Reflections on the Legalism/Rules discussion

Forum category
Reflections on the “Legalism/Rules” discussion

It’s now been about a month since my articles on “Legalism and the Christian School Movement” appeared here on SI. They were followed by a series by Aaron which asked the question “Are Rules Dangerous?”. Both of these article series provoked substantial debate and discussion.

Toward the end, I became immersed in several other projects and bowed out of those discussions. Here now are my reflections on the debate.

1). I think much of the reason for the debate was the failure to articulate what was meant by rules. This started with my articles. While I was narrowly referring to Christian School and Christian College rules, my content certainly could be applied more broadly. I admit that I hoped it would be applied more broadly.

But some tried to broaden my arguments on rules to either support or disagree with me. So let me try to clarify. I am concerned about extra-Biblical rules, the methods by which they are enforced, and the messages we send by having and enforcing them. The fatal combination, in my view, is this: When we take rules that are only loosely derived from Scripture, inflate their importance by enforcing them as though they are the equivalent to God’s rules, and then fail to inform our students of the process by which we have derived these rules from Scripture, we do them a disservice. All of the effects I warned about come into play when these three elements are present.

2). A good pastor friend of mine and I spent many hours discussing this article series. One of those discussions was particularly worthy of repeating here. He asked how I would respond if someone came to church dressed inappropriately. After some discussion of just how inappropriate we were talking about (not a bikini, for instance) I responded that I would probably see that they were talked to about it lovingly and carefully as a matter of discipleship. He then remarked “So you do have rules. They’re just internal and enforced on a different level.” And that is a great observation. It’s not rules that I’m opposed to (as I hope was always clear). It’s an enforcement mechanism divorced from a discipleship process. I admit I was surprised when he called my internal processes “rules”; I certainly never had thought of them that way. By the way, inappropriate dress for church is a very complex discussion – informed by such issues as rural vs. urban, climate, tradition, and most importantly, the attitude of the wearer. Oh, and Scripture too! Someone should start a thread!

3). I want to salute those who answered my challenge by saying they would be recommitting themselves to personal discipleship processes in association with their rule systems. I have no argument with you. It’s not as though I expected people to tear up their rule books mid-year. But I am concerned that many parts of Fundamentalism don’t have the foggiest idea of how to do discipleship. It is not a program. It is a relationship.

4). Aaron’s series certainly provoked still more interesting discussion. I freely admit he hit the mark with a few points. But I am still concerned that we are very far apart on the issue of Sanctification process. In fact, this is a huge dividing point among fundamentalists. Aaron is, apparently, comfortable with rules – even extra Biblical ones — as part of that process. He is convinced that he has done a service to someone if he enforces a rule that prevents them from sinning, even if they only obey against their wills. I’m troubled with this. Not so much because I deny the accuracy of the observation. Of course if my rule keeps a teen from, for instance, an act of fornication that they might otherwise have engaged in, I have helped that teen on some level. But I’m pretty sure that we’re not asking or answering the right questions with this example. And I’m not sure that any such rule would do more than the actual commands against immorality, properly taught, would do.

On the www.standpointconference.com website, we recently published our affirmations, which include this one:
www.standpointconference.com: We affirm that sanctification is grace-based rather than a process that occurs due to mere obedience to rules. While we acknowledge the role of rules in the individual life of a believer and the necessity for them in certain organizational settings, and acknowledge the proper role of obedience to Scriptural commands, we deny that rules have real transforming power and deny that they can produce true inward holiness.

Therefore, we disagree with those who would attempt to define holiness as obedience to a list of rules, and strongly reject all teaching that tends to persuade people that submission to rules equates with the transforming power of the Spirit of God.
I believe that this affirmation is Scripturally correct. And I believe that Aaron and some others would disagree with some aspects of it, or at least with where it leads, logically. The fact that we disagree is not an issue of separation or anger. But it does indicate that we have woefully failed to develop the doctrine of Sanctification. There ought not to be such a large area unexplored. With rigorous doctrinal development after analysis of Scripture, we could then develop processes that work with Sanctification for our churches and schools.

One of Paul Matzko’s posts demonstrates this need very well:
Paul Matzko: 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.
Paul, that statement is shocking to the Fundamentalist mind. Those kinds of questions make us question our assumptions and traditions, making us fall back to make sure they are in accord with Scripture. By the way, I wish you had written my articles.

So I end my reflections with this: Let us dig into the doctrine of Sanctification with great energy. I am engaging in a study of it, and intend to post some reflections for discussion in the months ahead. I invite you all to join me. Perhaps it’s where this discussion should have begun.

Discussion

I forgot to mention that I was interested in the whole “zones of authority” debate. Whether schools have the right to enforce rules once students have left the school grounds and are back in the care of their parents is not what interested me, though.

