Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1

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

So what if a parent says, ‘It’s okay for my kid to be late to class.” You are fine with overruling the parent. But if a parent says, “My kids can go to heavy metal concerts and drink with their friends” (over 18, their senior year), you would say that the school cannot overrule that (I presume). Or a parent says “My kid can go to the prom and slow dance with his date” or “my daughter can go to the prom and wear an immodest dress to the prom.” And the school can’t overrule that. And that makes no sense to me. Honestly, it doesn’t. I am not trying to be hard to get along with here. It just makes no sense. Again, it’s this willingness to make rules about less important stuff while not having rules about more important stuff.

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

But the biblical principle doesn’t address “how far” one go go. Schools must have a rule of some sort, it seems to me. Even public schools get this. Furthermore, what’s wrong with redundancy?

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

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

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

First, why isn’t the school an appropriate authority? Second, expelling a child doesn’t deny them academic instruction. Third, it directly affects the ability of the school to carry out its mission. The school may not expel the child (or might). But they have a substantive interest in the issue.

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

Where does a school have biblical authority to demand a student be on time for class? Again, how is this not a glaring inconsistency in legislating the less important while ignoring the more important.

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

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

Gag me with a pitchfork.

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

IMO the school is servant to the parent.

Sure, to some degree. And serving them includes helping them to understand the world and their responsibilities as parents. And in the end, if a parent doesn’t like a school’s policies, they are free to seek education elsewhere.

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

I think this is totally wrong. Give me a morally trained person any day over one who gets all A’s. It is much more important to build character than intelligence. But I don’t think we have to change.

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

But you would have to show this more effectively than you have (at least that I have read and I admit to not reading everything you have said). I think the mistake here is assuming that education can somehow be separated from morality, and that a school can effectively educate without the ability to enforce basic christian morality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They can. I think the flaw here is that we assume that if someone isn’t discipling someone they should, that no one else can do it.

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

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

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

But wasn’t much of this carrying out the great commission (or at least attempting to)? What’s the alternative? Don’t reach the kids unless we reach teh parents first? I don’t think that flies. Sometimes, in the building of disciples parents are obstacles to overcome.

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

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

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

Like being on time to class? Or yelling the hallways during their free period? Again, sorry to beat an old drum, but what if a parent says “My child doesn’t have to be on time for class. Quit giving him (or her) detentions.” Or “My kid can yell whenever they want to.” Or “I gave my child permission to send text messages during class.” Can a school override that? Extreme example? Perhaps. But doesn’t it at least show that your position cannot be consistently held. Parental authority is sometimes misguided. It is not absolute.

But on that note, I am going to bail out here unless I just can’t help myself.

Thanks one and all.

Random thoughts.

Larry- I agree with most of what you are saying. You are mistaken though to think that the no pants on women was not a mainstream idea in fundamentalism. I was part of many different fundamental churches in many parts of the country and that was an issue in the 80s and even into the mid 90’s. Just an FYI. Although I would agree that now it is a mostly fringe issue now.

Susan - While I understand what you are saying about churches reaching kids, I think you are overreaching. Many of us, who are in full-time service were bus kids. Of my mom’s 6 kids 3 of us are in vocational ministry. Only one is not activei in church right now. I often wonder what would be had someone said, “We shouldn’t reach these kids until we reach the parents.” Oh BTW, I was one of those unsaved Christian character award winners, so I can relate to what you are saying. :)

Byce, good thoughts as always.

Anne, I was suprised to hear you say that Mission Boards forbid parents from adopting. I would like to know the rationale behind that one is.

[Larry] So what if a parent says, ‘It’s okay for my kid to be late to class.” You are fine with overruling the parent. But if a parent says, “My kids can go to heavy metal concerts and drink with their friends” (over 18, their senior year), you would say that the school cannot overrule that (I presume). Or a parent says “My kid can go to the prom and slow dance with his date” or “my daughter can go to the prom and wear an immodest dress to the prom.” And the school can’t overrule that. And that makes no sense to me. Honestly, it doesn’t. I am not trying to be hard to get along with here. It just makes no sense. Again, it’s this willingness to make rules about less important stuff while not having rules about more important stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlie,

Misses the point in this respect (as well as others, but I will comment only on this one). We recognize that within the church there are various activities/functions/offices/opportunities which require more of the participants than it does of others. Take, for instance, the office of deacon. There is a requirement for deacons that regular church members do not have. Or SS/Bible study teacher, or a nursery workers. And we recognize that this higher level of opportunity requires a higher level of commitment in certain areas. And we recognize that one can be be removed from the higher level of opportunity without being removed from the church.

