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

• Lights out by …
  
• Park here … not here …
  
• Quiet time (study time) in the dorm xx;xx to xx:xx
  
• Pay by ….
  
• Turn in assignments by ….
  
• Etc
  

And there are probably scores more valid rule types. I wanted to make it clear that I do believe in institutional rules.

[Don Johnson] I agree with Aaron. I once started thinking about a sermon called “Why we need Stupid Rules”. I envisioned myself preaching it in a college chapel.

I don’t think we can be good disciples without knowing how to graciously submit to stupid rules.

And, given the people’s republic I find myself living in, it is a given that I have to live under a lot of them.

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

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

I appreciate what Aaron had to say and I believe that discipline is important. However, on many of these campuses, what you have had for years is more than discipline. It is a legalistic environment that breeds a false sense of spirituality in too many lives. It also enables people to control other people in carnal ways. It enables people to keep the rules and be deemed “highly spiritual” when their heart is far from God. Unfortunately, too many graduates leave these environments and continue uphold some of these rules as equivilent to biblical standards of godliness when they are not. It does great damage to individual lives, families, and churches.

[Pastor Joe Roof]…on many of these campuses, what you have had for years is more than discipline. It is a legalistic environment that breeds a false sense of spirituality in too many lives.

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

Several good comments have come along since my late night blast…

I think dcbii and Bryan Bice probably picked up what I am saying the best. (BTW, Bryan, congrats on the degree, saw you march… a long way from that Greek class we had together!)

I think that institutions can become extremely bureaucratic. Sometimes somebody does something stupid and a bureaucratic attitude at the top decides to make a rule so that such a thing ‘never happens again’. Often, the incident is a one-off situation that is highly unlikely to be repeated. The new rule becomes oppressive and counterproductive.

But there are some rules that are just good discipline for our fallen world. Take dress codes, for example. In the business world, dress codes are the norm. They aren’t always the same for every business, but there are expectations, written or unwritten, that require conformity. Is this bad? Shouldn’t college age kids learn something about conformity to these kinds of expectations? Wouldn’t some conformity to high standards here be a good testimony to the world?

So I think it is reasonable for schools to insist on some higher standards here. Yes, they should teach that conformity doesn’t equal spirituality. They should teach discernment and understanding, but they should also insist on conformity. If the Christian won’t conform in such small matters in a Christian college, he is going to have a real hard time living a Christian testimony in the world.

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

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

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

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

[Daniel.Viezbicke] I understand institutional rules, but an institution can elevate so many rules to the realm of conscience that one cannot escape the inevitable consequences: at worst, a seared conscience before God; at best, a disrespect for authority.

But, again, it’s not a matter of conscience, in that you must believe as those making the rules believe. It is a matter of submission, in that you must accept the authority of those in leadership for the time that they are your leaders. The rules are not the problem, whether they be few or many, the heart of man is the problem.

[Chip Van Emmerik]
But, again, it’s not a matter of conscience, in that you must believe as those making the rules believe. It is a matter of submission, in that you must accept the authority of those in leadership for the time that they are your leaders. The rules are not the problem, whether they be few or many, the heart of man is the problem.

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

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

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

Daniel, my point is that your premise is essentially faulty. A student’s response is solely his own, regardless of how many, how few, how good or how bad the rules might be. 1 Peter 2:13-25 speaks directly to this kind of responsibility.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Daniel, my point is that your premise is essentially faulty. A student’s response is solely his own, regardless of how many, how few, how good or how bad the rules might be. 1 Peter 2:13-25 speaks directly to this kind of responsibility.

Chip,

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

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

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

[Don Johnson]…I think that institutions can become extremely bureaucratic. Sometimes somebody does something stupid and a bureaucratic attitude at the top decides to make a rule so that such a thing ‘never happens again’. Often, the incident is a one-off situation that is highly unlikely to be repeated. The new rule becomes oppressive and counterproductive.

But there are some rules that are just good discipline for our fallen world. Take dress codes, for example. In the business world, dress codes are the norm. They aren’t always the same for every business, but there are expectations, written or unwritten, that require conformity. Is this bad? Shouldn’t college age kids learn something about conformity to these kinds of expectations? Wouldn’t some conformity to high standards here be a good testimony to the world?

So I think it is reasonable for schools to insist on some higher standards here. Yes, they should teach that conformity doesn’t equal spirituality. They should teach discernment and understanding, but they should also insist on conformity. If the Christian won’t conform in such small matters in a Christian college, he is going to have a real hard time living a Christian testimony in the world.