The third point of my article raised the issue of whether Churches had the right to spin off ministries that had an enforcement mechanism that was outside of that which the Lord has authorized for the church – that of confrontation hoping for repentance, followed by, in cases of unrepentance, church discipline. I admit that I didn’t give thought to whether or not the parents had the right to give some of their rights as parents to the school, and that this would form the basis of the school’s authority to discipline as it does. If one accepts this reasoning, their agreement with the school’s handbook would constitute the school’s right to enforce according to that handbook. This, of course, removes the entire objection in my 3rd point. I will have to think about that some more.

It does not, however, in any way impact my first two points.

I suspect that this is the actual philosophical basis that some schools have chosen; it’s why the in loco parentis argument is made (other than the obvious legal reasons).

Mike,

I think most of us would agree that rule keeping does not equal sanctification. On the other hand, rules are absolutely necessary in a sizable educational institution in order to maintain order, discipline, and decency. In that sense they have a common grace effect which is an orderly and civil environment. Rules outside the school should be compatible with clear moral instruction. We have a rule that children are not allowed to look at sensual material at home, on the computer, TV, phone, etc. I don’t see how a rule such as that is incompatible with discipleship. Rules, I agree, should not be a substitute for discipleship. Perhaps, that is the greatest danger I see.

Pastor Mike Harding

really, i think if this is going to be really meaningful, we need to list actual rules. Aaron, for example, kept aceding the point that certain rules actually are unnecessary or harmful (or something like that?), but he never defined clearly what rules he was talking about.

about what Mike Harding just wrote … well, … how to say it? it’s the atmosphere, the impression conveyed.

I experienced this very much as a student and at the church i attended while being a student. You evaluated the spirituality of a person by how they conformed to the visible code of conduct … I think b/c that’s how the staff was trained to evaluate us … .

i don’t know if i’m saying this right. someone else can put it into words better.

[Mike Harding] Mike,

I think most of us would agree that rule keeping does not equal sanctification. On the other hand, rules are absolutely necessary in a sizable educational institution in order to maintain order, discipline, and decency. In that sense they have a common grace effect which is an orderly and civil environment. Rules outside the school should be compatible with clear moral instruction. We have a rule that children are not allowed to look at sensual material at home, on the computer, TV, phone, etc. I don’t see how a rule such as that is incompatible with discipleship. Rules, I agree, should not be a substitute for discipleship. Perhaps, that is the greatest danger I see.
Mike,

Thanks for the precisely worded statement. And as I said earlier, I have no problem with those who include the discipleship in the process. Some have told me I am confusing the role of church and school by saying that. Of course, they are the same ones who argue you can’t divorce the spiritual instruction from the secular when they try to persuade people to come to their Christian School. Keep it up, Mike. But I do think Anne raises a great point…
[Anne Sokol] really, i think if this is going to be really meaningful, we need to list actual rules. Aaron, for example, kept aceding the point that certain rules actually are unnecessary or harmful (or something like that?), but he never defined clearly what rules he was talking about. about what Mike Harding just wrote … well, … how to say it? it’s the atmosphere, the impression conveyed. I experienced this very much as a student and at the church i attended while being a student. You evaluated the spirituality of a person by how they conformed to the visible code of conduct … I think b/c that’s how the staff was trained to evaluate us … . i don’t know if i’m saying this right. someone else can put it into words better.
Anne, what a great observation: it’s the atmosphere that does some damage! I completely agree. I don’t think I can word it any better, but I can provide a anecdote: A friend tells me that his sister, who went to a Christian High School, says that she was so horrified of the attitudes and emphasis on reputation based on rules at the school she attended that had she ever done anything that resulted in a premarital pregnancy, she would have had an abortion before telling the school. In other words, she would have chosen the GREATER sin in order to evade their condemnation. Clearly, a negative atmosphere existed there. I don’t think it’s fair to say it was about rules. But it does have to do with their attitude toward rules, rule-keeping, and rule-breaking.

[Mike Harding] Mike,

I think most of us would agree that rule keeping does not equal sanctification. On the other hand, rules are absolutely necessary in a sizable educational institution in order to maintain order, discipline, and decency. In that sense they have a common grace effect which is an orderly and civil environment. Rules outside the school should be compatible with clear moral instruction. We have a rule that children are not allowed to look at sensual material at home, on the computer, TV, phone, etc. I don’t see how a rule such as that is incompatible with discipleship. Rules, I agree, should not be a substitute for discipleship. Perhaps, that is the greatest danger I see.
I agree completely that rules are necessary for maintaining order and discipline and decency in an institutional setting. I would also support a requirement that parents sign a doctrinal statement and agree to abide by the policies outlined in the student handbook.