So to say that the school cannot exercise any more discipline than the church is misguided. It doesn’t apply anywhere else in the church, and we instinctively recognize that. And we have biblical mandate for it .

Again, I think this should be just basic stuff. As I said earlier, I think there is a rush to be more biblical than the Bible that leads us to overlook some of these basic realities of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rogercarlson]

Susan - While I understand what you are saying about churches reaching kids, I think you are overreaching. Many of us, who are in full-time service were bus kids. Of my mom’s 6 kids 3 of us are in vocational ministry. Only one is not activei in church right now. I often wonder what would be had someone said, “We shouldn’t reach these kids until we reach the parents.” Oh BTW, I was one of those unsaved Christian character award winners, so I can relate to what you are saying. :)

I’m not advocating that we not reach kids, but that we reach for the parents with all the compassion and fervor that is usually reserved for the kids, and that long term discipling take place that involves the entire family whenever possible. I served on bus routes where I never even met the parents of the children I was picking up. It grieves me mightily to this day. I keep a picture of one boy in particular that was in my Sunday School class to remind me what an oblivious wretch I was.

I didn’t get any Christian character awards in school- I got caught reading Stephen King and Sidney Sheldon novels in class and in Chapel a few too many times. I got awards in everything else though. :)

[Larry] Charlie,

Misses the point in this respect (as well as others, but I will comment only on this one). We recognize that within the church there are various activities/functions/offices/opportunities which require more of the participants than it does of others. Take, for instance, the office of deacon. There is a requirement for deacons that regular church members do not have. Or SS/Bible study teacher, or a nursery workers. And we recognize that this higher level of opportunity requires a higher level of commitment in certain areas. And we recognize that one can be be removed from the higher level of opportunity without being removed from the church.

So to say that the school cannot exercise any more discipline than the church is misguided. It doesn’t apply anywhere else in the church, and we instinctively recognize that. And we have biblical mandate for it .

Again, I think this should be just basic stuff. As I said earlier, I think there is a rush to be more biblical than the Bible that leads us to overlook some of these basic realities of life.

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

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

[Larry] Charlie,

Misses the point in this respect (as well as others, but I will comment only on this one). We recognize that within the church there are various activities/functions/offices/opportunities which require more of the participants than it does of others. Take, for instance, the office of deacon. There is a requirement for deacons that regular church members do not have. Or SS/Bible study teacher, or a nursery workers. And we recognize that this higher level of opportunity requires a higher level of commitment in certain areas. And we recognize that one can be be removed from the higher level of opportunity without being removed from the church.

So to say that the school cannot exercise any more discipline than the church is misguided. It doesn’t apply anywhere else in the church, and we instinctively recognize that. And we have biblical mandate for it .

Again, I think this should be just basic stuff. As I said earlier, I think there is a rush to be more biblical than the Bible that leads us to overlook some of these basic realities of life.

The requirements of a deacon as one with a higher level of opportunity/commitment translates to students of a school? I don’t instinctively recognize any correlation at all. A deacon is a spiritual leader in a church, and a kid in school… is a kid in school. Where is the Biblical mandate for school administrations to dictate extra-Biblical rules in the private lives of believers? Or even Biblical ones, like how much and how often one should read the Bible, pray, witness, give to the poor…

I like Bro. Charlie’s outline. Made perfect sense to me.

Aaron’s essay certainly has stirred intense discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s distinguish between types of “rules” here.

I don’t think anybody disputes the usefulness or necessity of functional rules that arise naturally from the situation. Fire drills. Don’t cheat. Etc.

I think that everybody accepts that Scriptural rules are all good – but even they can be misused. Note, for instance, how in I Timothy 1, attempts by the false teachers to use the law “unlawfully” produced a bad effect despite the inherent goodness of the law itself. Today, even Scriptural rules can be misused if they become a mere checklist by which I pridefully define myself as spiritual because of my external conformity.

