Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1
“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.
Points of agreement
I count myself among those who believe any Christian ministry that seeks to grow believers must aim to develop principled and discerning servants of God. Young people (or old ones, for that matter) who merely conform to a slate of rules in order to avoid punishments have not arrived at “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13 NKJV), no matter how wise and comprehensive that slate of rules might be.
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.
But should we conclude that “man-made rules” do not contribute at all to walking in a manner worthy of our calling? Is it accurate to say that rules contribute nothing to sanctification? Should we even believe that they are—as some suggest—inherently dangerous and often hostile to growth in grace?
Argument from the nature of sin
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?
Perhaps some confusion on this point is due to binary thinking about the relationship between the inner man—the heart and mind—and outward behavior. Is it true that a believer either obeys with faith and love or sins? What if he obeys without faith and love or—as is more often the case, obeys with incomplete faith (and understanding) and less than pure love? Is this “sin”? Even if it is, is it no better than the sin the rule is intended to prevent?
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
Many gradations are possible between these levels, and it’s debatable whether “doing right with some evil motive” is doing “right” at all, but this scale illustrates the complexity of the possibilities.
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.
The argument from the nature of sin, then, is this: sin is so damaging that reducing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers. Not sinning is always better than sinning, even when understanding is lacking and love is not the primary motivation.
Argument from the nature of holiness
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.
And let’s not undervalue good habits. Habits are simply choices we make repeatedly until they become so much a part of us they no are longer made consciously. Growth in sanctification consists largely of old habits losing out to new ones (this includes habits of intellect and affections as well as habits of body). This is the Lord’s work in us, but our obedience is required and that obedience is frequently the tool He uses to produce yet more obedience (Phil. 2:12-13).
Admittedly, it is possible to obey a rule—even in the sense of “a generalized application of Scripture” (see below)—and not obey God in the fullest sense. That is, pleasing God could be furthest thing from the complier’s mind. He is not obeying fully because his affections are not God-ward in the act. But even though he is not obeying at the subjective level, he still obeying at the objective level and making a better choice. By doing so, he is getting a taste of clean living whether he wants one or not. I believe these “tastes” are always habit forming to some degree in the life of a regenerate, Spirit-indwelt person.
The argument from the nature of holiness, then, is this: obedience is so helpful that increasing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers even when their faith is incomplete and love is not their primary motivation.
Summary
I’ve argued here that rules in ministry settings (especially schools) are not as dangerous or hostile to growing in grace as many suppose. I’ve done so on the basis of the nature of sin and the nature of obedience. But the case is far from complete. It barely scratches the surface.
In Part 2, I’ll offer an additional argument—this time, from the nature of rules themselves, then address a series of objections, including these:
- If what you’re saying about rules is true, shouldn’t we make as many as possible? (We know that leads to disaster!)
- Doesn’t Jesus’ handling of the Pharisees show that rule-making is inherently hazardous?
- Doesn’t Colossians directly forbid rule making (Col. 2:20-23)?
- Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 13:3 teach that doing good without love is worthless?
(Part 2)
Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia, and served in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.
Wow! This thread took off fast!!
I am among those who have not read through each and every sentence in the thread so far. If my comments have already been addressed… Sorry.
Count me as one of those who really has a problem with “rules for the sake of rules”. But then I come to passages like Romans 12:1-21. A list of 20+ “rules” (depending on how you count them). Rom 13 - Rules. Rom 14 - Rules. 1 Thessalonians 5:11-22, a list of 11 rules.
In answer to the title of the thread: how can “rules” be dangerous when The Giver of every good and perfect gift directed holy men of God to write down lists of rules for us?
My personal opinion: we try to equate spirituality with the fruit that we see.
* Naturally, being apple growers, we expect to see apples. If we don’t see apples, then we are (obviously) not seeing spiritual fruit.
* Then we travel to Georgia, where they grow peaches. They think that apples are altogether NOT spiritual fruit, since they are used to growing peaches.
* Then we run into orange growers in central Florida. Same problem
* And what about those guys who grow corn?
I grew up in a VERY conservative OSF church, and went from there to two VERY conservative OSF educational institutions. “Short hair” on men was an expected evidence of an obedient walk with God.
Today, one of my best friends has been gloriously saved from a “Biker” lifestyle. He still wears long hair, a beard and earrings. He is quite obviously a born again believer in Jesus Christ. We see the evidence in his life, his walk, his talk. By the joy of the Lord in his life, we observe that he is walking obediently with his God. He does not need to cut his hair to make that known to us. It is obvious every time we see him.
Does the illustration make any sense?
I am among those who have not read through each and every sentence in the thread so far. If my comments have already been addressed… Sorry.
[Paul J. Scharf] 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 :)Paul, did you mean that we should focus on the principle first? And then, having understood the principle, get into specifics of what the practice of that principle might look like?
[Matthew 22:35-40] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,In this passage, didn’t Jesus tell us that the principle is to be the basis, and the practice would flow out of that?
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Count me as one of those who really has a problem with “rules for the sake of rules”. But then I come to passages like Romans 12:1-21. A list of 20+ “rules” (depending on how you count them). Rom 13 - Rules. Rom 14 - Rules. 1 Thessalonians 5:11-22, a list of 11 rules.
In answer to the title of the thread: how can “rules” be dangerous when The Giver of every good and perfect gift directed holy men of God to write down lists of rules for us?
My personal opinion: we try to equate spirituality with the fruit that we see.
* Naturally, being apple growers, we expect to see apples. If we don’t see apples, then we are (obviously) not seeing spiritual fruit.
* Then we travel to Georgia, where they grow peaches. They think that apples are altogether NOT spiritual fruit, since they are used to growing peaches.
* Then we run into orange growers in central Florida. Same problem
* And what about those guys who grow corn?
[Romans 12:4-6] For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:Personal example (::SCREECH!:: ANECDOTAL INFORMATION ALERT!! RUN SCREAMING FROM THE ROOM!!!)
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith…
I grew up in a VERY conservative OSF church, and went from there to two VERY conservative OSF educational institutions. “Short hair” on men was an expected evidence of an obedient walk with God.
Today, one of my best friends has been gloriously saved from a “Biker” lifestyle. He still wears long hair, a beard and earrings. He is quite obviously a born again believer in Jesus Christ. We see the evidence in his life, his walk, his talk. By the joy of the Lord in his life, we observe that he is walking obediently with his God. He does not need to cut his hair to make that known to us. It is obvious every time we see him.
Does the illustration make any sense?
Authorities overlap at times, but one can ‘trump’ the other based on Biblical principles.I agree. A parent can trump the school, but that brings some ramifications. I have told people before concerning church, “This is what we believe and practice. This may not be a good place for you.” And I don’t look down on them for choosing to go somewhere else. If a parent trumps the school, the school has the right to say, “We need to part ways.”
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.Perhaps our difference is in the purpose of a Christian school. I view it more as a disciple making ministry in the context of academic education—educating a worldview. The function of educating a worldview involves much more than simply classroom/on premise issues. A worldview is about a life.
A family attending a movie does not affect the school’s ability to educate childrenI disagree entirely. Depending on the movie, it does affect the school’s ability to educate a worldview. I think movies are more subtle than people realize (and I am not against going to movies, necessarily).
… and it is a decision appropriately left to parents, because quite frankly, you can’t enforce it.Actually, you can enforce it the same way you enforce other rules. How can you enforce any rule? How can you enforce rules against cheating? You can’t unless you know about it, and then you enforce it.
Now, I am not saying a school should have a rule about guys and girls being alone. I can’t imagine why a parent wouldn’t (but some don’t). But I am saying there is a direct place in which a school may have a rule that a parent doesn’t. A parent tends to say, “My kid would never do that.” A school is not nearly so jaded about the inherent goodness of a child.
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.I don’t think it’s bizarre. Perhaps inconsistent. It’s not a rule I would have. But bizarre? I don’t think so.
Neither can a school enforce a rule that girls and boys can’t be in the same room together.Who said anything about being in the same room? I said in the house alone. As in latchkey kids. Your questions I think tend towards the absurd, and I reject arguments from the extreme in most cases, though I think it can help to show the validity of a position. What age? Any age, if you understand kids and their inclinations these days. “Alone” means what I said … in the house without parents present.
Again, it’s a matter of wisdom. I don’t think parents should go to bed and leaves their kids up till who knows when. I just don’t think it’s wise or necessary.
I don’t know where to draw the line on all this stuff. I am only marginally involved with a Christian school (as a soccer coach) and I am more than fine with that level of involvement. I don’t want to get into the other aspects of it.
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.Why can’t you outline the parameters? What is confusing about “in the home without parents present”? Perhaps there are some nuances there I am missing, but I think it’s pretty clear.
Employers who penalize employees for breaking the law are within their rights, because the employee has broken the law.But what gives the employer the right to discipline someone for something that has nothing to do with the workplace? If I buy your argument, nothing, it seems to me. With all due respect, I think you are being inconsistent here. Earlier, you argued about teenage drinking, (and I quote you): 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.”
Now you say an employer can penalize and employee, but apparently a school can’t penalize a student under the exact same scenario. And I would argue that a school has more of a vested interest than an employer does. As an employer, why do I care if a worker gets arrested, so long as he shows up and does a good job? As a school, my product is not what a student can do, but what a student is.
Again, I think it is inconsistent on your part.
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.I think schools should be a part of the church. It doesn’t take an act of church discipline to tell a nursery worker that they need to step aside, or a choir member. Why does it take an act of church discipline to tell a school student they need to withdraw? And why doesn’t it take an act of church discipline to enforce rules on being late? Again, I think there is some inconsistency, that you want to relegate certain things to church discipline and other things to school authority. I don’t think that stands well.
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.I don’t think you are reading me right. The point about deacons/SS teachers/nursery workers/etc. deals with the evident reality that some people are held to a higher standard based on opportunity and responsibility and agreement. I don’t suggest that students be held to the same standard as deacons. I don’t think they should. But don’t we recognize that certain opportunities bring certain requirements that others don’t have? When I worked in retail sales, the company expected managers to work 56 hours a week. Everyone understood that management and manager trainee had certain obligations that others did not have. And it wasn’t an issue. Again, that’s part of what I don’t understand.
I coach soccer. We expect the team members to show up for practice, do their running, show up for games. If they don’t, they don’t play on the team. But we don’t enforce that on everyone. Some kids are welcome to go home immediately after school. But if you want to do that, you can’t play on the soccer team. Again, it’s a clear instance where we recognize that certain privileges bring a higher level of commitment and accountability.
But we say it’s okay in lesser things (like soccer practice, being on time to class, etc), but not okay in bigger things (like walls of moral purity, relationships between guys and gals, worldly influences, etc). I don’t get that.
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?Nothing necessarily. A person can attend a church and not be a part of a lot of ministries in the church for various reasons.
Do you believe the church would not pressure the parents or view them as less ‘spiritual’ for not enrolling their kids there?Perhaps, but it need not be so. It may be true; it may not be.
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.I completely agree. And I appreciate the interaction.
Now, I really have to stop this. I actually have a life that doesn’t involve Christian school rules. Someone please make a rule for me … :D
I can’t respond to everything, but a few thoughts may be of value…
One thing I think many are missing: when I talk here about what rules can do, I’m assuming that we’re talking good rules. “Other things being equal” is assumed. I probably should have given that more emphasis. Scripture incorrectly interpreted or applied in rule form can’t help anybody except perhaps from whatever good may arise just from being more disciplined and learning to obey authority. There is value in that, but that’s another subject.
[Quote=Mike Durning] [if] 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? Here’s what I can concede. There are trade offs whenever an authority figure makes the decision rather than the believer himself, if the believer chooses not to reflect on the matter. In reality, an authority saying “don’t do x or you’ll experience penalty y” does not prevent anyone from thinking it through and discerning. You do not have to actually fact the temptation to discern right from wrong. It only takes a little imagination and reflection in applying the Scriptures.
So this is a false disjunction. You can “drag him kicking and screaming” and have a long open discussion.
[Quote=Mike Durning]
[Quote=Mike Durning] Obedience forced is not obedience. … I Peter 1:22 specifies that their obedience was “through the Spirit”. Where is it written that forced obed. is not obedience? As you mentioned earlier, God does appeal to multiple motivations in Scripture. One of them is the fear of His discipline and/or fear of the consequences that flow somewhat naturally from sin. How does that differ form the fear of the penalty a rule may impose? They are all “forced” in the same sense. Bible is not afraid of the fear motive… though it also calls us to a higher one.
[Mike Durning] 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.My whole point is that rules derived from appllications of Scriptural—whenever they are accurate—do not have “little or nothing to do with Scriptural means of discipleship or sanctification.”
One thing I think many are missing: when I talk here about what rules can do, I’m assuming that we’re talking good rules. “Other things being equal” is assumed. I probably should have given that more emphasis. Scripture incorrectly interpreted or applied in rule form can’t help anybody except perhaps from whatever good may arise just from being more disciplined and learning to obey authority. There is value in that, but that’s another subject.
[Quote=Mike Durning] [if] 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? Here’s what I can concede. There are trade offs whenever an authority figure makes the decision rather than the believer himself, if the believer chooses not to reflect on the matter. In reality, an authority saying “don’t do x or you’ll experience penalty y” does not prevent anyone from thinking it through and discerning. You do not have to actually fact the temptation to discern right from wrong. It only takes a little imagination and reflection in applying the Scriptures.
So this is a false disjunction. You can “drag him kicking and screaming” and have a long open discussion.
[Mike Durning]If we’ve done our work well, “man’s applications” are far more than a speculation. That’s a pretty dim view of, say 2 Tim. 2:15 (in which “rightly handling” surely includes applying to life). That our applications are subject to error I believe absolutely but we have no choice but to make these applications if we’re going to live the Book in any meaningful way.[Aaron Blumer] I believe the dynamic between inner man and outward conduct is far from binary (all or nothing) and looks more like this: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.
• 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.
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.
[Mike Durning] 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?Called it a drinking party because that’s what it is, not because that’s what they called it. Sorry, Mike. Absolutely wrong to be there at all. You can responsibly allow a kid to go where they’re behaving like that. I tried to come up with an illustration that would be obvious… I can’t think of a more obvious one yet. But the scenario is hypothetical in order to illustrate that it’s always better to do right than wrong. So suppose, in order to not miss the point, we say the rule is not “don’t go to drinking parties” but rather “don’t drink at drinking parties.” If the rule motivates the lad to abstain, my point is made.
