Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1

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.

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???)

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.

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.

[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.

[Aaron]

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.

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.

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 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.

[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. :)