I think if a parent can agree to a doctrinal statement, then their private lives should be in line with a Biblical code of conduct as well. However, I asked in the earlier threads how one would define ‘sensuality’ for purposes of applying this rule, because I think this is where a school applying rules to students at home becomes sticky. This kind of rule can’t apply only to the student, but must be observed by everyone to preserve order in the home.

Take, for instance, the movie http://www.kids-in-mind.com/a/amelia.htm Amelia that is or was just out in theaters. It is the story of Amelia Earhart, and it’s rated PG. But if you read the review at Kids In Mind (which is where I linked to) you will see the following description of the sexual content of this movie:
A husband lifts his wife’s skirt and caresses her bare thigh (we see stocking tops, and her garter and bare thigh); they kiss and it is implied that they have sex.

► A man and a woman kiss passionately in an elevator, he caresses her bare back and it is implied that they have sex. A woman goes to a man’s hotel room, they dance close together, she drops her coat on the floor (we see her wearing pajamas), they hug and kiss passionately and it is implied that they have sex (we see a rumpled bed the next morning). A woman wearing a low-cut negligee sits at a desk and a bare-chested man lies in a bed behind her; she moves to the bed, he caresses her and they talk.

► A husband and his wife kiss at their wedding ceremony. A man kisses a woman. A woman kisses a man on the cheek. A husband and his wife hug in bed (both clothed).

► A husband and his wife talk lovingly over a radio. A man makes an unwelcome sexual advance toward a woman (she rebukes him and leaves). A boy asks a woman to marry his father and when she tells him that she is already married, he wonders why she cannot be married to two men. A woman admires another woman’s beauty and remarks about her legs. A man tells a woman that she is “much prettier than her photographs.” A man tells a woman that “pretty girls attract attention.”

► A woman wears a towel wrapped around her after a shower and her bare shoulders and upper back are visible. A woman singing on stage wears a low-cut dress with a skirt that is slit up to the thigh (cleavage, shoulders and thighs are visible). A woman wears a low-cut negligee that reveals cleavage and bare shoulders in a couple of scenes. A woman wears low-cut tops in several scenes that reveal cleavage. Women wear low-cut evening gowns that reveal cleavage, bare shoulders and backs in a couple of scenes.
Does this movie contain too much sensual content, and would it be off limits to students?

[Mike Durning] A friend tells me that his sister, who went to a Christian High School, says that she was so horrified of the attitudes and emphasis on reputation based on rules at the school she attended that had she ever done anything that resulted in a premarital pregnancy, she would have had an abortion before telling the school. In other words, she would have chosen the GREATER sin in order to evade their condemnation. Clearly, a negative atmosphere existed there. I don’t think it’s fair to say it was about rules. But it does have to do with their attitude toward rules, rule-keeping, and rule-breaking.
This actually happened at my Christian school, and the girl that got the abortion won Christian Character Awards nearly every year, even though her mother and quite a few other people knew about the abortion.

God has a rule: “Thous Shalt Not Commit Adultery”. David violated that rule. In order to escape the consequences and embarassment of violating that rule, David arranged for the murder of Uriah. David’s second sin which could be argued was the greater sin can not be blamed on the fact that God had a rule not to commit the first sin. Perhaps in a more libertine environment where adultery is not frowned upon, David might not have arranged for the death of Uriah. Nevertheless, the fact that people will do worse things to cover up their sin does not negate the legitimacy of the initial prohibition.

Pastor Mike Harding

[Mike Harding] God has a rule: “Thous Shalt Not Commit Adultery”. David violated that rule. In order to escape the consequences and embarassment of violating that rule, David arranged for the murder of Uriah. David’s second sin which could be argued was the greater sin can not be blamed on the fact that God had a rule not to commit the first sin. Perhaps in a more libertine environment where adultery is not frowned upon, David might not have arranged for the death of Uriah. Nevertheless, the fact that people will do worse things to cover up their sin does not negate the legitimacy of the initial prohibition.
Mike, that’s a great point. But nobody was saying drop the rule against fornication by Christian High School students. Anne and I were talking about an atmosphere that does not welcome repentance or honest admission of short-comings, and then results in the kind of hypocrisy we saw in those stories.

It speaks to the “rules culture” at those particular schools without condemning the rules directly.

It’s definitely good for Christian colleges to provide their entire student life handbook publicly so anybody who wants to see it is able to. Some of the fundy colleges have been doing it, and if you read through their guidebooks you’ll see biblical foundations for their expectations of student life. For other things they identify rules that are not clearly Bible based.

Appalachian — http://www.abc.edu/prospective/files/servants_staff.pdf

Clearwater — http://www.clearwater.edu/The_Guide.pdf

Piedmont — http://www.pbc.edu/Document.Doc?id=13