[Mike] 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. ;)I don’t think Jesus was recommending that kids go hang out with other kids who are breaking the law. Verses about that are easy to find as well. :)
[Quote=Mike Durning]
[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.” Actually, the problem of abuse of authority is a separate one. There isn’t anything in my reasoning that says “people in charge have no restraints on them regarding what they do and how they do it when making rules.” No, that problem is solved in other ways and is not related.
[Quote=Mike Durning] Obedience forced is not obedience. … I Peter 1:22 specifies that their obedience was “through the Spirit”. Where is it written that forced obed. is not obedience? As you mentioned earlier, God does appeal to multiple motivations in Scripture. One of them is the fear of His discipline and/or fear of the consequences that flow somewhat naturally from sin. How does that differ form the fear of the penalty a rule may impose? They are all “forced” in the same sense. Bible is not afraid of the fear motive… though it also calls us to a higher one.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Rev Karl] “Paul, did you mean that we should focus on the principle first? And then, having understood the principle, get into specifics of what the practice of that principle might look like?”
Yes, Karl — I would focus on substantive Bible teaching — both as part of the classroom experience, and as a beginning point to dealing with this conundrum as to how to operate a school.
Obviously, some rules are necessary to function. However, rules can quickly become a pseudo-structure to replace either true spiritual integrity or academic excellence.
One sad observation — I have spoken before about my upbringing in a Lutheran grade school. My training there easily gave me at least 10 times the Bible-knowledge base which the average Baptist kid will get from Sunday School, Christian school and AWANA combined.
Thus, at one level, I have a very hard time getting fired up about rules against pants, movies, music, etc. We have moved on to these “weak and beggerly elements,” having left the first things undone.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
However, rules can quickly become a pseudo-structure to replace either true spiritual integrity or academic excellence.Yes, but I think the attitude among some is that they always do this. Rules of all types can be a helpful aid to true spiritual integrity and academic excellence.
My concern is that we seem to be setting these things against one another, as in, “You can’t have a rule about X because then it won’t be heart obedience; it will be rule keeping.”
Larry said: “My concern is that we seem to be setting these things against one another, as in, ‘You can’t have a rule about X because then it won’t be heart obedience; it will be rule keeping.’”
There is a lot of truth in that. If I refrain from attending a movie simply because my school tells me I must, then at best I am “counting the cost” to obey the rule and be part of that school.
If I am counting on this to build me up spiritually, then I am functioning “under law,” not “under grace.”
If I watch the same movie at home on satellite, cable or DVD, then I am a functional hypocrite — at least if I am touting the rule or my ability to keep it — obeying the rule while still getting the value out of the entertainment. I actually heard this defended recently. It was said that watching a movie in one’s own home is OK as long as it is not known publicly.
There is a lot of truth in that. If I refrain from attending a movie simply because my school tells me I must, then at best I am “counting the cost” to obey the rule and be part of that school.
If I am counting on this to build me up spiritually, then I am functioning “under law,” not “under grace.”
If I watch the same movie at home on satellite, cable or DVD, then I am a functional hypocrite — at least if I am touting the rule or my ability to keep it — obeying the rule while still getting the value out of the entertainment. I actually heard this defended recently. It was said that watching a movie in one’s own home is OK as long as it is not known publicly.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Thanks Paul. If I might offer a reply.
It’s okay to do things simply because an authority says to do them, even if we wouldn’t do them otherwise. It’s okay to “count the cost.” It is a wise thing to do.
Consider 1 Thess 4:1-2: You received instruction (supplied in v. 1) or commandments (v. 2) so that you might walk and please God. The point there is that it is impossible to please God apart from these rules. It builds us up spiritually.
The concern of course is when we make rules that are not consistent with the biblical teaching and principles. But the concern of “going beyond” is a legitimate one that must be handled carefully. I share a concern about that, but I am not ready to ditch it just because some people do it wrongly or emphasize it wrongly.
If I refrain from attending a movie simply because my school tells me I must, then at best I am “counting the cost” to obey the rule and be part of that school.Perhaps, but by doing this, you may also be preventing certain temptations and inducements to sin. Again, attending a theater is not a big concern of mine, but that’s the illustration you chose. Furthermore, why is it wrong to count the cost? There are many things that we do because we count the cost. I drive the speed limit because I count the cost. That doesn’t make it wrong to do. Again, I would remind us that the Bible frequently uses threats of punishment to deter certain behaviors.
It’s okay to do things simply because an authority says to do them, even if we wouldn’t do them otherwise. It’s okay to “count the cost.” It is a wise thing to do.
If I am counting on this to build me up spiritually, then I am functioning “under law,” not “under grace.”Not biblically. Being “under the Law” in the Bible had reference to the Mosaic code, not to rules in and of themselves. The NT is clear that there are rules that are helpful for spiritual growth. You can’t violate God’s rules on purity and still be built up spiritually. The rules exist for protection and blessing. When we disobey them, we take ourselves outside the circle of God’s blessing and protection.
Consider 1 Thess 4:1-2: You received instruction (supplied in v. 1) or commandments (v. 2) so that you might walk and please God. The point there is that it is impossible to please God apart from these rules. It builds us up spiritually.
The concern of course is when we make rules that are not consistent with the biblical teaching and principles. But the concern of “going beyond” is a legitimate one that must be handled carefully. I share a concern about that, but I am not ready to ditch it just because some people do it wrongly or emphasize it wrongly.
If I watch the same movie at home on satellite, cable or DVD, then I am a functional hypocrite — at least if I am touting the rule or my ability to keep it — obeying the rule while still getting the value out of the entertainment.No, you’re not, unless there is a rule about watching movies on satellite, cable, or DVD. If the rule is only about location, you are not a hypocrite to partake somewhere else. If the rule is about content, and you don’t do it in one place and do do it in another, you are a hypocrite.
I actually heard this defended recently. It was said that watching a movie in one’s own home is OK as long as it is not known publicly.There is some truth in this. If people do not know, then they are not caused to stumble, or think that they can do it, when in fact they violate their conscience. That is, in fact, part of the thrust of the liberty passages. Don’t flaunt your liberty and cause someone else to stumble. The point is not an absolute prohibition but a love and concern for others.
I am going to have to drop the conversation here.
I think we disagree on some things, while others are more a matter of semantics/implementation, perhaps.
Your post leads into a number of in-depth topics which I do not have time to write on, and probably would best be dealt with in another format: Law of Christ (vs. Law of Moses); using the Bible as law vs. using it as grace; the use of Christian liberty, etc., etc.
(I will note my lack of concession with the idea that it is healthy for us to decry publicly something which we practice privately — then cloak our actions in the texts on Christian liberty. The passages on liberty are not given to promote hypocrisy and “law-keeping” — Gal. 2. One of my favorite jokes, when I am visiting a good-natured Christian home with a satellite dish, is to make a comment about how horrible it would be to allow satellite TV in one’s home — then watch for the reaction on their faces :O )
Let’s just use this as a jumping off point to go get going on some of that substantive Bible teaching!!:D
I think we disagree on some things, while others are more a matter of semantics/implementation, perhaps.
Your post leads into a number of in-depth topics which I do not have time to write on, and probably would best be dealt with in another format: Law of Christ (vs. Law of Moses); using the Bible as law vs. using it as grace; the use of Christian liberty, etc., etc.
(I will note my lack of concession with the idea that it is healthy for us to decry publicly something which we practice privately — then cloak our actions in the texts on Christian liberty. The passages on liberty are not given to promote hypocrisy and “law-keeping” — Gal. 2. One of my favorite jokes, when I am visiting a good-natured Christian home with a satellite dish, is to make a comment about how horrible it would be to allow satellite TV in one’s home — then watch for the reaction on their faces :O )
Let’s just use this as a jumping off point to go get going on some of that substantive Bible teaching!!:D
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Larry] But what gives the employer the right to discipline someone for something that has nothing to do with the workplace? If I buy your argument, nothing, it seems to me. With all due respect, I think you are being inconsistent here. Earlier, you argued about teenage drinking, (and I quote you): 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 see the employer operating on different principles than a school. I don’t expect the workplace, for starters, to operate on Biblical principles. They are going to do what they feel is best for their bottom line, period. If the role of a Christian school is that of a discipleship ministry of sorts, then they should be able to provide a clear Biblical basis for off-campus rules of conduct and the accompanying consequences for violating them. Most employees are adults, while students are minors under their parents’ authority. The workplace is for adults to earn money to provide for their family, the school is for the teaching and training of young people in their formative years. Those are enough differences already for me.
Now you say an employer can penalize and employee, but apparently a school can’t penalize a student under the exact same scenario. And I would argue that a school has more of a vested interest than an employer does. As an employer, why do I care if a worker gets arrested, so long as he shows up and does a good job? As a school, my product is not what a student can do, but what a student is.
Again, I think it is inconsistent on your part.
The reason I see it as unBiblical for a school to pile on more consequences after 1) the parents have dealt with the issue 2) the church has exercised its role is that there is no Scriptural foundation that I can perceive for additional consequences from a school that is supposedly part of the church. A Christian school that doesn’t have restoration in mind along with the rules is dysfunctional. And that means that the rules cannot be applied in a general way, but on an individual basis.
I am such a stick-in-the-mud, by-the-rules kind of person, really. I love structure and boundaries. But I also see the need for authorities to be careful to remain within their purview. As much as I love my pastor, it isn’t his place to decide what’s best for my husband and I, or for our kids. He can counsel and advise, but there are areas that he cannot Biblically enforce rules of conduct that are not clearly outlined in Scripture in our personal lives. For example, I know a guy who has a tendency to get lost. His wife is his co-pilot, or they’d end up in Nebraska just trying to get across town. This upset their pastor, who felt that she was out of place to boss her husband around, which is what he felt she was doing. The husband told him that his wife-as-navigator was one way that she completed him, and it wasn’t his place to harm her testimony by telling the women of the church that she was not a good example of submission. Problems of this nature kept coming up again and again- the pastor felt that girls should learn how to sew by the time they were 12 years old, he wanted all the kids in Sunday School and children’s church (and these parents wanted their kids to sit with them), he didn’t want them to go out of town on weekends because they would miss church- they ended up having to leave.
Take our hypothetical rule of “Thou shalt not leave children who have reached puberty alone with the opposite gender” - when I asked the questions I did, it was for a reason. The school is not supervising the child at the time, the parent is (unlike conduct that takes place on campus where first person witnesses, such as teachers and students, are available). How does the school receive the information that Bobby and Jenny were left alone in the house while Mom went to the store? By hearsay, most likely. And so the ‘school’ (the secretary, the principle, the homeroom teacher?) investigates. My eyes are already rolling into the back of my head. It just gets too ridiculous for me, because I keep picturing Raymond Burr in a wheelchair interrogating the student and parents.
Not every rule leads to tyranny, but I stand by my opinion that extra-Biblical rules of personal conduct cannot be applied fairly and consistently in a church or in a school. We have a code of conduct for elders/bishops/deacons and their families that involves their personal lives. They are obviously viewed as leaders of a sort, given the commission to be examples and to teach others to follow. That is probably what is lacking here- if there were more Godly examples, people who were equipped to mentor and encourage accountability, then fewer rules would be needed because the influence of positive pressure would hold sway more effectively. But we’re lazy, so we have rules. That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.
For clarification- I think a Christian school can be done very well as an arm of the local church, under church authority every step of the way, with the students being children of the membership. Otherwise, I think you’re askin’ for bag full of angry bumblebees.
“This upset their pastor, who felt that she was out of place to boss her husband around, which is what he felt she was doing. The husband told him that his wife-as-navigator was one way that she completed him, and it wasn’t his place to harm her testimony by telling the women of the church that she was not a good example of submission. Problems of this nature kept coming up again and again- the pastor felt that girls should learn how to sew by the time they were 12 years old, he wanted all the kids in Sunday School and children’s church (and these parents wanted their kids to sit with them), he didn’t want them to go out of town on weekends because they would miss church- they ended up having to leave.”
Susan, I could not help but react to this.
You are kidding, right?
Just curious — did the pastor wear a long white robe and have a large golden ring?? :cry:
Susan, I could not help but react to this.
You are kidding, right?
Just curious — did the pastor wear a long white robe and have a large golden ring?? :cry:
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I will note my lack of concession with the idea that it is healthy for us to decry publicly something which we practice privately — then cloak our actions in the texts on Christian liberty.I said I would drop a long time ago, and didn’t manage to get it done … :D … But I will note, for the record, that I never said anything about decrying something publicly which we practice privately. My comments were about doing something publicly vs doing something privately. If you decry something publicly and then do it privately, you are a hypocrite. That was not what I understood the situation to be.
As an example, I have no problem going into a bar or a restaurant with a bar to eat. But certain people do. And so when I am with those people, I don’t do it. I won’t ask them to go. That doesn’t make me a hypocrite. It is an act of Christian love to restrain my liberty around others who do not share my liberty.
Thanks again for the gracious interaction.
Thanks for the clarification.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I see the employer operating on different principles than a school. I don’t expect the workplace, for starters, to operate on Biblical principles.I do. The expectations of ethics and morality are the same whether one is a believer or not. But I realize that most do not. BTW, the law agrees with me. They expect employers to be honest, fair, judicious in their dealings. And they punish them when they aren’t.
However, what it seems you are saying, in effect, is that a secular employer can have a higher standard than a Christian school. Again, I don’t want to misunderstand and I should probably just shut up (do you get detention for telling yourself to shut up?), but this really confuses me.
If the role of a Christian school is that of a discipleship ministry of sorts, then they should be able to provide a clear Biblical basis for off-campus rules of conduct and the accompanying consequences for violating them.I don’t have a problem with that. I agree. Provide biblical basis and teach the heart.
The workplace is for adults to earn money to provide for their family, the school is for the teaching and training of young people in their formative years. Those are enough differences already for me.Doesn’t that make the school actually more important than the workplace? After the formative years (including school) are what produce the worker in the workplace.
The reason I see it as unBiblical for a school to pile on more consequences after 1) the parents have dealt with the issue 2) the church has exercised its role is that there is no Scriptural foundation that I can perceive for additional consequences from a school that is supposedly part of the church.So let me ask you: If an eleventh-grader goes out and gets pregnant, and then repents, what should the Christian school do?
