I understand your contention that there may be a Scriptural basis for a rule banning blue jeans but allowing black ones. I might argue with you that the Bible declares one color good and another bad, but let’s concede that point for the moment. I think the bigger question is this: was that rule (and others like it) formed because of a Scriptural basis, or because a principal, teacher, pastor etc. just didn’t like blue jeans?

My dad was on the school board by virtue of being a deacon when they started the Christian school I attended. The draft rule book had a 5 demerit penalty for chewing gum…and a 5 demerit penalty for cheating on a test…until he pointed out the incongruity. There was certainly not much attention being paid there (at one of the flagship schools in the Christian ed movement in our state) to Scriptural foundations for rules; they were just making things up as they went along.

I think a school should adopt whatever rules it feels will best order the learning environment, but it should not argue that those rules are drawn from Scripture unless they truly are.

I didn’t have the exact rules you mentioned at any place I was associated with, but they didn’t seem that foreign to some of the rules we did have. Let me give it a shot for you, OK?

Your first one—“A Christian school I attended for elementary and junior high maintained that blue denim jeans were not allowed to be worn by the guys, but green, or any other color, was OK.”

They thought that blue jeans at the time had a different association than what they wanted for school. Blue jeans were play clothes. The green differentiated the school time, the academic setting, from a less intellectually serious environment. There is a scriptural basis for associations and symbols and appropriateness in dress all over the place. Love does not behave unbecomingly or inappropriately. “Modest” apparel is appropriate apparel or clothes in fitting with a designated purpose.

Your second example—“Also, a school where my wife taught had a rule that boys must wear ties and the girls dresses (instead of skirts), but only on Wednesday.”

I went to a Christian school that wore ties only on Friday, because it was a chapel day. They sanctified the chapel period, set apart a special time of worship with dress appropriate to that activity. This principle too is in scripture. They also may have been attempting to make it easier for parents who had children who attended services on Wednesday, so were attempting to encourage Wed eve Bible study and prayer.

Your Third Example—“Finally, consider the infamous, now-repealed no “interracial dating” rule at BJU. I submit that it had no Biblical basis. That, however, did not remove my obligation to obey it. It was a rule put in place over me by my authority, so I obeyed it and the myriad other rules there. I either had to obey or leave. As pointed out by the BJU Dean of Students, Jim Berg, the viable options when in disagreement with one’s authority are to get the authority to change or to remove myself from under that authority. I stayed because I chose to abide by the rules.”

Dr. Cedarholm almost once a year preached a sermon against inter-racial dating and marriage. He always had scriptural reasons. I may think that he didn’t prove it, but it wasn’t unusual exegesis for the point he was making. The lack of expository preaching may have been the bigger weakness here.

Just because we don’t agree with the scriptural premise for the rules doesn’t mean that there is not a scriptural reason.

Thanks Jim.

Jim, I would agree with you that the rule about blue jeans as opposed to other jeans is arbitrary and seems capricious. But I don’t agree that it is beyond the bounds of a school to set such a rule. I am not sure I would put my kids in a school that had too many rules like that, but I certainly could live with it if I chose to put myself in that situation. And complying with it would build character, especially if I responded with a sweet spirit in the inner man to it.

The same goes for the “Wednesday only” ties and dresses rule, although I could see a biblical rationale for encouraging a higher standard of dressing at least once a week. If I was the administrator, the choice would be 1) have the rule for every day or 2) don’t have the rule at all. But I don’t particularly have a problem with the rule as it is stated.

I agree that the BJU interracial dating rule was founded on poor Biblical reasoning, but it wasn’t sufficient for me to take myself elsewhere either.

I think that character formation forms through godly responses to trying circumstances. That is why I advocate requiring much of young people (rules) and teaching them that they need to respond properly in the spirit of the inner man (the fruit of the Spirit) to those rules. It is putting an artificial rigour in place in order to develop character before children grow up and face the cruelties of this world. Then the rigour isn’t artificial at all. Those with strong characters already in place will have less difficulty later on.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Since you asked, I ‘ll give you a few examples, each from a different Christian educational setting I am familiar with.

A Christian school I attended for elementary and junior high maintained that blue denim jeans were not allowed to be worn by the guys, but green, or any other color, was OK.