I agree, but I would like to clarify my own perspective on what is and isn’t ‘stupid’- a better word to describe rules I believe are harmful would probably be ‘arbitrary’. IOW, dress codes make sense, especially when you are trying to create a particular environment, whether it be professional, academic, or utilitarian. Forbidding media is problematic, however. The reason one person in reading Catcher in the Rye, for example, may be completely different than why another person is reading it.

I have no problem whatsoever with strict academic discipline and standards of conduct. But rules without spiritual or functional basis, zero tolerance policies, and ‘unwritten rules’ are evidence IMO of authority that can’t find its spine with both hands and a flashlight.

By design, each expectation Northland establishes must be biblically based and clearly articulated as to their purpose and role in creating Christlikeness among our students, or they must be clearly articulated as merely practical in nature. There is a natural tendency for expectations that have been established for practical reasons to become, over time, elevated to the level of importance with biblical commands. Even though it usually happens with the best of intentions, this is an extreme danger that does more to destroy the long-term discipleship development of a student than one can imagine. We see in the Bible how it caused the Pharisees to get offtrack, and the Pharisees are not alone in being vulnerable to this danger.

One of the ways, IMO, that practical rules end up on the same elevation as Biblical mandates is that a rejection of practicality and the needs of others is a symptom of a heart problem. Curfews for students who live on campus is practical- someone who constantly gripes about and breaks curfew is being a brat and causing inconvenience and worry for others. There isn’t anything inherently more spiritual about being an early riser as opposed to being a night owl, but a sensible night owl will understand why a curfew is necessary and abide by it out of concern and respect for others. Setting aside one’s own desires for the good of others has its place, especially during formative years and in team environments. But even Captain Kirk knew there were times when the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many. That’s where you can lay the rule book down for a few minutes so some true mentoring can happen.

[Greg Linscott] It seems to me that what Don and Aaron call for could be provided in the academic requirements, at least to some degree- deadlines, style requirements, course requirements, attendance, etc. etc. Even certain things like dress codes or how the dormitory is maintained might have a place for adherence and enforcement.

It seems to me, though, that where many institutions have not done quite so good a job at is separating such offenses from issues that have more direct spiritual consequences. There is a place to correct someone for leaving an unmade bed or allowing one’s hair to exceed accepted length. That isn’t the same thing as lying or stealing, though. Someone who exhibits discipline in personal grooming or housekeeping may really struggle with pride or coveting- something far more difficult to control with rules.

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

[Eric R.] Aaron, before I jump in with my own thoughts here, just want to clarify: I agree that there is value in strict discipline. But are you somehow implying that a school ought to intentionally have unfair and unreasonable rules in order to somehow prepare students for the “real world?” You seem a wise, reasonable guy, so I’m going for benefit of the doubt here. How am I misunderstanding you?

I’m only reasonable on the 2nd Thursday of odd numbered months. :)
I’m not saying intentionally unfair and unreasonable, no, but if you run a tight ship—whether it’s a school or business or whatever—there will be rules that draw lines that are occasionally (in the odd situation) absurd. Rules are made/lines drawn to handle the big picture. They address general patterns and so, if they are wise, they generally work. But sometimes something exceptional happens and the rule is stupid. How come you can have a car on campus if you’re 19 but not if you’re 18 and 11 months? (I don’t know if this rule exists anywhere…. hypothetical). To the 18yr.11mo. kid, the rule is unfair, silly, unreasonable. But an institution can’t say, “Well, close enough” very often or the rule because meaningless (pretty soon the 18 and 10 mo. olds are saying, “Hey you let the 18’11” guy do it, why can’t I?” And eventually you have the 17 year olds whining and wasting your time. In a way, it’s really unreasonable to tell the 18.9 year old he has to wait. But in some other ways, it’s prudent.

So, anyplace where things are a bit regimented, individual rules will be down right stupid sometimes in isolation… though possibly still part of a wise overall approach to things. Does that help?

Some miscellaneous other stuff
We’ve had some lengthy discussions in other threads about legalism in institutions and so forth. I really think it’s pretty exceptional when an institution wants students to believe that conforming to all the external disciplines constitutes spiritual vitality. It is often an unintended consequence. But any time that happens, it’s at least 50% the student’s fault, who can read a Bible and ought to know better, after all.
Often what’s true in one direction is assumed incorrectly to be true in the other direction: that is, disobeying rules in a legitimate authority situation is indicative of lack of spiritual maturity. But obeying them is not necessarily an indication of maturity because motives could be completely ungodly in the latter case, but are mostly not relevant in the former case. (And also for some other reasons, I expect)