A Christian school that doesn’t have restoration in mind along with the rules is dysfunctional.So why does restoration mean having no consequences for behavior?
This upset their pastor, who felt that she was out of place to boss her husband around, which is what he felt she was doing.Well, that’s just stupid.
The school is not supervising the child at the time, the parent is (unlike conduct that takes place on campus where first person witnesses, such as teachers and students, are available).But does the school have a vested interest in helping a student maintain moral purity? I think they do because it is a part of Christian discipleship.
How does the school receive the information that Bobby and Jenny were left alone in the house while Mom went to the store? By hearsay, most likely. And so the ‘school’ (the secretary, the principle, the homeroom teacher?) investigates.Of course. Do you want them not to investigate? What if the parents don’t know it? And the school does nothing and then the daughter turns up pregnant, and the parents are surprised, and now the school is implicated because they knew or suspected and did nothing because “It wasn’t my time to watch them.” And the parents say, “Why didn’t you tell us?” And the principal says, “Because it wasn’t our time to watch them.”
Don’t you see the problem there?
Or what if the parent says, “I don’t have any problem with them being there alone and making out so long as they don’t consummate it.” Can the school then say something? Where does it stop? Do you really believe that the moment the child walks across the property line that the school has no interest anymore? What if a very visible athlete for the school is found in a local arcade cussing and causing problems? Should the school just ignore it? Or what if he steps across the property line and turns around and starts yelling at a teacher and cussing them out? They aren’t on school property and school is over so they are under the jurisdiction of the parents. And what if the parents agree with the child that the teacher being cussed out was unreasonable? Does the school say, “Fine, no problem. It’s your time to watch them. See ya tomorrow”? I can’t imagine you think that this is that cut and dried, and that the school has no legitimate interest in these types of things.
I think the school has a legitimate interest. Just as in the church proper, the interest doesn’t stop when the person leaves the property.
Not every rule leads to tyranny, but I stand by my opinion that extra-Biblical rules of personal conduct cannot be applied fairly and consistently in a church or in a school.But why?
But we’re lazy, so we have rules.Could be. Could also be that we are sinners, and we underestimate the sin issue in our lives.
For clarification- I think a Christian school can be done very well as an arm of the local church, under church authority every step of the way, with the students being children of the membership.I agree generally, though I wouldn’t necessarily require students to be members of that church, but of a church of “like faith and practice.” Otherwise, consider the case of a pastor of a small church who has kids that he wants to put in the school, but he can’t because he can’t be a member of that church. And what about his deacons who say, “Pastor, I can’t serve here any more because I want to put my kids over there and I have to join there to do it.” Lots of consequences that I am not ready to embrace.
Otherwise, I think you’re askin’ for bag full of angry bumblebees.Even in your scenario you still have the same bag.
Anyway, I need to stop here. (Didn’t I say that already???)
It may help (or not) to note the following…
The aim of Part 1 is not to say that all rules should or even can aid in the spiritual growth of a believer. Nor am I suggesting that rule-making never goes wrong or that those making rules always have the right motives or always fully understand the situations they are attempting to regulate or always understand Scripture correctly, etc. So examples of rules abuses, wrong-headed rules, ineffective rules, abusive rules etc. really don’t argue against what I’m saying… they’re pretty much irrelevant.
The question in part 1 is whether rules can or ever do contribute to the sanctification process even whenp they are “extrabibilcal” or “derived” or whatever term you want to use for applying Scripture to life as part of the bigger question: should be quite so down on rules in general? (The “bigger question” is intentionally vague because I’m responding to a vague impression that most YF’s have overly negative general mood when it comes to rules)
The aim of Part 2 is to offer one more argument for viewing rules a bit more positively, and then I deal w/objections. So some of the objections some have raised here will be answered there… though many of the “counterarguments” I’ve seen in the thread do not really speak to my point one way or the other.
Part 2 posts tomorrow, Lord willing.
The aim of Part 1 is not to say that all rules should or even can aid in the spiritual growth of a believer. Nor am I suggesting that rule-making never goes wrong or that those making rules always have the right motives or always fully understand the situations they are attempting to regulate or always understand Scripture correctly, etc. So examples of rules abuses, wrong-headed rules, ineffective rules, abusive rules etc. really don’t argue against what I’m saying… they’re pretty much irrelevant.
The question in part 1 is whether rules can or ever do contribute to the sanctification process even whenp they are “extrabibilcal” or “derived” or whatever term you want to use for applying Scripture to life as part of the bigger question: should be quite so down on rules in general? (The “bigger question” is intentionally vague because I’m responding to a vague impression that most YF’s have overly negative general mood when it comes to rules)
The aim of Part 2 is to offer one more argument for viewing rules a bit more positively, and then I deal w/objections. So some of the objections some have raised here will be answered there… though many of the “counterarguments” I’ve seen in the thread do not really speak to my point one way or the other.
Part 2 posts tomorrow, Lord willing.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I said before that I love rules, and I really do. But what I don’t love is authorities overstepping their bounds, whether it’s a church, a school, or a gov’t doing it.
But if the focus of this thread is supposed to be about the contribution to sanctification that rules can provide… my first thought is 1 Timothy 1:9. The law is for the lawless, because the mature and conscientious man will not engage in behavior that is harmful to himself or others. IOW, if there were no speed limit on the roads, the wise and prudent will still drive a reasonable speed on highways, in residential neighborhoods, rural roads… because they understand that their desire to get someplace fast is not worth risking an accident or mowing over some poor kid. The speed limit is for those who couldn’t care less about others and don’t have a big enough dose of risk aversion in their psyche to be a careful driver. Hopefully the law keeps most of them from being completely stupid, and if they do break the law, there are consequences that one hopes will at least make them think twice the next time. Or maybe the 55mph speed limit keeps them down to 75mph when if there were no limit they’d be driving 120mph. In any case, lives can be saved by the presence and enforcement of speed limits. I’ve heard it said that all a locked door does is keep honest men honest. I didn’t understand it at first, but I do now, and believe it wholeheartedly.
Boundaries serve two purposes- to keep some things in and other things out. They are necessary and healthy in every area of life. I think they can sometimes contribute to keeping someone out of trouble until they reach a level of maturity where they can fully understand the reason for those rules and the implications of violating them. I will walk down the road with you that far- but I won’t hold hands. :p
I cain’t help it though- when we start talking about rules, I’m instantly thinking ‘authority’ and ‘consequences’. That leads me back to spheres of authority, and what, in a sense, is the appropriate ‘chain of command’. Which comes back to husbands/wives, parents/children, masters/servants, church/congregation, gov’t/citizens. These often overlap, but IMO there is a serious problem when one has to ‘take over’ from the other because someone feels another isn’t meeting their personal standard of spiritual growth or holiness.
I’ve learned alot about rules and restrictions with my firstborn, who is now 21 and serving in Iraq. I can see where rules without relationship confused him, where inconsistencies were a vexation, where the negativity was a discouragement, and restrictions quenched his spirit. Been there, done that, and looking for a better balance now. This discussion has given me alot to think about, and I feel privileged to be part of this forum.
But if the focus of this thread is supposed to be about the contribution to sanctification that rules can provide… my first thought is 1 Timothy 1:9. The law is for the lawless, because the mature and conscientious man will not engage in behavior that is harmful to himself or others. IOW, if there were no speed limit on the roads, the wise and prudent will still drive a reasonable speed on highways, in residential neighborhoods, rural roads… because they understand that their desire to get someplace fast is not worth risking an accident or mowing over some poor kid. The speed limit is for those who couldn’t care less about others and don’t have a big enough dose of risk aversion in their psyche to be a careful driver. Hopefully the law keeps most of them from being completely stupid, and if they do break the law, there are consequences that one hopes will at least make them think twice the next time. Or maybe the 55mph speed limit keeps them down to 75mph when if there were no limit they’d be driving 120mph. In any case, lives can be saved by the presence and enforcement of speed limits. I’ve heard it said that all a locked door does is keep honest men honest. I didn’t understand it at first, but I do now, and believe it wholeheartedly.
Boundaries serve two purposes- to keep some things in and other things out. They are necessary and healthy in every area of life. I think they can sometimes contribute to keeping someone out of trouble until they reach a level of maturity where they can fully understand the reason for those rules and the implications of violating them. I will walk down the road with you that far- but I won’t hold hands. :p
I cain’t help it though- when we start talking about rules, I’m instantly thinking ‘authority’ and ‘consequences’. That leads me back to spheres of authority, and what, in a sense, is the appropriate ‘chain of command’. Which comes back to husbands/wives, parents/children, masters/servants, church/congregation, gov’t/citizens. These often overlap, but IMO there is a serious problem when one has to ‘take over’ from the other because someone feels another isn’t meeting their personal standard of spiritual growth or holiness.
I’ve learned alot about rules and restrictions with my firstborn, who is now 21 and serving in Iraq. I can see where rules without relationship confused him, where inconsistencies were a vexation, where the negativity was a discouragement, and restrictions quenched his spirit. Been there, done that, and looking for a better balance now. This discussion has given me alot to think about, and I feel privileged to be part of this forum.
I would like to comment on the discussion but the rules governing comments on this blog prohibit me. Just kidding! However, I do find it ironic that the forum containing our discussion of rules actually has rules, and those rules are both funtional (don’t start something you don’t intend to follow) and moral/ethical (doctrinal agreement, avoiding obscenity, etc.). How can it be that an educational tool such as this forum dares to overstep its boundaries and legislate morality in my life? Maybe we all submit to these rules only to be “more spiritual” and we are unknowingly legalists! Or is it perhaps that we accept certain rules because those rules govern our shared relationship on this forum? In order to have a discussion among people broadly “of the same mind” we submit to both functional and moral rules so that we might have an environment beneficial for our shared interest. Some might debate, for example, what words are obscene (e.g., slang, etc.), but they willingly submit to the rules to participate in the environment the blog is seeking to establish for open, but clean discussion.
I believe it is important to note in this discussion that Christian education is not simply private education. Christian education is founded upon the principle that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 3:2-3). Therefore, to entertain any subject matter apart from its relationship to Christ is to understand it incorrectly. By its very Christ-centered foundations it is impossible for those involved in Christian education to educate solely on non-moral grounds. A Christian cannot so divide himself from Christ in any arena of life. If our eating and drinking (oops don’t go there) have moral value (1 Cor. 10:31), then how can we exempt Christian education from the moral realm as some seem want to do?
Or stated another way, are functional rules really exempt from moral value? Is being late to class (without proper reason of course), talking out of turn, throwing items in class, mocking the teacher, turning in late work, etc. a functional education matter alone? Or do these things also reflect a selfish, self-centered heart (morally speaking)? Because these behaviors are reflective of moral choices should we allow rules against them? Isn’t it possible that someone who obeys all the “functional” rules can become equally self-righteous in faithfully being on time, listening well, turning homework in on time, etc. My point is that we might easily make a distinction between “functional” rules and “moral” rules, but such a distinction is not always possible. So what is one to do? Should we throw out all rules and be fully antinomian?
It seems we would be better served by understanding the purpose of rules within the educational setting. These rules, both functional and moral, provide the parameters for shared participation in an environment that people find conducive to their God-given responsibilities to educate their children from a God-centered and Christ-centered perspective. Just as someone who finds the comments policy of this forum too restrictive does not have to join this forum to be involved in the discussion of Christian matters, so also Christian parents do not have to send their children to a particular Christian school whose rules they find to be “over the top.” If you want a Christian school where you simply have a private education (i.e., moral matters a rarely discussed), you can certainly find more than one near you! Go to that school. However, some believing parents want an environment in which the moral values taught at home are not undercut by classmates whose families don’t share those same moral values. Such families will naturally gravitate to schools that share their moral applications of Scripture. This does not mean, however, that the family and the school are relying on the rules to sanctify their children. For example, if I believe in total abstinence from alcohol (and I do) and teach that in my home (and I do) does that necessitate that I am relying on “rules” to sanctify my children? Or is it possible that I am seeking to apply biblical principle to the practice of life (usually called wisdom) in seeking to bring my children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord? Is it necessarily wrong, then, for me as a parent to seek an educational environment which supports my moral values as it relates to alcohol? The very presence of the school’s rule concerning total abstinence does not necessarily mean that someone is totally righteous if they abstain, but it is a non sequitur to suggest that the presence of the moral rule implies that the school is trying to sanctify by means of moral rules. It can be that I have Scriptural and moral reservations about drinking, movies, rock music, physical sexual contact among the unmarried, certain styles of dress, etc., and I find it helpful for my children to be in an environment that shares those same moral reservations as they are educated. I also can be that I and the school do not believe that the moral rules in said areas are what is going to produce sanctification. It simply does not follow that “extra-biblical” rules in these areas equates to legalism.
On a final note, I think there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here. IOW just because there can be (and have been) excesses in regards to rules and self-righteousness does not mean that “extra-biblical” rules are inherently evil and should be forever abandoned. There is a danger of gluttony every time you sit down to eat, but I seriously doubt most have written off eating all together. One must guard against the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction when responding to extremes on the other side of a matter. It would be ironic indeed if we begin to feel “righteous” ourselves because of our “no extra-biblical rules” rule.
I believe it is important to note in this discussion that Christian education is not simply private education. Christian education is founded upon the principle that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 3:2-3). Therefore, to entertain any subject matter apart from its relationship to Christ is to understand it incorrectly. By its very Christ-centered foundations it is impossible for those involved in Christian education to educate solely on non-moral grounds. A Christian cannot so divide himself from Christ in any arena of life. If our eating and drinking (oops don’t go there) have moral value (1 Cor. 10:31), then how can we exempt Christian education from the moral realm as some seem want to do?
Or stated another way, are functional rules really exempt from moral value? Is being late to class (without proper reason of course), talking out of turn, throwing items in class, mocking the teacher, turning in late work, etc. a functional education matter alone? Or do these things also reflect a selfish, self-centered heart (morally speaking)? Because these behaviors are reflective of moral choices should we allow rules against them? Isn’t it possible that someone who obeys all the “functional” rules can become equally self-righteous in faithfully being on time, listening well, turning homework in on time, etc. My point is that we might easily make a distinction between “functional” rules and “moral” rules, but such a distinction is not always possible. So what is one to do? Should we throw out all rules and be fully antinomian?
