may experience consequences at work. But you’d think your boss was wonky if it was a rule at work that you couldn’t watch Monday Night Football at home or you can’t eat at McDonald’s. And we know that both are hazardous to your health. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing003.gif

If a parent wishes their child to attend a Christian school, it makes sense that they understand that while their child is on campus, there are rules of conduct and appearance, and expectations they will be required to meet- attendance, respect toward others, treatment of school property, completing assignments, etc… But a rule that states a school will take action against a student if the parent allows that student to ‘be alone’ in their home with a member of the opposite sex? How does that work, and what is the Biblical support for this rule? If this is indeed a school that is operating as a semi-churchish kind of entity, is this rule also enforced with all the members of the congregation as well? Is the church disciplinary process engaged if parents of kids who go to public school are allowing their children to be alone with a boy/girl (and who gets to decide what ‘alone’ means, and for what length of time any amount of aloneness would be allowed)? What about sleepovers when there are siblings of the opposite sex in the home?

I haven’t proposed that if no one who should be discipling isn’t discipling then no one can do any discipling. What I am arguing against is the default methods of bypassing parental authority with school authority- an authority structure that is nowhere in Scripture, while the parents, the church, and the state clearly are present and their functions spelled out.

I’ve granted that education can’t take place without morals and ethics being communicated, along with any number of biases from teachers and the influences of peers. But the primary function of a parent is to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4), and the responsibility for educating the child is given to the parent (Duet 6:7, 11:19). If a parent chooses a school or tutor to teach their child academics, they are still responsible for their child’s education. Using a school does not relieve a parent of their duty to their child, and the school can’t take up parental duties just because they ‘feel’ parents aren’t doing a ‘good enough’ job. If one truly feels that a particular parent is failing in their responsibility to their child, they should first take that up with the parent, not with the kids. If the parent is unwilling to hear, why not follow Mtt. 18, Gal. 6:1, Titus 3:10, 1 Cor. 5:11?

As for my experiences with Christian schools, I attended one for 6 years, I’ve been a substitute teacher on and off for 25 years, and I’ve tutored and been an education counselor for 10 years.

BTW, when you spoke of the rules about pants (and their basis) being absurd and uncommon- nearly every single Christian school I have been involved with or taught in had that exact same rule for the exact same reason, including the one I attended myself. As a matter of fact, I had thought for years that nearly all Christian schools had that rule, and the ones that didn’t were the exception. In some parts of the country it was and still is mainstream.

[rogercarlson]

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. :)

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. :)

[Larry] 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.

But Larry, you realize that each of those things that you mention is an exercise of some sort of authority or sphere of responsibility. Certainly a leader is held to a higher standard; why a learner, which is the opposite of a leader? You haven’t made a connection

The discussion needs to focus on how schools can be coextensive with the church without being the church. For example, schools as schools don’t care about the private morality of their students (unless it’s really scandalous). If a student at University of Michigan files for divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences, UM doesn’t care. A church, however, would care. On what grounds should a Christian school (say university) care about something like that?

[Larry] 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.

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.

Aaron’s essay certainly has stirred intense discussion.

Again I will say that I think the general direction on this thread is getting right down to the heart of the matter, namely: Is it possible for a single, Biblical local church to operate a Biblical Christian school?

We all seem to agree that it is difficult; I am asking a different rhetorical question — is it possible?

There are basically two schools of thought on opposite poles which are held by people who take the local church very seriously. One says that the local church is so important that it must be the source of all ministry during this dispensation. The other says that the local church is so important that it must not take on any responsibilities which God did not intend for it.

Historically, it seems quite clear that the modern Christian school movement did something which had rarely been tried before — namely, “baptize” the Catholic/Lutheran concept of a church-run day school.

This discussion merely highlights the problems which are inherent in that combination.

Am I flat-out opposed to all church-run schools? I did not say that. In my limited experience, however, I have seen tremendous value in the concept of the “separation of church and school.”