Extra-Biblical rules, in the sense that they are reviled by the Young Fundamentalists, are those that have spiritual overtones because they are derived from applications of Scriptural principle, and then are applied to everyone with an enforcement policy that has little or nothing to do with Scriptural means of discipleship or sanctification.

For me, the fact that they failed to produce the promised fruit in the Christian School movement or in Fundamentalist youth groups in years gone by is only a secondary reason to distrust them. The first is that they are “extra-Biblical” and “rules” – two things that, put together, ask the question “By what authority do you put this rule on people?” I don’t mean that as a rebel statement. I’m asking, sincerely, what are the Scriptural guidelines by which such rules can be generated, applied, and enforced? I think the making of such rules has far outpaced the detailed Scriptural analysis needed to answer that question.

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

In some ways, surely. If you intercept a member of your church on the way to commit adultery and drag him kicking and screaming out of the motel, you may have saved him from the immediate consequences of that sin. You may or may not save his marriage. I doubt you’ve saved his purity in any internal sense. I’m pretty sure that Heaven will not accord him any degree of innocence for being dragged from the room. He may or may not learn a lesson. If he does, it may only be “hide my sin better”. If he does learn a lesson and repent and spend all his days thanking you for your “enforcement” action, then praise the Lord! You were used by Him to help a brother.

But the question becomes more murky with an extra-Biblical rule. I forbid a student to go to prom – in effect dragging him kicking and screaming from a situation that he does not perceive to threaten his purity. Have I really helped him? Or would a long open discussion about prom have helped him more? This is the kind of question that we must answer as those who would disciple Christian young people. Heb. 5:14 suggests that they need opportunities to discern in order to grow mature enough to discern.

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

• Best: do right out of faith and love

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

• Bad: do right with some evil motive

• Worst: do wrong.

Great point, Aaron. The very fact that God provides us with a variety of motivations in Scripture (love me, obey because of blessing, obey out of fear, obey to get my hand of chastisement off of your life) certainly implies that while we should aspire to the higher motivations, the lesser ones will do if that’s all that we can be motivated by.

But the link between this and churches or schools implementing and enforcing extra-Biblical rules is nebulous. God’s commandments being good are a certainty. Man’s applications being good for them are a speculation.

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

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

Actually, what is the right thing? Detaching the word “drinking” from the word “party”, since I doubt they called it that, I would like to challenge the assumption, Aaron. It would be better if he did the right thing without a rule. But what if the right thing is to go with a few Christian friends, stand for Christ, and leave when the liquor comes out and things get out of control?

I’m just saying that a social gathering can be a setting in which Christ can be represented. The Fundamentalist assumption that because it’s not a church youth meeting it’s unsafe divorces us from evangelism opportunities. No, I am not suggesting that we risk our teens on uncertain chances to evangelize. I’m suggesting that if we keep them isolated, they won’t know any unbelievers.

So, in some instances, a few Christian teens maybe might want to go for good reasons, for awhile. And the Pastors and School Administrators cry “Look, he goes to parties with publicans and sinners!” Sorry. I just couldn’t resist. ;)

Now, I understand you can’t make rules for a Christian School that differentiate between a variety of motivations. I’m just calling the premise into question.

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

I’m saying that, in some instances, the rule may be useless because of his faith and love – even if he goes to the party.

[Aaron Blumer] Just as sin is inherently damaging and habit-forming, every act of obedience is inherently helpful and habit-forming (1 Tim. 4:8). Obedience deepens fellowship with God (1 John 1:6-7), sharpens spiritual senses, strengthens resolve, tunes affections (1 Pet. 1:22), nurtures body and mind, enhances relationships and forms liberating habits.

I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, but when bundled with your earlier statement that a believer who avoids sin because of a rule and penalty is inherently better off than if he had succumbed to sin, we have a horrifying concept. These concepts become the justification for abusive leadership. Too often, it becomes “Any rule that may in any way rescue one person from a possible sin is justified by that chance. After all, we’re helping them.”