It seems we would be better served by understanding the purpose of rules within the educational setting. These rules, both functional and moral, provide the parameters for shared participation in an environment that people find conducive to their God-given responsibilities to educate their children from a God-centered and Christ-centered perspective. Just as someone who finds the comments policy of this forum too restrictive does not have to join this forum to be involved in the discussion of Christian matters, so also Christian parents do not have to send their children to a particular Christian school whose rules they find to be “over the top.” If you want a Christian school where you simply have a private education (i.e., moral matters a rarely discussed), you can certainly find more than one near you! Go to that school. However, some believing parents want an environment in which the moral values taught at home are not undercut by classmates whose families don’t share those same moral values. Such families will naturally gravitate to schools that share their moral applications of Scripture. This does not mean, however, that the family and the school are relying on the rules to sanctify their children. For example, if I believe in total abstinence from alcohol (and I do) and teach that in my home (and I do) does that necessitate that I am relying on “rules” to sanctify my children? Or is it possible that I am seeking to apply biblical principle to the practice of life (usually called wisdom) in seeking to bring my children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord? Is it necessarily wrong, then, for me as a parent to seek an educational environment which supports my moral values as it relates to alcohol? The very presence of the school’s rule concerning total abstinence does not necessarily mean that someone is totally righteous if they abstain, but it is a non sequitur to suggest that the presence of the moral rule implies that the school is trying to sanctify by means of moral rules. It can be that I have Scriptural and moral reservations about drinking, movies, rock music, physical sexual contact among the unmarried, certain styles of dress, etc., and I find it helpful for my children to be in an environment that shares those same moral reservations as they are educated. I also can be that I and the school do not believe that the moral rules in said areas are what is going to produce sanctification. It simply does not follow that “extra-biblical” rules in these areas equates to legalism.
On a final note, I think there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here. IOW just because there can be (and have been) excesses in regards to rules and self-righteousness does not mean that “extra-biblical” rules are inherently evil and should be forever abandoned. There is a danger of gluttony every time you sit down to eat, but I seriously doubt most have written off eating all together. One must guard against the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction when responding to extremes on the other side of a matter. It would be ironic indeed if we begin to feel “righteous” ourselves because of our “no extra-biblical rules” rule.
[timbdavis] I would like to comment on the discussion but the rules governing comments on this blog prohibit me. Just kidding! However, I do find it ironic that the forum containing our discussion of rules actually has rules, and those rules are both funtional (don’t start something you don’t intend to follow) and moral/ethical (doctrinal agreement, avoiding obscenity, etc.). How can it be that an educational tool such as this forum dares to overstep its boundaries and legislate morality in my life? Maybe we all submit to these rules only to be “more spiritual” and we are unknowingly legalists! Or is it perhaps that we accept certain rules because those rules govern our shared relationship on this forum? In order to have a discussion among people broadly “of the same mind” we submit to both functional and moral rules so that we might have an environment beneficial for our shared interest. Some might debate, for example, what words are obscene (e.g., slang, etc.), but they willingly submit to the rules to participate in the environment the blog is seeking to establish for open, but clean discussion.An accurate correlation would be if the forum policies included such rules as not being allowed to use obscenities in your home. If we get a report that you cussed at the neighbor’s dog or while fixing your lawnmower, we will send our illustrious Forums Director Jim Peet to question your wife and kids, and if they corroborate the report, you can be banned.
Is it wrong to use obscenities and euphemisms? Some who participate here would probably say it’s not prudent, but that it isn’t sin because the meaning of words changes over time…- that’s definitely another thread. But how many here would continue to post if the forum membership policies included rules governing behavior and belief while not actually participating in the forum? What if we had a dress code? Specified that no member can ever watch a PG-13 or R-rated movie, or read books that contained profanities/obscenities or sexual situations? Jim would be a very busy guy.
The idea of a shared interest is probably why many parents send their kids to Christian schools with strict regulations. They want a place where their rules are everyone’s rules. That’s fine and dandy, and understandable, but I don’t believe one can call it a Biblical mandate for schools to govern behavior in the home.
[timbdavis] I would like to comment on the discussion but the rules governing comments on this blog prohibit me. Just kidding! However, I do find it ironic that the forum containing our discussion of rules actually has rules, and those rules are both funtional (don’t start something you don’t intend to follow) and moral/ethical (doctrinal agreement, avoiding obscenity, etc.). How can it be that an educational tool such as this forum dares to overstep its boundaries and legislate morality in my life? Maybe we all submit to these rules only to be “more spiritual” and we are unknowingly legalists! Or is it perhaps that we accept certain rules because those rules govern our shared relationship on this forum? In order to have a discussion among people broadly “of the same mind” we submit to both functional and moral rules so that we might have an environment beneficial for our shared interest. Some might debate, for example, what words are obscene (e.g., slang, etc.), but they willingly submit to the rules to participate in the environment the blog is seeking to establish for open, but clean discussion…No-one is disputing the functional versus moral nature of rules. They even overlap at times; no problem there, either.
As many posts have already well said, I too think the perceived negativity that young fundamentalists (myself included) may be displaying toward rules certainly is not that you cannot make rules of a moral nature over your constituents or members of your community; the negativity is toward the whole package as it is commonly thrust together and all tied up with a pretty bow on top — sphere of jurisdiction, authority structures, enforcement, discipline, restoration, etc. The fact that any one or all of these could be given precedence over the relationship or the case in question is unfortunate; and yes, a case could be made for throwing out a particular rule and giving more weight to another approach that might conceivably produce a better “product” (even if there is some “risk” involved). The fear is that a biblical balance is lost when the whole “rules package” is plonked on the scale and it outweighs concerns over the individual and the actual circumstances in question.
Tim, I do not see the ironies that you allege; let me elaborate: This forum (and this page on your browser in front of you) is analogous to the classroom/school property/school activity. Certainly, moral rules would apply to these spheres. Unquestionably, I must watch my behavior and abide by certain terms and conditions if I want to post here. However, I don’t think the T&Cs have anything to say, nor should, about my private sphere — even if it was concurrent with my activity here (I guess I better read the T&C again :) just in case). Specifically, I don’t think SI can or should dictate whether or not I have my computer in my office or in my bedroom, nor whether I am posting this right now while in my pajamas or fully-clothed.
OK, let’s take a more “public” example than the above, one which could conceivably involve a testimony issue for myself or SI:
What if an SI rule (again, maybe I better check) forbade posts to link to YouTube? However useful and innocuous I myself found YouTube to be in general, I would very happily abide by that rule and not create a link in one of my posts to a YouTube video. No problem. I could quite happily try and make my point without it. Why? Because no matter how much the policy pertained to moral issues (whether or not YouTube is acceptable for Christians), and no matter how much I agreed or disagreed, the policy is limited to jurisdiction of SI: it’s their site, SI can enforce it, I want to come here so that’s the way it is, etc.
Now, what if SI said, “our members shall not visit a porn site; ever, no how, no way, for any reason whatsoever? immediate banning is the result, and all members must sign”? Again, no problem. Maybe it’s a little outside their jurisdiction/field/authority and unforceable (SI is not my spouse, my local church, my school or my employer), but again, that’s fine. Why? because it is unarguably a clear application of scripture that absolutely no-one would argue with; it’s immoral in and of itself, even if it isn’t illegal. (Though this still doesn’t take into account individual cases where someone with a pornography problem may be receiving counseling from his local church and may be in the process of restoration).
But, but what if SI said, “we forbid you to post a link to YouTube anywhere on the internet while you are a registered member of SI”? “In fact, if we discover that you have even visited YouTube you will be banned.”
Now, I have three choices:
1) demur to “authority” and comply. And while not agreeing in my heart, I could “place myself under the authority of SI” and this could be an admirable, even a “beneficial” thing for me. I could practice humility; I could even grow through my interaction with others here; and maybe I could even contribute to a fellow-SIer’s growth. Wonderful. [Maybe some would call it an “agreement” rather than “under authority”; but, not to be nitpicky, when it gets right down to it and as others have posted, if it is a “requirement”, then someone is taking the authority to set that requirement.]
2) I could be dishonest, use YouTube anyway, and hope that I wasn’t found out (though Google can be far more effective than prying neighbours as far as my posting of YouTube links goes).
3) I could just say, “Thanks guys, much as I enjoy being part of the SI community, much as I can see some benefit from it, it’s just not for me right now. I will continue to read the posts and benefit from it, but I will decline to be a registered member.”
Frankly, after little thought (afterall I am framing this little scenario) I would likely do #3. That could sound quite shocking. The reasoning from anyone shocked by this revelation might go something like this:
“What’s wrong with #1? Why do you have authority issues? Don’t you like rules? Why are you throwing the baby out with the bath water? Does not visiting YouTube just completely pale in comparison to interaction and fellowship with fellow Christians on SI? What’s YouTube? Overall, it’s worthless, worldly junk that you would do well to rid from your life. What good could possibly come from any association with YouTube? Hey, we are doing you a favor by forbidding it; at the least we are keeping you from the possibility of seeing something you shouldn’t be seeing” [nevermind that I have a computer with internet access]. “Well, all things considered”, they might say, “perhaps you really shouldn’t be a member here in the first place; we don’t think we should discuss this anymore; it’s in our handbook. Hey, it’s just business; we do acknowledge that there are good instructional videos on YouTube, home videos shared by family members, sermons, etc. Hey, we sure acknowledge the good; it’s just that our consensus at SI is that there is far more bad there than good; it’s of the world, and, you know, we just think you shouldn’t have anything to do with it; hey, you’ll see, you’ll thank us for this one day. Well, goodbye then.”
Luckily, consideration of the choices on this particular analogy is far less weighty than if I were choosing a school for my children. Evenso, I might have to say, “I’m sorry, much as I would love the SI interaction in my life [the schooling] , there are other forums [other schools]. There are other ways to interact with Christians and other ways to spend my time, not least of which is with my own church [home schooling?].
That doesn’t mean I don’t protect my children and fail to provide any rules at all. It just means that I take good, reasonable precautions and play an active, relational part in it: I don’t ban them from being on the internet completely; I block certain IPs, restrict their computer usage, discuss things with them, and generally keep an eye on them.
But sadly, were I to forego the fair company of all the fine folk here, the question would not even be for me, “do I value YouTube more than SI?” There is no question that SI has more moral value. There is no question that I am “safer” on the SI site than on YouTube. There is no question that I could miss out on some things by withdrawing from SI.
What, then, is the issue? Do I really have problems with authority (of course I am not a school student who is a minor, but these issues are often cast in the same light)? If I were to go along with the “pro-rules” people on this, I might start to wonder about myself (don’t worry, I constantly do the Fundamental thing and wonder about myself all the time). Am I against rules in general? Maybe I should just get my heart right and say “why not, I’ll make the pledge and give up YouTube; it’ll be good for me to set a high standard and stick to it.” But making that pledge just wouldn’t sit well.
Rather, no matter how good the arguments of the “pro-rules” people sound, I am left wondering if the YouTube rule is a good rule in this instance and for this community. I am left wondering if the community’s definition of “sharpening” is being confused with “leave it in the drawer”. The rule is overreaching, and on balance it is an unwise rule (for all kinds of reasons including sphere, authority, enforcement, discipline and flexibility). Is there any real benefit in having it, or does it mostly serve to make members of the community appear more like those who framed the rule?
To be frank, I am disturbed by your view of sin and sanctification, Aaron.
I think you’ve confused the idea of sin with the symptoms of sin.
This leads to a separate, but related question: is there a Biblical basis for preventing the harmful effects of sin? I’m open to correction, but I doubt it. I see the goal of the gospel as the reconciliation of sinners with the Savior, not the avoidance of the bad consequences of the Fall. I hope that our preoccupation with keeping our kids from “scarring their lives” does not keep our children from seeing the depth of their sin and their need of Christ. Do we run the risk of so sanitizing our kids’ lives that they do not deeply feel their desperate need for salvation? A passive, cultural Christian is worse off than a believer who hits bottom before clinging to Christ like a dying man or woman.
[Aaron]Isn’t sin “missing the mark” of Christ’s righteousness? This is an all or nothing proposition. Either we perform up to the standard of Christ’s righteousness (which is impossible except for the grace of God) or we do not. I do not see any “gradation” in this idea. So any given action or thought is either righteous or unrighteous. This is not an archery competition in which you earn more points the closer you are to the bullseye.
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
Many gradations are possible between these levels, and it’s debatable whether “doing right with some evil motive” is doing “right” at all, but this scale illustrates the complexity of the possibilities.
I think you’ve confused the idea of sin with the symptoms of sin.
[Aaron] The argument from the nature of sin, then, is this: sin is so damaging that reducing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers. Not sinning is always better than sinning, even when understanding is lacking and love is not the primary motivation.What you reduce with rules (in theory) is the harmful effects of sin, not sin itself. The person who avoids a bad choice for the wrong reasons is still missing the mark of Christ’s righteousness. They have committed a sin no less than the person who makes the bad choice. All that has been avoided are some of the external, harmful effects of sin.
This leads to a separate, but related question: is there a Biblical basis for preventing the harmful effects of sin? I’m open to correction, but I doubt it. I see the goal of the gospel as the reconciliation of sinners with the Savior, not the avoidance of the bad consequences of the Fall. I hope that our preoccupation with keeping our kids from “scarring their lives” does not keep our children from seeing the depth of their sin and their need of Christ. Do we run the risk of so sanitizing our kids’ lives that they do not deeply feel their desperate need for salvation? A passive, cultural Christian is worse off than a believer who hits bottom before clinging to Christ like a dying man or woman.
[Tim, I do not see the ironies that you allege; let me elaborate: Rrobinson,
I guess I need to clarify my point. Thank you for your discussion of YouTube, but all of that seems to miss the overall discussion of extra biblical rules and sanctification. IMO the discussion to this point has been that extra-biblical rules are necessarily a hindrance to sanctification in the Christian school because we are relying on said rules. However, just because some rules are not well thought out and some people over emphasize extra-biblical rules it does not follow that all extra-biblical rules are wrong and that those who may choose a school that has said rules are seeking to develop flawed views of sanctification. Each side in the debate can come up with their own appropriate use and abuse of extra-biblical rules, and since this is the case we should probably not absolutize a position against extra-biblical rules in the Christian school. The irony is in the fact that you can’t get away from extra-biblical rules (as Sharper Iron illustrates) and if you try to you end up making an extra-biblical rule yourself by abolishing as ungodly any extra-biblical rule. The temptation is that I can feel good and right holding to my 1 rule that trumps all others.