[Aaron Blumer] “Young Fundamentalists” are generally not fond of rules, especially in ministry settings. Exactly why this is the case is an interesting study in itself. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that many of them grew up in rules-heavy Christian schools in an era full of glowing idealism about what these highly-disciplined, conscientiously spiritual educational environments would produce. The inflated hopes of those days were sure to result in disappointment. And maybe the current rules angst is the result of a generalized disgust with the whole concept and all that seems connected to it. In defense of those who feel this way, it is only too easy to find examples of rules excesses and absurdities.

Whatever the reasons, young Fundamentalists are often eager to cast “man-made rules” in a negative light and to argue from Scripture that these rules are dangerous at best, and downright hostile to Christian growth at worst.

My aim here is to offer a “young Fundamentalist” perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to Scripture and wisdom.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] Given that sin does so much harm, may we not conclude that it is always better to do right than to do wrong? To put it another way, isn’t a believer who avoids a sin because of a rule-and-penalty better off than a believer who sins.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] I believe the dynamic between inner man and outward conduct is far from binary (all or nothing) and looks more like this:

• Best: do right out of faith and love

• Good: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)

• Bad: do right with some evil motive

• Worst: do wrong.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.

So has the teen in scenario A been helped along in his journey toward Christlikeness? Absolutely. Would it have been better if he did the right thing out of faith and love without a rule? Definitely.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] But this is where an important point comes into focus: the truth is, he can act out of faith and love without or with the rule. If he has the necessary faith and love, the rule is useless (1 Tim. 1:9) but harmless. If he lacks the necessary faith and love, the rule is a lifesaver, and those responsible for his care have done him a great service.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] 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.

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”.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne Sokol]

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?

Actually, equating rules with the right thing was not my point there.. though certainly a rule does not aim to produce the wrong thing. :)

Might help to reread in context.

OK, i see your point. I am just pointing out that all “moral,” “Bible-application” rules are really not universally “right” or even the “better” course of action like we assume they are. Your perspective seems to assume that. That is the point I was trying to make :)

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne] 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.

Forgive me, but these do not sound like good books! We all have to learn to do what folks over us require, whether we want to or not. So this is an important life skill. And a sinful response to being required to obey does not make it wrong to require obedience.

If I should not make child do something he doesn’t want to because he’ll be angry and later depressed, what does that do with, say, Ephesians 6:1. If children are to obey that means my duty as a parent is to command.

My point is this: Your point is that obedience is always good for a person and good-habiting-forming. I am saying that “obedience” itself is not that. A person can be forming the habit of bitterness and anger inside. It happens a lot actually. Read Ross Campbell, a Christian counsellor/psychologist. He says he’s met so many kids from punitive Christian homes who have debilitating life issues like depresion and anger and passive aggression because of the way they were made to “obey.” Obedience is not the problem, the way it’s enforced is. So i’m just saying that obedience, in and of itself, is not an absolute good, as you are trying to argue here.

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.

But Larry, you realize that each of those things that you mention is an exercise of some sort of authority or sphere of responsibility. Certainly a leader is held to a higher standard; why a learner, which is the opposite of a leader? You haven’t made a connection

It is about opportunity. Certain opportunities requires certain commitments.

The discussion needs to focus on how schools can be coextensive with the church without being the church.

Idon’t think a school should be coextensive with the church. It is a ministry of the church.

For example, schools as schools don’t care about the private morality of their students (unless it’s really scandalous). If a student at University of Michigan files for divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences, UM doesn’t care. A church, however, would care. On what grounds should a Christian school (say university) care about something like that?

Because the Christian school has a different purpose … turning out disciples who love Christ. A school should care about private morality because the world is run by private morals. We make a huge mistake if we think private morals are simply private. They are not.

Character formation takes place all through the life, not just in the classroom. And the school should have a vested interest in the character of its students.

The requirements of a deacon as one with a higher level of opportunity/commitment translates to students of a school?

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

[/quo A deacon is a spiritual leader in a church,

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

Where is the Biblical mandate for school administrations to dictate extra-Biblical rules in the private lives of believers?