Obedience forced is not obedience. Such obedience may be somewhat helpful, in that it might mitigate the effect of sins that might have been. But I deny that mere compliance without heart in any way deepens fellowship with God. It surely does not sharpen spiritual senses. Only the exercise of discernment to the point of maturity builds such senses (Heb. 5:14). And I’m certain that your verse about tuning affections is not about enforced rules. I Peter 1:22 specifies that their obedience was “through the Spirit”.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne Sokol]

aaron wrote: “In fact, seeking to instill understanding of the reasons for rules is not aiming high enough either. Since we’re commanded to love the Lord our God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30), we’re not truly living the life unless we obey in body, intellect and affections. We are not fully obedient until we do the right thing driven by both faith and love.”

this logic assumes a few things. First sentence “rules.” Last sentence: “the right thing.”

Now you see, this is a fallacy, setting up rules to equal the universal right thing. I’m talking about moral rules, too, like movie attendance. If the rules say not to attend movies, that means it is universally wrong? That for every person, it’s the right thing not to attend the movies?

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

Might help to reread in context.

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

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne] OK, i’m reading a bunch of parenting books right now, so this is coming fresh from that. I don’t think it’s correct to say that every act of obedience is inherently helpful, deepens fellowship with God, etc. Why. Because some kids, when “made” to obey are internally seething with anger, revenge and bitterness. These things develop over months and years and lead to depression, violent expressions of anger, turning away from parents’ faith, etc. So i don’t think that’s necessarily a true argument.

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

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

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

Susan,

I am somewhat at a loss of how to respond here, and I probably shouldn’t, since I said I was done. But I am truly boggled by this. It makes no sense to me and it leads me to believe, perhaps naively that we must be talking past each other.

Let me hit a few highlights.

First, spheres of authority. You have said this several times, as have others, but I haven’t seen any support or interaction for it. You say that parents, church, and state are clearly laid out and seem to say that those are the only ones that are legitimate. But elsewhere you acknowledge that an employer can bring consequences on an employee for things off the job (drugs/alcohol). And BTW, everyone acknowledges this, and you don’t even have to be arrested for it. If you fail a random drug test, there are consequences. We also acknowledge the authority of store owners to set prices for products and we tell our children you have to pay the price he asks for it … You have to submit to his authority on that matter. We acknowledge the authority of a neighbor to set boundaries for his property and ask you not to come into it. Do you realize that some professional athletes (probably most) have clauses in their contracts that they can’t do certain things like play basketball, ride motorcyles, etc. Why? Because they are interested in a product. Again, this is just so obvious to me that it seems we must be talking past each other. I can’t imagine what the disagreement is.

Does a school have a sphere of authority? Most, that I know of (public or private/Christian) do have a sphere of authority that is well recognized and often directly acknowledged in the enrollment documents. In fact, it has already been acknowledged here.

And yes, schools should take it up with the parent and not the child. I don’t think anyone here disputes that.

Second, the whole church/school confusion. The school should be viewed as an entity within the church, not as the church. To participate in it requires a higher level of commitment, just like being a deacon, a SS teacher, a nursery worker, a choir member, etc. We all recognize that these opportunities require extra commitment that we don’t require out of all members. And if someone fails in one of these areas consistently, we might ask them to step down from being a deacon, but that doesn’t remove them from the church. Again, I think this is self-evident, which is why I am confused. A person who routinely doesn’t attend choir practice is going to be asked to step down from the choir. A person who has a conviction for child abuse for which he has repented and served his debt will not be allowed in the nursery though he can and should be a member of the church. So there, something that took place off of church property has ramifications for involvement.

As for the Deut 22:5 issue, to my knowledge I have never been involved in a Christian school and am not directly familiar with any Christian school who uses that verse to deny women wearing pants. I have heard it preached, but my point is that I don’t think it was mainstream. It may have been popular in your circles, but remember fundamentalism is much larger than that and always has been.

So in the end, I just don’t get the angst here. If a school exists to turn out a product, they have a legitimate role in the students life that the parents acknowledge by having their children in the school.

I can see your point if the role of a school is only the communication of information. But I think you denied that. I certainly would. So, again, I am sure it is my problem, but I just don’t get it.