I guess I need to clarify my point. Thank you for your discussion of YouTube, but all of that seems to miss the overall discussion of extra biblical rules and sanctification. IMO the discussion to this point has been that extra-biblical rules are necessarily a hindrance to sanctification in the Christian school because we are relying on said rules. However, just because some rules are not well thought out and some people over emphasize extra-biblical rules it does not follow that all extra-biblical rules are wrong and that those who may choose a school that has said rules are seeking to develop flawed views of sanctification. Each side in the debate can come up with their own appropriate use and abuse of extra-biblical rules, and since this is the case we should probably not absolutize a position against extra-biblical rules in the Christian school. The irony is in the fact that you can’t get away from extra-biblical rules (as Sharper Iron illustrates) and if you try to you end up making an extra-biblical rule yourself by abolishing as ungodly any extra-biblical rule. The temptation is that I can feel good and right holding to my 1 rule that trumps all others.
[Paul Matzko] Isn’t sin “missing the mark” of Christ’s righteousness? This is an all or nothing proposition. Either we perform up to the standard of Christ’s righteousness (which is impossible except for the grace of God) or we do not. I do not see any “gradation” in this idea. So any given action or thought is either righteous or unrighteous. This is not an archery competition in which you earn more points the closer you are to the bullseye.Sanctification is a huge topic, but I think it’s not really hard to prove that missing the mark is not an all or nothing situation. Jesus Himself said there were weightier matters in the Law. In Matt.23 He rebukes the Pharisees for tithing their spices and paying no attention to justice, mercy, etc. He says they should have tithed their spices without neglecting the weighter matters.
His statements presuppose a scale of possibilities… worst: neglect weightier matters and tithing spices, too. Still bad: tithe spices and neglect the weightier matters. Best: tithe but also take the weightier matters seriously.
Of course, these guys weren’t even believers but if “right and wrong” exist in gradations, I don’t have any reason to believe that changes when you become a believer.
We could play “which is better?” all day to illustrate that these gradations exist. Here’s one I came up w/when I was writing Part 1 and anticipating objections…
I see an old lady who needs help crossing a busy street. Which is better…
1) Help her across because I know she’s rich and she might include me in her will
2) Help her across because I know this would please my Lord and exhibit His character in a visible way
3) Let her fend for herself
Does anyone really want to say that option 3 is better than option 1?
It’s true, I guess, that only option two is obedience to Christ and all others are disobedience. In that sense we have a binary situation. But sinners in the process of being made like Christ, would still be better choosing 1 than 3. For one, it’s objectively loving your neighbor. (We tend to sentimentalize love these days. An act can be “loving” because of what it does apart from what is intended—i.e., how we feel about it). For another, doing the right thing even reluctantly or with base motives often awakens something in a believer’s heart. Yes I’m arguing from experience here rather than chapter and verse, but I think the latter could be found. Anyway, who hasn’t done something right only to discover mid-act, with sudden shame, that he is finding great pleasure in doing this and conscious of pleasing His lord but that he began the act with only “let’s get this over with” as motivation?
Happens to me all the time. I don’t think I’m incriminating myself.
No, I deeply believe that God has created a moral universe and that doing “right” (objectively speaking here) always impacts both the doer and those involved as object or involved in other ways. For a believer, this “impact” is especially important.
Edit: Tim… much appreciate your observations in #66.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think framing this discussion with the idea of rules for a Christian school is what is taking things off track. I don’t have a problem with rules, but with who is making and enforcing them, and the nature of those rules. If a rule is a good rule, then it will have a clear Biblical basis. If it is about a doubtful disputation, then it is a matter best left to individuals, and in the context of a school, to the parents.
As for ‘rules’ promoting sanctification… where does Mtt. 21 fit in here?
Mat 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Mat 21:30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Mat 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
or for that matter, Galatians 2?
Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you…
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
God’s law has more than one purpose, and the ones that come to my mind first are 1) the law teaches us how unworthy we are and how holy God is 2) to help us to sow good seed so we can reap good things, and vice/versa. Both are, IMO, related to sanctification in the sense that we are hopefully continuing to separate ourselves from carnality and strive unto Godliness.
But when you get into the issue of a school deciding that they can ‘enforce’ sanctification on a student by controlling where they go, what they view, who they spend time with… I believe you are 1) overstepping your bounds as an institution 2) being naive about the result of this kind of behavioral modification.
I think the point was made in Part 2 that once you start making rules like “Students shall not attend parties where there is alcohol” you have to start adding pages to the rulebook, because students may attend family functions where alcohol is being served, many families don’t have a problem going to restaurants where alcohol is served, and some don’t believe in total abstinence at all. So then you have to amend the rule to say “Students shall not attend any event where there is alcohol and no parental supervision”. And so it goes with every single rule that attempts to govern certain aspects of the student’s family life.
Now, if parents are looking for some birds of a feather with which to flock, and all the parents can honestly get 100% behind the rules of the school, then by all means, have at it. It makes me wonder, however, how many parents are really on board with the rules and how many give them lip service. Hopefully, the school and parents will have a well-rounded approach and be teaching the Biblical principles on which the rules are based. I’ve never seen it on that wise, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I think way too many of us have had negative experiences with Christian schools and handbooks that look like the US tax code. Anecdotes are not evidence, but when you have dozens of people with the same story, you gotta’ at least start wondering “Why?” Why have so many of us had such similar experiences with strict Christian schools?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the carnal fruit in the lives of young people is the ‘fault’ of Christian schools, whether they are strict or not. Most issues are the result of problems in the home, and the fact that regardless of the good things sown in a person’s life, they have a choice as to how they are going to live their lives, and sometimes they choose poorly.
As for ‘rules’ promoting sanctification… where does Mtt. 21 fit in here?
Mat 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Mat 21:30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Mat 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
or for that matter, Galatians 2?
Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you…
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
God’s law has more than one purpose, and the ones that come to my mind first are 1) the law teaches us how unworthy we are and how holy God is 2) to help us to sow good seed so we can reap good things, and vice/versa. Both are, IMO, related to sanctification in the sense that we are hopefully continuing to separate ourselves from carnality and strive unto Godliness.
But when you get into the issue of a school deciding that they can ‘enforce’ sanctification on a student by controlling where they go, what they view, who they spend time with… I believe you are 1) overstepping your bounds as an institution 2) being naive about the result of this kind of behavioral modification.
I think the point was made in Part 2 that once you start making rules like “Students shall not attend parties where there is alcohol” you have to start adding pages to the rulebook, because students may attend family functions where alcohol is being served, many families don’t have a problem going to restaurants where alcohol is served, and some don’t believe in total abstinence at all. So then you have to amend the rule to say “Students shall not attend any event where there is alcohol and no parental supervision”. And so it goes with every single rule that attempts to govern certain aspects of the student’s family life.
Now, if parents are looking for some birds of a feather with which to flock, and all the parents can honestly get 100% behind the rules of the school, then by all means, have at it. It makes me wonder, however, how many parents are really on board with the rules and how many give them lip service. Hopefully, the school and parents will have a well-rounded approach and be teaching the Biblical principles on which the rules are based. I’ve never seen it on that wise, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I think way too many of us have had negative experiences with Christian schools and handbooks that look like the US tax code. Anecdotes are not evidence, but when you have dozens of people with the same story, you gotta’ at least start wondering “Why?” Why have so many of us had such similar experiences with strict Christian schools?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the carnal fruit in the lives of young people is the ‘fault’ of Christian schools, whether they are strict or not. Most issues are the result of problems in the home, and the fact that regardless of the good things sown in a person’s life, they have a choice as to how they are going to live their lives, and sometimes they choose poorly.
[Susan R] The idea of a shared interest is probably why many parents send their kids to Christian schools with strict regulations. They want a place where their rules are everyone’s rules. That’s fine and dandy, and understandable, but I don’t believe one can call it a Biblical mandate for schools to govern behavior in the home.Susan,
I guess this was my point. It is ok in some people’s mind to question my reason for the rule without knowing what my reasoning is. It seems as if there is a natural assumption that one school that has strict rules must have them because they believe that they must control the children and “make them holy” by the rules. Granted that there are probably some places out there in which that is the case, but this does not necessarily mean that all places have that purpose in mind behind their rule. Because a school has certain rules that reach beyond the bounds of the school walls does not mean that the school is trying to govern the home. No one that I know of has said that the school has a divine mandate to govern behavior in the home. However, some have at least implied if not directly stated that they know without a shadow of a doubt that this is what the school is trying to do. I would like to know how they know this. Is it because they have asked every school leader that has strict rules the reason for those rules? Or is it because they have assumed something that might not be true. And if there is 1 school that has strict rules but views them simply as their shared present day applications of biblical truths in which they can come together for the purpose of a distinctly Christian education without believing that those rules are the means to sanctification (and I believe that is what my kids school is and have talked with the leadership on the subject) than we ought not be as dogmatic as we are on throwing off all extra-biblical rules in Christian schools. However, this does not mean that you have to send your kids to the school I send my kids to. What I find interesting is that I am fine with the stricter rules that may impact my home life, but am being told by some in this thread, if I read it correctly, that such rules are necessarily and inherently ungodly and wrong and sinful. And this itself is an extra-biblical rule itself that is intended to influence my family and home life. Meanwhile, I am saying to those bothered by extra-biblical rules in Christian schools, it is ok for you not to agree with me. Go to a Christian school that does not have such rules. I still think I’ll see you in heaven. So while the libertine (no-extral biblical rules is what I mean here) is demanding that I never ever ever have any extra-biblical rules or I am dishonoring God and ruining mychildren, the legalist (me in the scenario; i.e., the one who prefers a school with rules that match my own at home at the majority of points) is saying that the libertine is free to do what he wants in this matter. I’m not (nor have my posts ever) judged anyone for wanting to have a school without extra-biblical rules.
The other point I would highlight, and have sought to in each of my posts, is that you can’t really get away from rules no matter how hard you try. This is not a justification for useless, overreaching, counterproductive rules making. It is simply a matter of living under authority structures that God has established. Parents make rules that children do not adopt when they become adults, but they are stilled called upon to obey them while in the home. The government has made plenty of extra-biblical rules, over reaching its God given purpose, and those rules very much impact my family, but I am still called upon to obey government. As a pastor, I have recently had to put in place very specific rules for our building due to both Scriptural and functional issues that arose. They are extra-biblical rules governing who could be in the building and where, etc. Outside the context of our situation people would probably think they are simply attempts at “control” by the pastor, but in our context the church very clearly understood their need and purpose. I fully expect that those in the church will obey those who have rule over them as the Scripture calls them to.
It would seem that we need to get beyond simple categorization, broad brush strokes in the discussion, and easily chosen illustrations which don’t take into consideration of context for the rule making. The issue that caused me to join SI was the concern in the discussion of rules and the Christian school that we have become binary (either or and that is all) on the subject. Just because there are people/schools that may trust in their rules to produce sanctification it does not follow that all extra-biblical rules are ungodly in the Christian school and out of place. There may be perfectly good reasons for people like myself (who fully believe in total depravity, the need for heart change from within, progressive Spirit-produced sanctification through the Word) to place their children in a Christian school that has extra-biblical rules that match my own convictions on major points. And where I do not agree with the school’s extra-biblical rules I am still scripturally free to give up my liberties in those areas (last time I read 1 Corinthians and Romans) for a bigger purpose in my family. This provides me great opportunities to speak to my children’s hearts about differences in application of biblical principles and how to be charitable to a brother/sister in areas. It gives me opportunity to help them learn to not demand their rights but give up their rights. In this process I have not abandoned my leadership in my home, I’m actually employing in ways greater than if I never had any conflicts. Some might say that I am simply letting the school be in charge and I’m blindly following, but that is not true. I have chosen to send my children to the School. I have led them to see where home and school might differ on the rules application. I have encouraged and helped them to put into practice biblical submission to God who calls on us not to demand our “rights” or “liberties” but to act with selfless love toward fellow believers. The point here is not to emphasize the “I have” except to demonstrate that these are actual choices of leadership that a parent can (and in my case seeks faithfully to) make within a biblical worldview.
If the discussion is simply “there is a danger is extra-biblcal rules” and we should be careful in light of that. I’m fine, probably would have read and never go invovled in the discussion. But the tenor of the discussion seemed to me to be “extra-biblical rules” = legalism = sin and should be stoned (that is with stones) or crucified. This, in my opinion, makes absolute something that cannont be demonstrated from Scripture as absolute. In so doing it is wrong, and I will repeat, ironic that we now have an extra-biblical rule that says “all extra-biblical rules are wrong!”
[Aaron Blumer] Sanctification is a huge topic, but I think it’s not really hard to prove that missing the mark is not an all or nothing situation. Jesus Himself said there were weightier matters in the Law. In Matt.23 He rebukes the Pharisees for tithing their spices and paying no attention to justice, mercy, etc. He says they should have tithed their spices without neglecting the weighter matters.I believe that Matthew 23 teaches us something very different from what you are proposing. You seem to be saying that although Christ is chastising the Pharisees for not digging in to the deeper meaning of the tithe, He is still tacitly approving of their tithing as a good thing. I would agree with the first part, but argue the complete opposite of the second. Just after the mention of the spices, starting in verse 25 Christ shouts,
[Matthew 23:25-33] “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleaness. Even so you outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”Four times Christ rails against the Pharisees’ hypocrisy for finding righteousness in their external behavior! I can’t think of a clearer way for Christ to say, “Your works mean nothing when done for self rather than Christ.” Observe how although the Pharisees appear righteous outwardly, Christ cautions us against being deceived by appearances; their righteousness is false. Is Christ honored by their partial fulfillment of Christ’s desire, ie doing the right thing for the wrong reason? No. Christ is saying, “By all means keep tithing, but do it for the right reasons or else it is hypocrisy and condemns you further!”
[John MacArthur] “Jesus’ point, however, was not to condemn their observance of the law’s fine points. The problem was that they ‘neglected the weightier matters’ of justice and mercy and faith - the moral principles underlying all the laws. They were satisfied with their focus on the incidentals and externals but willfully resisted the spiritual meaning of the law.”The “weightier matters” that Christ is referring to are not laws which are somehow more important than tithing. He is not proposing a distinction between greater and lesser categories of the law. Christ is pointing at the spiritual principles that undergird the law: “justice and mercy and faith.” The Pharisees are condemned for blindly following the law without seeking the true meaning of the law.