But you have already acknowledged that this is okay.

[Aaron Blumer] Whatever the reasons, young Fundamentalists are often eager to cast “man-made rules” in a negative light and to argue from Scripture that these rules are dangerous at best, and downright hostile to Christian growth at worst.

My aim here is to offer a “young Fundamentalist” perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to Scripture and wisdom…

I’m still waiting for someone to define the term ‘young fundamentalist’ :(

Personally, I don’t think that YF’s [of which I claim to be one] are necessarily ‘anti-rule’ as they are anti-rules that they do not seeing as backed up by exegesis and scripture. Someone pointed to this earlier when he talked about the Deuteronomy ‘women cannot wear pants’ rule. Someone else might argue that it’s foolish to ban PG-13 movies on the basis of content when PG movies aren’t all that much better, content wise [if you can find them anymore].

Another, perhaps better, is the concept of tithing. Many a key was pressed in favor of or against tithing when I was at grad school on our internal discussion boards…I was looking over my notes from that a couple of weeks ago. Some of us are convinced that tithing isn’t scriptural and argued vehemently [but politely] that to create a system of mandatory and extrabiblical giving of 10% is basically to create a legalistic method of earning salvation or at least their own personal righteousness before God and others. Some of us simply couldn’t afford to give 10% of a student’s wage [which went straight to our school bills anyway]. And finally some of us heard tithing all the time, were used to it, and defended it because of Malachi 3 and other passages. Yet others defended it because that was what they had been taught and didn’t want to break with the tradition.

The point is that the students/audience of a young fundamentalist gathering want to know/should know the underlying basis for the rules. And it falls upon the administrators and parents to communicate the foundational principles for those things.

To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.

So has the teen in scenario A been helped along in his journey toward Christlikeness? Absolutely. Would it have been better if he did the right thing out of faith and love without a rule? Definitely.

But this is where an important point comes into focus: the truth is, he can act out of faith and love without or with the rule. If he has the necessary faith and love, the rule is useless (1 Tim. 1:9) but harmless. If he lacks the necessary faith and love, the rule is a lifesaver, and those responsible for his care have done him a great service.

What if teen A avoids the party, but spends his entire night bitter because he knows that he is capable of attending the party without drinking, and wants to spend some time with his teammates and friends? Is he any more ‘right’ with God and others because of this? Of course not - his sin of anger and jealously condemns him just as much as breaking the school rule would have. As a matter of fact, the rule now creates a third opening - attend and lie about it.

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.

Nice article.

Are young fundamentalists really against rules? I was not aware of that. I am not sure if I am a young fundamentalist but here’s what I think:

1. We need rules. You can’t function without them.

2. In fundamentalism, there is a tendency to think that the schools with the most rules are the most spiritual. This is not true. Someone once told me that Clearwater Christian College was liberal because they allowed a couple to hold hands and Bob Jones was fundamental because they did not allow this. I was also once told that Baptist College of Ministry was more spiritual than Bob Jones University because they did not allow ladies to wear pants and BJU did in certain circumstances. To me, it is this kind of thinking that is being rejected by young and not-so-young fundamentalists. It is very prominent in fundamental schools.

3. Years ago, a Christian college President told me something that I really appreciated. He told me that the “student is more important than the rule.” So, if he had a young person who committed an offense worthy of being expelled. He would pray, speak with the parents, and even call the Pastor before making a final decision. After seeking after wisdom, this leader told me that there were times, he chose to keep that person in school even through the rule said to expel him. That is the way is should be. This holds the student accountable but it also recognizes the imperfections of leadership and seeks to exalt God, Who makes no mistakes. It can also stifle the “witch hunt” environment that happens from time to time in so many of our schools.

4. Some rule systems leave little room for forgiveness and restoration. This undermines the gospel.

5. Many rule systems, especially in Christian schools and colleges, are plagued with social problems. Certain people are exempt from certain rules while others are not so lucky. Usually, the ones who are exempt are tied to someone in power or someone with money.