Christ immediately follows that exhortation by saying that although external obedience is important, what is of greatest importance is that we “cleanse the inside of the cup and dish.” Without a cleansed “inner cup,” the “outer” is dirty! We must first cleanse the inside so that the outside can be clean. Matthew 23 tells us, in the strongest possible language, that our external behavior is inherently unrighteous without the internal cleansing power of the Spirit. There is no gradation. For the Pharisees, doing the right thing (tithing) for the wrong reason (self-righteousness) is no more righteous than doing the wrong thing in the first place.
If I were arguing that all extra-Biblical rules were legalistic, or attempting to make rules about rules, then I’d understand your response. My concern is centered around who is making the rules and where they are applying them. I believe that certain spheres of authority, such as that of the home, are sacred, and should not be intruded upon unless it is clear that they are violating Biblical principles, and then we have appropriate principles to govern our intervention when approaching brethren who are overtaken in a fault. Please ready my post #72.
Assumptions are made all the way around- humans do that, no matter how often we shouldn’t. A strict school might get a “Pharisee” or “legalistic” label, but a school that doesn’t attempt to govern off-campus behavior will get a “liberal” stamp. I think each family has to choose a method of education that best fits the needs of their children and family, period. I think we agree on that. But it has been proposed that off-campus rules are a good and even necessary thing to prevent sin in the life of a student when their parents are ‘falling down on the job’. I see this idea and the implementation thereof as fraught with problems when talking about applying the dress code or entertainment choices to the home. It’s fine if the parents are 100% on board with the school standards and they’ve chosen the school because it continues to emphasize what is being taught at home, but what about using off-campus rules to govern homes that are not ipsy-pipsy with the school’s standards? Aren’t we setting kids up for conflicts between the school and the home? How is that Scriptural or beneficial to the child?
I doubt I could find a school that reflects our family’s standards. We are very strict compared to most folks I know and probably most folks here on SI. But that is our home, and we have a Biblical mandate for that. Even though we are under pastoral/elder authority at our church, we still are not obligated to send our kids to activities or classes we do not feel would be beneficial to them, and this is not viewed as rebellion or being unsupportive of the church’s ministries, because the authority of the home trumps the church in those cases. If it was a rule at our church that all children attend every class or activity geared for them, we’d have to leave, because we can’t in good conscience sign on for that, even if the classes are generally a good thing.
Hope that explains better what my concerns are. I think we agree more than we disagree on this, but it’s hard not to talk past each other sometimes. :)
Assumptions are made all the way around- humans do that, no matter how often we shouldn’t. A strict school might get a “Pharisee” or “legalistic” label, but a school that doesn’t attempt to govern off-campus behavior will get a “liberal” stamp. I think each family has to choose a method of education that best fits the needs of their children and family, period. I think we agree on that. But it has been proposed that off-campus rules are a good and even necessary thing to prevent sin in the life of a student when their parents are ‘falling down on the job’. I see this idea and the implementation thereof as fraught with problems when talking about applying the dress code or entertainment choices to the home. It’s fine if the parents are 100% on board with the school standards and they’ve chosen the school because it continues to emphasize what is being taught at home, but what about using off-campus rules to govern homes that are not ipsy-pipsy with the school’s standards? Aren’t we setting kids up for conflicts between the school and the home? How is that Scriptural or beneficial to the child?
I doubt I could find a school that reflects our family’s standards. We are very strict compared to most folks I know and probably most folks here on SI. But that is our home, and we have a Biblical mandate for that. Even though we are under pastoral/elder authority at our church, we still are not obligated to send our kids to activities or classes we do not feel would be beneficial to them, and this is not viewed as rebellion or being unsupportive of the church’s ministries, because the authority of the home trumps the church in those cases. If it was a rule at our church that all children attend every class or activity geared for them, we’d have to leave, because we can’t in good conscience sign on for that, even if the classes are generally a good thing.
Hope that explains better what my concerns are. I think we agree more than we disagree on this, but it’s hard not to talk past each other sometimes. :)
[Susan R] My concern is centered around who is making the rules and where they are applying them. I believe that certain spheres of authority…Even though we are under pastoral/elder authority at our church, we still are not obligated to send our kids to activities or classes we do not feel would be beneficial to them, and this is not viewed as rebellion or being unsupportive of the church’s ministries, because the authority of the home trumps the church in those cases. If it was a rule at our church that all children attend every class or activity geared for them, we’d have to leave, because we can’t in good conscience sign on for that, even if the classes are generally a good thing.I am certain I am far from being alone in concurring that while the purpose and function of rules is essential (I’ve already addressed that in a post in Part 2) often it is the failure of agents or agencies in understanding and applying the appropriate “limits” or “boundaries” of their authority which results in the unnecessary conflict to which Susan alludes.
The divine institutions of self, marriage, family, government and church have appropriate limits. So when, under the liberties granted by God, an agent or agency, either directly related to or under the auspices of any of these institutions, develops rules for regulation and participation, no matter how sincere, they must consider and reject those rules that cause them to enter the authoritative realm of another institution, thereby wrongly producing a conflict.
Now, it goes without saying that if a body establishes itself with rules that attempt, regardless of the intent, to usurp the divinely established authority of another and someone joins themselves to that body and then complains about the conflict, it can’t really be said that the former is the guilty party seeing that the latter joined knowing full well or at least with the obligation to informed himself, that the conflict exists. While the former may be guilty of overstepping their boundaries they are not guilty of creating the conflict seeing that the latter voluntarily joined themselves to this body. But obviously this isn’t the issue, rather just a qualifying remark.
Susan’s point here, I believe, is tremendously ignored often within Fundie and Evangelical circles and a critical one to have properly synchronized before passing any regulatory legislation.
*Rules are an extension or expression of authority. Where the boundaries of the authority ends is the where the rules themselves and their demands should also end. The challenge then becomes investigating, researching, analyzing and determining the appropriate boundaries for each divine institution and upon that you will have boundaries for the reach of any rules such institutions seek to establish.
[Paul Matzko] I believe that Matthew 23 teaches us something very different from what you are proposing. You seem to be saying that although Christ is chastising the Pharisees for not digging in to the deeper meaning of the tithe, He is still tacitly approving of their tithing as a good thing.There is nothing “tacit” about it. Matt.23.23 “… These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”
[Paul Matzko] Four times Christ rails against the Pharisees’ hypocrisy for finding righteousness in their external behavior! I can’t think of a clearer way for Christ to say, “Your works mean nothing when done for self rather than Christ.” Observe how although the Pharisees appear righteous outwardly, Christ cautions us against being deceived by appearances; their righteousness is false.This is precisely why He woe’s them. For a) finding righteousness in their external behavior, as you have said and b) for the fact that they have selectively looked to law as a means of achieving their own righteousness. I referred to this self-righteousness problem and selectivity problem in Part 2.
Again, we’re overlooking the fact that the Pharisees were unregenerate men profoundly opposed to the things of God (they were plotting to kill the Son of God!). But a Christian is a hugely different animal. We could fill up pages on the difference, but a few are especially important: a believer has been credited with the righteousness of Christ (the only righteousness that counts), and also indwelt with the Spirit and “married” (Rom. 7) to the Lawgiver (Christ) so that their holy living is, in fact, the righteousness of Christ working out in them.
In short, there is no such thing as a category of righteousness called “our own” when we are believers. We can lose sight of that fact and think we are achieving our own righteousness—and that attitude might somewhat accurately be called “self righteousness,” but in truth, there is no such thing in the life of a believer. In his union with Christ, all right he does is God graciously working His righteousness out in their lives.
[John MacArthur] “Jesus’ point, however, was not to condemn their observance of the law’s fine points. The problem was that they ‘neglected the weightier matters’ of justice and mercy and faith - the moral principles underlying all the laws. They were satisfied with their focus on the incidentals and externals but willfully resisted the spiritual meaning of the law.”There is nothing here that conflicts with what I’ve been saying.
[Paul M] The “weightier matters” that Christ is referring to are not laws which are somehow more important than tithing. He is not proposing a distinction between greater and lesser categories of the law. Christ is pointing at the spiritual principles that undergird the law: “justice and mercy and faith.” The Pharisees are condemned for blindly following the law without seeking the true meaning of the law.Maybe, maybe not. But doesn’t detract from my case either way.
[Paul M] Christ immediately follows that exhortation by saying that although external obedience is important, what is of greatest importance is that we “cleanse the inside of the cup and dish.” Without a cleansed “inner cup,” the “outer” is dirty! We must first cleanse the inside so that the outside can be clean. Matthew 23 tells us, in the strongest possible language, that our external behavior is inherently unrighteous without the internal cleansing power of the Spirit. There is no gradation. For the Pharisees, doing the right thing (tithing) for the wrong reason (self-righteousness) is no more righteous than doing the wrong thing in the first place.Paul, I don’t think you can say “external obedience is important” and also say “external behavior is inherently unrighteous.” But in any case, I’ve never said that external behavior is any way meritorious without the “internal cleansing power of the Spirit.” But every true Christian has experienced the latter and the entire series has been about what good rules can do for believers (when they are good rules, well executed).
It may help to look at my comments on Part 2 as well, where I’ve made several of the same points.
Comparing any regenerate person to a Pharisee is a pretty big stretch to begin with, but when we do it (and I am among those who do in preaching, etc.) we have an uphill task to show how those similarities are possible between children of light and some of the worst children of darkness the world has ever seen (I mean, these guys couldn’t even appreciate the miraculous blessing of a blind man made to see… because it happened on the Sabbath).
In my conclusion—in Part 2—I point out that the Pharisees’ root problem was unbelief and that Christians who get pharisaical in their thinking resemble the Pharisees only insofar as they get forgetful of the gospel.
If you are enthralled by the gospel, you can have ten zillion hair splitting rules and never think for a minute that by following them you have produced your own righteousness, because you know that whatever good these do is only as God uses them graciously to help us avoid the damaging effects of sin and strengthen the habits of clean living.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Susan R] My concern is centered around who is making the rules and where they are applying them. I believe that certain spheres of authority, such as that of the home, are sacred, and should not be intruded upon unless it is clear that they are violating Biblical principles, and then we have appropriate principles to govern our intervention when approaching brethren who are overtaken in a fault.In an effort not to talk past each other, I will seek to clarify the problem I see once again. Rules are an inevitable part of shared experience in the planet earth. Rules govern relationships on many levels. Whether we like it or not we must live under authority that impacts the sphere of the home in order to have relationships. Please let me illustrate the point. Two young people are in a dating relationship. The girls father (who has proper biblical authority over her) explains that there should be no physical contact, no single dating, etc. The boys parents (who have proper biblical authority over him) are fine with hand holding, a kiss good night, and single dating, etc. So how is this relationship to go forward between these two young people who are “crazy” about each other? Has the father of the girl over-stepped his authority by making a rule that impacts another person’s home? I would not certainly think that to be the case. The father is entirely correct in the exercise of his authority, and if the boy wants a relationship with the girl then he will honor that rule that is not his or his parents. Furthermore, though the parents disagree it would be wrong for the parents of the boy to encourage disobedience of the girls parents rule on these matters though this is not their own rule. Finally, there is another option—do not have a relationship at all because you cannot submit to the rule of the girls family. How you raise the kids in your home will and does have impact on the homes of those in your church and school. Your rules about curfews, entertainment, music, etc. will affect the families your children have relationships with. Are you trying to control that other family by your rules within your home? What should that family do—denounce your family rules to your children? They have choices to make and explain to their own children. “We watch y, but Tim’s parents don’t allow him to” so “Tim’s parents are jerks because they are trying to infringe upon our freedoms” or “Tim’s parents love Tim and are trying to parent him the best they can, and we just disagree on this matter, so let’s give up our freedom here so you can have Tim over.” Your “sacred” realm of authority in your home will inevitably impact my “sacred” realm of authority. You might respond that was not the “intent” of your rules, just an un-intended consequence of differing views on the matter and your desire to execute your responsibilities within the home faithfully (and if I am spiritual I should be able to see that, accept it, and determine the if and when of the ongoing relationship). If we all deify our “home” authority as the most absolute than the debate on the topic is really useless because the only way to protect my family rules from impacting your family rules is never to have any relationships—home church, home school, home college, home government, etc. But such isolation seems entirely contrary to the Scriptures, and so we must learn to relate to one another realizing that my “rights” to authority are not supreme but loving my neighbor as myself is the law of Christ. So when I choose to give up my liberties for the pursuit of God-centered relationships I am pleasing God (spiritual value, Scriptural thinking).
…But it has been proposed that off-campus rules are a good and even necessary thing to prevent sin in the life of a student when their parents are ‘falling down on the job’. I see this idea and the implementation thereof as fraught with problems when talking about applying the dress code or entertainment choices to the home. It’s fine if the parents are 100% on board with the school standards and they’ve chosen the school because it continues to emphasize what is being taught at home, but what about using off-campus rules to govern homes that are not ipsy-pipsy with the school’s standards? Aren’t we setting kids up for conflicts between the school and the home? How is that Scriptural or beneficial to the child?
I believe that Christian schools can and do get it wrong on some of their rules. However, this does not mean that schools with rules that reach beyond the campus are trying to use those rules to govern homes. The schools did not demand that you enter the relationship, last time I checked. They have simply identified core areas of concern within which they believe the shared experience of Christian education is not counter-productive. The specifics of the rules may be up for debate, but having a relationship with the school requires that parents and students learn to discern where they can and will place their own view of life under the authority of another for something bigger than themselves. It may be that the “off campus” rules are too much and so the parents don’t send their children to that particular school. It may be that they (parent and student) appreciate the benefits of the school as more valuable than the freedoms in off campus limitations so they choose to limit themselves where they would not normally be self-limited. Are you setting your kids up for conflict with the school? Sure you are if you do not approach the matter with biblical wisdom—privately demanding your own way but sending the kids to the school anyway. But if you talk honestly with your children about the areas of disagreement, the reason for self-chosen submission to rules that would not be your own, etc. then you have removed the potential conflict at the outset. And this has in no way limited your parenting, but actually put it on display. In effect, by choosing to send your child to that particular Christian school YOU have made the RULE for your own family because the benefits for your children outweigh the restrictions on your freedom in the matter. The school has not gone out in effort to force you to follow their rules at gun point. Rather, they have simply identified the groundrules for the relationship you will have with them. So choose the Christian school and college that best meets your needs as you raise your children. Enter into the relationship with those partnering schools and understand the basis for that relationship may (or may not depending on your choice) restrict your liberties outside the school. Realize that by choosing that school you are making the rules for your children, not the school, and hopefully you are doing so because you see the values of that Christian education as more important than those freedoms.
I don’t think we are talking past each other. The question is whether or not Christian Schools (the who) have the right to make any rules that extend beyond the walls of their building (the where). I am arguing that they absolutely do and you are arguing that absolutely do not. Your answer is founded upon the fact that “parents alone” have the right to govern what happens outside the school walls. I am answering that line of reasoning by stating that though this sounds great, it is not sufficient because anytime people enter into relationships the “private, home” rules impact that relationship (as illustrated by the dating analogy above). Hence, to argue that Christian schools have no rights to make rules that extend beyond the school walls is a wrong argument. Christian schools are identifying the rules that will govern the shared experience for all who enter into the relationship of that institution, and it is entirely within their freedom to make whatever rules they want. Likewise, it is entirely within my freedom to reject those rules and not send my child to that school. I am neither denying parental authority (I choose what schools my kids go to) nor school authority. If a family is 100% behind the school rules, then they have no conflicts. If they are not, then actually parent by making hard choices for your children (the “you” is not you—Susan, but you Christian parents generally). If the benefits of the school outweigh the limitations, put them in the school and teach them the importance of living for more than one’s own little kingdom. If the benefits do not outweigh the limitations don’t enter into the relationship with that school, choose a different one.
@timdavis
I don’t think you have made a case at all for schools to extend rules in to the home or make rules that parents ought to be making. What you are illustrating with the overlapping authorities of different sets of parents whose children interact is just a fact of life.
This happens all the time, regardless of whether or not the kids involved go to a school with a hundred-page handbook or not: when my son’s friends come over, I expect them not to jump on the sofa and I will tell him so to his face, regardless of whether or not he can do it at home. If he wants to tell his parents and other friends that I am a bit of a tyrant, then he can go ahead with my blessing. The same goes with the eventual dating of my daughter.
I think you have exactly illustrated the point Susan and I would be making — that each home and set of parents is different and must be allowed to work out the parameters their children can operate within, and especially as their boundaries overlap with the boundaries of their friends and peers. This is nothing short of learning basic life lessons and the reality all around is in all realms of life: home, family, church, work, school, world.
I curb my child’s freedom when it interacts with someone else’s. That my kids grow to understand this would be a major accomplishment that I am excited for them to learn. If the school is doing the curbing already, for everyone equally, and according to the most sensitive parents’ standards, then we feel there is much less chance for learning these valuable lessons, and much greater chance to mess the kid up.
This is kind of snarky, but what kind of society do you live in? I know I am in Holland (and we can pray in public school) and you are in US (with increasing losses of freedom under the guise of protecting people), but I think the old quote is still something that parents try pass on to their kids: “your freedom ends where my nose (and my daughter’s) begins.”
I don’t think you have made a case at all for schools to extend rules in to the home or make rules that parents ought to be making. What you are illustrating with the overlapping authorities of different sets of parents whose children interact is just a fact of life.
This happens all the time, regardless of whether or not the kids involved go to a school with a hundred-page handbook or not: when my son’s friends come over, I expect them not to jump on the sofa and I will tell him so to his face, regardless of whether or not he can do it at home. If he wants to tell his parents and other friends that I am a bit of a tyrant, then he can go ahead with my blessing. The same goes with the eventual dating of my daughter.
I think you have exactly illustrated the point Susan and I would be making — that each home and set of parents is different and must be allowed to work out the parameters their children can operate within, and especially as their boundaries overlap with the boundaries of their friends and peers. This is nothing short of learning basic life lessons and the reality all around is in all realms of life: home, family, church, work, school, world.
I curb my child’s freedom when it interacts with someone else’s. That my kids grow to understand this would be a major accomplishment that I am excited for them to learn. If the school is doing the curbing already, for everyone equally, and according to the most sensitive parents’ standards, then we feel there is much less chance for learning these valuable lessons, and much greater chance to mess the kid up.
This is kind of snarky, but what kind of society do you live in? I know I am in Holland (and we can pray in public school) and you are in US (with increasing losses of freedom under the guise of protecting people), but I think the old quote is still something that parents try pass on to their kids: “your freedom ends where my nose (and my daughter’s) begins.”
[Aaron Blumer]…Aaron,
I see an old lady who needs help crossing a busy street. Which is better…
1) Help her across because I know she’s rich and she might include me in her will
2) Help her across because I know this would please my Lord and exhibit His character in a visible way
3) Let her fend for herself
Does anyone really want to say that option 3 is better than option 1?
…
Your question is too vague.
Which is better for the lady? Which is better for me? Which encourages my sanctification? Which signifies my sanctification?
Your question is too vague.How is it vague to say, “Does anyone really want to say that option 3 is better than option 1?”
You want to parse it out to infinity. Why? To avoid giving a direct answer? To avoid giving the obviously right answer because it would show a chink in your armor?
None of your hypothetical questions really address the real question: Is 3 better than 1 in any situation?
I don’t think you have made a case at all for schools to extend rules in to the home or make rules that parents ought to be making.Several days ago I asked some questions that no one that I have seen has attempted to answer. You appear to be on the side that schools can’t make rules that extend outside the school property and outside the school mission, so to speak. So let me again ask these questions, and ask you to give a response to these situations.
So what about a pregnant 11th grader? Should she be allowed to continue to come to class?
What about a high school student who goes to a local arcade and is loudly cussing and being profane with the parents knowledge. Can the school do anything?
What about a student who crosses the property line and then turns around and starts yelling at a teacher using profanity because the teacher “treated him unfairly.” What if the parents agree?
[Larry] How is it vague to say, “Does anyone really want to say that option 3 is better than option 1?”Huh. I certainly have no problem answering Aaron’s question. 1 is better than 3.
You want to parse it out to infinity. Why? To avoid giving a direct answer? To avoid giving the obviously right answer because it would show a chink in your armor?
None of your hypothetical questions really address the real question: Is 3 better than 1 in any situation?
I don’t think I was over dissecting the question. My questions attempt to get to what I think is the real question. Motives also are important, I believe.
[Larry]So what about a pregnant 11th grader? Should she be allowed to continue to come to class?not knowing personal history or situation of any of these teens is a little hard, but i’ll take a stab:
What about a high school student who goes to a local arcade and is loudly cussing and being profane with the parents knowledge. Can the school do anything?
What about a student who crosses the property line and then turns around and starts yelling at a teacher using profanity because the teacher “treated him unfairly.” What if the parents agree?
Pg girl: Stated as is, I’m OK with it. Is she OK with it, is another issue.
Cussing guy: for starters, i’d talk to the parents and see how they are handling it (are they ignoring, supporting, or modeling this behavior? would they like counseling? are they watching their kid go thru a bad time spiritually and are sad b/c they really can’t change his heart?) If the parents are trying to do right, ask how the school can help. Ask what support or requirements they can work together on. start regular prayer meetings or pray in teachers meetings. See what happens. Tricky thing is that an issue like this is rarely in isolation in the kid’s life, and a lot depends on the parents’ attitudes.
Profanity-but-not-on-school-property & parents are OK with it: meet with parents and find out why the kid is in the school; maybe point out that their goals and the school’s are not in unity, that their child really isn’t having a learning experience if their kid is cussing his teachers like that. Depending (on a lot), come to agreement about change in kid’s behavior or parents withdrawing him from school. pray.
instead of seeing these as all negative, disciplinary issues, they are opportunities to model a lot of real-life happenings. i don’t think a school should necessarily be governed by an attitude of fear about how one kid’s sin will destroy others’ lives. Or the idea that it has to have a pretty high “perfect” rating, like the greenhouse thing. It could make a lot of the other christian kids a lot stronger and more committed.
but … . what do i know? maybe that’s pie in the sky. i just know from life, that banging down a rule without much consideration or seeking the Lord isn’t really the mature way to handle people.
[timbdavis] The question is whether or not Christian Schools (the who) have the right to make any rules that extend beyond the walls of their building (the where). I am arguing that they absolutely do and you are arguing that absolutely do not. Your answer is founded upon the fact that “parents alone” have the right to govern what happens outside the school walls. I am answering that line of reasoning by stating that though this sounds great, it is not sufficient because anytime people enter into relationships the “private, home” rules impact that relationship (as illustrated by the dating analogy above). Hence, to argue that Christian schools have no rights to make rules that extend beyond the school walls is a wrong argument. Christian schools are identifying the rules that will govern the shared experience for all who enter into the relationship of that institution, and it is entirely within their freedom to make whatever rules they want. Likewise, it is entirely within my freedom to reject those rules and not send my child to that school.Bro. Davis- I agree with most everything you’ve said here, as I’ve never stated that schools do not have ‘the right’ to make off-campus rules, but that they have no Biblical mandate. I’ve outlined the authority structures that are given Biblical mandates, and not one of them is a ‘school’. God ordained gov’t, home, church, and the master/servant relationship. These often overlap, and I’ve acknowledged that more than once, and working out these differences is one of the more interesting and sharpening aspects of interpersonal relationships- but one authority always holds sway over the other, or a compromise is reached, or we shake hands and part ways on that topic- based on the specifics of the situation.
I don’t think the dating analogy holds up as a comparison to the function and purpose of a Christian school. The family rules that set boundaries for our children are in place regardless of where they go, so right there we have overlap. If they went to public school, and the school had an activity or assignment that I found morally objectionable, my child would not participate- parental rules take precedence over school. If my kids are at church, at the grandparents, at a friends’ house- they are still held accountable to abide by our standards, as well as taking into account the standards of the home/institution/activity- parents again dominate, but also show respect for others- there again is the overlap. I totally get the give-and-take involved, the surrendering of liberty at times to benefit someone else- but that is NOT what we are talking about here.
Example- if we don’t watch tv, and the kids go to someone’s house who does, I do expect those parents to be supportive of that, and I work very hard to create open communications and a sense of mutual regard in my relationships with other parents- but I don’t expect them to not watch tv or abide by any of my family’s standards when my kids aren’t there. My influence in that home is nil once my child leaves their property. That is the conflict of authority I see when a Christian school makes extra-Biblical rules like those regarding entertainment and clothing when a student is not on campus or involved in a school activity.
I also don’t believe that a school can truly be consistent with these kinds of rules, nor can they adequately enforce them. The ‘worldly entertainment’ statute comes to mind- how does a school define ‘worldly entertainment’? Is it just movies shown in public, or all movies, or movies that are PG-13 or R… what about movies like The Patriot, which is rated R for war violence but does not contain nudity or sexual situations? What about parents who have a TV Guardian thingy or a ClearPlay DVD player, which removes objectionable material? In my experience, what schools do is forbid attending a movie theater. But if it is OK for the student to rent a movie at Blockbuster and view it at home or a friend’s house, what are the Scriptural grounds for forbidding movie theaters? As a kid I saw these conflicts all around me, and it was incredibly confusing. Why could I watch HBO at my youth pastor’s house, but not go to the theater on a Saturday afternoon? It made no sense to me then, and it makes no sense to me now.
So again- I’m not objecting to the presence of rules, or the ‘right’ of an institution to have 100 page handbooks, or our own freedom of choice when it comes to how we educate our kids. But there is no Biblical support for a school to create off-campus rules on areas that are not clearly laid out in Scripture.
not knowing personal history or situation of any of these teens is a little hard, but i’ll take a stab:Thanks, Anne. All your answers (except the first which is inexplicable to me) confirm for me that you believe that the school has a legitimate interest outside the school property. And that has been my point all along. They do have a legitimate interest in what goes on outside, and they should handle it. They do not have to say, “Well, that’s not our sphere. That’s the parents.”
Of course the school should try to help the parents. And the way it is carried out may be different in different schools, some better some worse. But the fact is that the school has a legitimate interest in what goes on outside the school.
Huh. I certainly have no problem answering Aaron’s question. 1 is better than 3.Thanks Dan. You said the question was vague, and I couldn’t understand how “1 better than 3?” is vague. It seemed pretty straightforward. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone here has argued that motives are not important.
I don’t think I was over dissecting the question. My questions attempt to get to what I think is the real question. Motives also are important, I believe.
But what do we do when we don’t want to do something that is a right thing to do? What do we do when we want to do it for wrong motives? It is good to do it anyway, and change the motives and desires.
You don’t not do something just because you have a wrong motive. You do it, and confess the wrong motive.
So what about a pregnant 11th grader? Should she be allowed to continue to come to class?Is she repentant? Yes., she should come to class. Is she unrepentant? Then what is her family’s church doing in this situation? Can the school work with the parents and church to bring about the girl’s restoration in some way? If she’s disruptive and affecting the ability of others to receive an education, then there are definitely grounds for removing her.
What about a high school student who goes to a local arcade and is loudly cussing and being profane with the parents knowledge. Can the school do anything?Let’s say the school principal, who is a closet Pacman addict, hears the student cussing and being profane. He should contact the parents and pastor for a sit down and see what they think is best. Punishment or restitution should be mutually agreed upon.
What about a student who crosses the property line and then turns around and starts yelling at a teacher using profanity because the teacher “treated him unfairly.” What if the parents agree?The student is still involved in with the school if he is in a ‘conversation’ with the teacher about school- ditto if he were on the phone or using a telegraph. As for the parents agreeing- are they agreeing that the teacher needed to be cussed out or that the teacher treated the student unfairly? If they believe that their child has been treated unfairly, then a pow-wow with the teacher would be in order, but I think the child should make some sort of restitution for being disrespectful. Like washing and waxing the teacher’s car, raking their leaves, mowing their grass…
If the purpose of a school is to make disciples (and here we go again assuming kids in Christian schools are actually saved) then we need to take the time to assist families in discipling their children, and not just have a list of hard and fast rules that kick people to the curb every time they make a mistake, act immaturely, or give in to temptation.
I totally get the give-and-take involved, the surrendering of liberty at times to benefit someone else- but that is NOT what we are talking about here.How is that not what we are talking about here, with respect to school. In a school setting, a parent surrenders somethings to be a part of the educational process … things like the right to leave the house at 8:30 because the kids actually have to be at school at 8:30, or the right to take four week vacations in February, or the right to certain kinds of entertainment that may not be wrong, but are forbidden by the school.
But there is no Biblical support for a school to create off-campus rules on areas that are not clearly laid out in Scripture.So does this mean that the school is sinning by doing such? Can the school create “off-campus rules” (like not standing across the street and yelling at teachers and holding up signs about the teachers) while still being in the bounds of Scripture?
Dan,
To answer your question, I think for purposes of the point I was trying to make “better overall” probably works. I suspect that in a moral universe where every act has moral significance, a believer is helped toward sanctification in some (often very “small”) way whenever he chooses a morally superior act to a morally inferior one. (I expect some to start crying “Moralism! Moralism!” at that, but now that I’ve had a bit of time to chew on that question, I think I’m ready for it if it comes up).
About school authority. I’ve been a bit puzzled at some of the discussion on that point. As far as I can tell from Scripture, believers are free to bring themselves into situations where they voluntarily place themselves under some authority. To me, a school is one of those. Scripture specifically vests authority in homes, churches and civil governments. The rest are voluntary societies of one sort or another. So a school only has the authority parents give it when they sign up and agree to whatever terms they agree to.
When you have a church-school situation, it’s more complicated… and another reason I don’t like the church-school arrangement. Schools are better off independent whenever possible, IMO.
That said, if a school has rules that reach into the home or reach off school property, they are free to do that… and parents who do not want that arrangement are free to not sign up.
Edit: where it gets out of line is when you sign up under one set of terms and the school reinvents them mid-stream… that is, if you enrolled with a “on school property only” approach and they start making new rules governing life off school property half way through the semester, there is really a bad-faith situation going on on the part of the school. Depending on what sort of formalities were involved in enrolling, it might even be breach of contract. (But I’m no lawyer)
To answer your question, I think for purposes of the point I was trying to make “better overall” probably works. I suspect that in a moral universe where every act has moral significance, a believer is helped toward sanctification in some (often very “small”) way whenever he chooses a morally superior act to a morally inferior one. (I expect some to start crying “Moralism! Moralism!” at that, but now that I’ve had a bit of time to chew on that question, I think I’m ready for it if it comes up).
About school authority. I’ve been a bit puzzled at some of the discussion on that point. As far as I can tell from Scripture, believers are free to bring themselves into situations where they voluntarily place themselves under some authority. To me, a school is one of those. Scripture specifically vests authority in homes, churches and civil governments. The rest are voluntary societies of one sort or another. So a school only has the authority parents give it when they sign up and agree to whatever terms they agree to.
When you have a church-school situation, it’s more complicated… and another reason I don’t like the church-school arrangement. Schools are better off independent whenever possible, IMO.
That said, if a school has rules that reach into the home or reach off school property, they are free to do that… and parents who do not want that arrangement are free to not sign up.
Edit: where it gets out of line is when you sign up under one set of terms and the school reinvents them mid-stream… that is, if you enrolled with a “on school property only” approach and they start making new rules governing life off school property half way through the semester, there is really a bad-faith situation going on on the part of the school. Depending on what sort of formalities were involved in enrolling, it might even be breach of contract. (But I’m no lawyer)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Let’s say the school principal, who is a closet Pacman addict, hears the student cussing and being profane. He should contact the parents and pastor for a sit down and see what they think is best. Punishment or restitution should be mutually agreed upon.So what if the parents insist that the child didn’t do anything wrong? And they don’t think any punishment or restitution is necessary?
The student is still involved in with the school if he is in a ‘conversation’ with the teacher about school- ditto if he were on the phone or using a telegraph.So then you agree that a school’s legitimate interest does not end at the school property. You agree that a school has a legitimate disciplinary interest in student’s conduct off campus.
If they believe that their child has been treated unfairly, then a pow-wow with the teacher would be in order, but I think the child should make some sort of restitution for being disrespectful.But why? The school has no authority, according to you, on what goes on off campus. So where is the biblical support for restitution in a matter in which the school has no authority?
If the purpose of a school is to make disciples (and here we go again assuming kids in Christian schools are actually saved) then we need to take the time to assist families in discipling their children, and not just have a list of hard and fast rules that kick people to the curb every time they make a mistake, act immaturely, or give in to temptation.I doubt anyone here disagrees with this. I certainly don’t.
I must admit though, your first response on a pregnant teen attending class boggles my mind. You and Anne both. Maybe it’s a girl thing. I don’t get that. Maybe that’s a Larry thing.
[Larry]Of course the school should try to help the parents. And the way it is carried out may be different in different schools, some better some worse. But the fact is that the school has a legitimate interest in what goes on outside the school.U R welcome! now show me a school that would actually handle things that way! maybe that’s more the point.
:)
Just trying to grab a bit of attention for my #91 post, which posted while two others were being written… I’ve got a suggestion there for how to look at school authority that might be helpful.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Larry] How is that not what we are talking about here, with respect to school. In a school setting, a parent surrenders somethings to be a part of the educational process … things like the right to leave the house at 8:30 because the kids actually have to be at school at 8:30, or the right to take four week vacations in February,These affect the purpose and function of the school
or the right to certain kinds of entertainment that may not be wrong, but are forbidden by the school.How does going to a movie affect the purpose or function of a school, and what kinds of entertainment are we talking about?
Again- if parents send their kids to a school that has off-campus rules, then they must abide by them. What I’m asking is why don’t schools consider if they should have these kinds of rules? What is their Biblical support for an extra-Biblical standard that is more the sphere of parents than a school?
But there is no Biblical support for a school to create off-campus rules on areas that are not clearly laid out in Scripture.So does this mean that the school is sinning by doing such? We do things all the time that are not mandated in Scripture. A school should just be honest about it- they have no Biblical mandate to govern the private lives of the students that attend.
Can the school create “off-campus rules” (like not standing across the street and yelling at teachers and holding up signs about the teachers) while still being in the bounds of Scripture?It isn’t an off-campus incident if they are engaged in interaction that directly affects school property or employees. ‘Off-campus’ is not about property lines. If a student is cussing a teacher on the telephone, in an email, or in skywriting, they are communicating with a school employee.
[Aaron Blumer] About school authority. I’ve been a bit puzzled at some of the discussion on that point. As far as I can tell from Scripture, believers are free to bring themselves into situations where they voluntarily place themselves under some authority. To me, a school is one of those. Scripture specifically vests authority in homes, churches and civil governments. The rest are voluntary societies of one sort or another. So a school only has the authority parents give it when they sign up and agree to whatever terms they agree to.Sure, a school can have rules about wearing blue on Thursdays, and if parents want to sign up or not, they have that freedom.
When you have a church-school situation, it’s more complicated… and another reason I don’t like the church-school arrangement. Schools are better off independent whenever possible, IMO.
That said, if a school has rules that reach into the home or reach off school property, they are free to do that… and parents who do not want that arrangement are free to not sign up.
Edit: where it gets out of line is when you sign up under one set of terms and the school reinvents them mid-stream… that is, if you enrolled with a “on school property only” approach and they start making new rules governing life off school property half way through the semester, there is really a bad-faith situation going on on the part of the school. Depending on what sort of formalities were involved in enrolling, it might even be breach of contract. (But I’m no lawyer)
But here I thought we were talking about Christian schools that are supposed to operate according to Biblical principles… IOW have some Biblical foundation for the rules and how they are applied. I’m questioning the wisdom of having extra-Biblical rules that reach off-campus, and I’m NOT saying they can’t or are in sin if they do. Just that I don’t think it is wise.
[Larry]Committing fornication is not the unpardonable sin, and if the girl is repentant, then she absolutely should be able to attend school. And how about the boy that fathered the child? Does he get to attend school just because his belly doesn’t grow to monumental proportions? Or shouldn’t he also be required to exhibit repentance? I would think that all these Christian kids would get a valuable lesson in how to treat a fallen brother or sister.If the purpose of a school is to make disciples (and here we go again assuming kids in Christian schools are actually saved) then we need to take the time to assist families in discipling their children, and not just have a list of hard and fast rules that kick people to the curb every time they make a mistake, act immaturely, or give in to temptation.I doubt anyone here disagrees with this. I certainly don’t.
I must admit though, your first response on a pregnant teen attending class boggles my mind. You and Anne both. Maybe it’s a girl thing. I don’t get that. Maybe that’s a Larry thing.
Oh wait- this is how we treat our fallen brethren- out of sight, out of mind. And something to whisper about in the bathroom. ;)
I think a school can work with a church and with parents to disciple children, but I do not think that schools should be considered a main authority in a child’s life. Parents and church comes first, period- and a school should adjust its reaction to off-campus misbehavior according to what the parents and pastor think is best.
Plus- you are still choosing behaviors that are obviously sinful, like fornication and profanity. No one has answered how one would define or regulate ‘worldly entertainment’ in a student’s life.
[Larry] I must admit though, your first response on a pregnant teen attending class boggles my mind. You and Anne both. Maybe it’s a girl thing. I don’t get that. Maybe that’s a Larry thing.that makes me smile. maybe it is a girl thing? or a-woman-that’s-been-pregnant thing? Maybe we know that seeing a preg friend up close does a lot to wipe away the romanticism of motherhood really fast :) Talk about seeng consequences before your eyes. things like cheerleading and college plans … what would you talk about with your girlfriends? they get to see up close the reality of single motherhood at an unready age. And as a long-time pro-life worker, it just doesn’t bug me. i think it can actually be a healthy thing, learning how to reach out to a real girl in that situation and watching her make decisions and hearing what she has to think through now.
and thank you susan about the boy issue, too. that’s just as serious.
[Larry]Well, it really isn’t an all or nothing situation here. And those “who appear to be on the side that schools can’t make rules that extend outside the school property and outside the school mission” really wouldn’t make a hard and fast rule about exactly where the schools rules can and cannot apply. That would be expecting the school to completely abide by a different kind of authority than its own, I guess? I think those on this side would be apt to want to discuss such rules and their implications with the school and whether the school serves the parents or not, which is really what this is all about. Of course, if you have an established school with an established flavor, then you can’t really discuss the existence of current rules with new parents; but I think one should have some real, frank discussions with them about those current rules before enrolling their children.I don’t think you have made a case at all for schools to extend rules in to the home or make rules that parents ought to be making.Several days ago I asked some questions that no one that I have seen has attempted to answer. You appear to be on the side that schools can’t make rules that extend outside the school property and outside the school mission, so to speak. So let me again ask these questions, and ask you to give a response to these situations.
So what about a pregnant 11th grader? Should she be allowed to continue to come to class?
What about a high school student who goes to a local arcade and is loudly cussing and being profane with the parents knowledge. Can the school do anything?
What about a student who crosses the property line and then turns around and starts yelling at a teacher using profanity because the teacher “treated him unfairly.” What if the parents agree?
What the school does or doesn’t do about a pregnant 11th grader as far as her participation at school is their business. They could make her wear a big red ‘A’. Personally, I might think the damage is done and that she needs some support and restoration, but that is just me. If you think she needs separating off from other students that’s your business. My feeling on rules is that you needn’t list every possible venue and activity at which she may get pregnant and forbid them to families of students. You may have missed a few and she may well have gotten pregnant on school grounds, who knows.
The second and third examples are about general deportment. And the school property line is a bit of an artificial watershed for that. If students are to generally respect teachers and other students, it doesn’t matter where they are. I see no issues with that from anyone. I don’t know what parent would be so inconsistent or belligerent that they would encourage their child not to cuss at a teacher at school out of some feeling that they are merely going along with school rules as some form of bartering for their child’s education, but be totally fine with the child cussing out the same person somewhere else. Doesn’t make any sense. If the school puts some kind of general sanction on that kind of behavior and the kid gets detention or misses some sports events, great.
I don’t see rules against abusing someone verbally or getting someone pregnant as a problem for anyone to accept. If the verbal abuse is against a staff member, you certainly have a case (other instances might involve hearsay and neighbors with a grudge who desire to see fireworks, so tread carefully). The only rules people have been cautioning against are those like forbidding the family from the arcade in question, and governing the way the parents watch their children at home or elsewhere and deciding where they can go and with whom and how often.
Some types of rules sure do seem to me unwise for a school to make. And there may be some rules that some people feel fall into a grey area, such as hand-holding outside of school property and school activities. I, for one, would hope that a teacher would explain inappropriate behavior and how to make good choices and how to be respectful of others. The more that a child is taught correctly and exposed to the right way to act and live, the better. Whether there needs to be a written rule about every possible instance of inappropriate behavior in every possible venue according to the most sensitive person one can find and how to curtail family life and child-raising by the parent just to be doubly sure, is certainly another story. If there is a written checklist of when, where and how infractions of every degree occur, it sure seems like the focus is on the rule than on positively making good choices and doing what’s right (yes, I can hear it now — going to a Prom is never right, no matter what choices you make while there).
Law suits have been mentioned, and I guess that can be a prevalent problem in the US. I personally can’t relate. But I would think that if a school is making an excessive number of intrusive rules in an effort to cover itself when it disciplines, then that sure seems like a sad way to approach rule-making from the start. It could even be self-fulfilling: the more specific rules that a school makes for every little thing, then the more it needs to uphold these rules in order to feel it hasn’t compromised. The more it upholds the rules, the more its focus is not on the true sanctification and growth of the kids. If a school sounds like it is just waiting to pounce because it is just waiting for a kid to mess up (and this impression is largely evident in their attitude to rules), then I would definitely think twice about sending my child there. So, yeah, I think rules can be dangerous. I think rule-making is dangerous and is not to be done lightly (as with an attitude like “always better to be safe than sorry”; or, “let’s afford students more opportunities for obedience”). But that is not to say by any means that there should be no or very few rules. In fact, I really don’t see why the rule in the Bible about moderation is so hard for people to get hold of and apply.
[don’t know how I keep posting twice]
I have read this statement a few times (not just in this discussion but in past discussions):
“Sometimes authorities overlap”
I submit this is in fact, quite untrue. Where one authority ends the other begins and where one begins the other ends. It is only when people are unable to determine where they begin and end that they imagine there is an overlapping.
“Sometimes authorities overlap”
I submit this is in fact, quite untrue. Where one authority ends the other begins and where one begins the other ends. It is only when people are unable to determine where they begin and end that they imagine there is an overlapping.
Featured Resource
Discussion