Also, a school where my wife taught had a rule that boys must wear ties and the girls dresses (instead of skirts), but only on Wednesday.

Finally, consider the infamous, now-repealed no “interracial dating” rule at BJU. I submit that it had no Biblical basis. That, however, did not remove my obligation to obey it. It was a rule put in place over me by my authority, so I obeyed it and the myriad other rules there. I either had to obey or leave. As pointed out by the BJU Dean of Students, Jim Berg, the viable options when in disagreement with one’s authority are to get the authority to change or to remove myself from under that authority. I stayed because I chose to abide by the rules.

In the process, I learned much, and yes, Don, my character increased, I believe. However, I attribute that more to God’s working in my life during the time I was in college to increase my faith and dependence on Him. The rules really weren’t an issue for me, but they were part of the environment God used.

Again, I have no problem with rules that have a scriptural basis.

Jim

Hi Kent,

Yes, but the avante garde want explicit statements from the Bible, don’t you know? So regardless of your basis and principles, they want the verse that says, “Thou shalt…” or “Thou shalt not…” None of your study, understanding, and application of Biblical principles, eh?

And, to quote Dr P, “I speak as a fool.”

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Getting a pass to go off campus. Signing out. Making my bed. Emptying the trash. Having my hair cut. Wearing a tie. Attending class. Not being tardy. Not touching girls. Not being alone with a girl. Having a one inch margin. Type written papers. Attending church. My name at the top right hand corner. No alcohol. Staying awake during chapel. Lights out.

I could give you a scriptural basis for every one of the above written rules. Could someone give me a rule that had no biblical basis to it?

Hi Jim,

Like I said, dueling philosophies. Some rules in a Christian educational system will have a biblical warrant, but others will not. I doubt if there really is any home where all the rules have much more of a biblical warrant than “dad said so”. I contend that to the extent an educational institution has authority, it has the authority to make rules as it sees fit. And if the individuals who attend wish to continue the privilege of attending, they have the responsibility to follow the rules regardless of what they think the quality of the rule might be.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I have not argued against rules, order, or discipline, but against rules that serve no real pedagogical, institutional, or spiritual purpose.

I contend that rules in a Christian educational setting should should have a Biblical warrant. If you want to have the students cultivate the fruit of the Spirit in their lives (after they have been converted), base your rules on the Bible and clear applications of its principles.

Jim

Keith, you make some good points in your last post.

A few counters, however…

I don’t know anyone who thought wearing ties would make them more holy. I don’t know anyone who thought that they somehow had to follow the “code of ties” when they were no longer under the BJU code. But there remains an impression upon character that continues long after the fact – when I rarely where ties – that can be attributed to that and many other rules I had to submit to at BJU (and earlier in my parents home, though certainly not as strict as BJU).

I agree that the military is attempting to breakdown individuality, but is that so bad a thing? Wouldn’t it help the church for us to “be not many masters”?

I agree that the ‘greatest generation’ dropped the ball in raising their own children, but that doesn’t mean they were bereft of personal character. I think they were tired of the fight and the sacrifice of the Depression and then the War, and wanted things to be better for their kids. And so they indulged them, instead of maintaining discipline to some extent.

Of course, we are speaking in generalities.

On your last point, you should listen to my messages. Not provoking your children doesn’t mean don’t discipline them. The general understanding of Eph 6.4 is a great misunderstanding.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don’t take what I’m writing as an argument against institutional rules. As tjp says, you can’t have an institution without them.

The question is — what rules should you have and how should they be explained and understood within the community.

Mouthing the words, “These rules aren’t about your sanctification or your standing with God,” and actually having that believed within a community/institution are totally different things. Of course, no protestant (or baptist for those of you baptists who don’t think you’re protestants) school is going to say, these rules are what makes you holy and earn you God’s favor. Everybody knows that flies in the face of formalized doctrinal statements. The question is — what is the functional belief. What is really believed in the life of the institution.

If the rules don’t play a part in my sanctification, then I ought to be able to have whatever attitude I want about them without my spiritual condition coming into question. To use your example, I ought to be able to say, “I’m wearing this necktie because I have committed to submit to this institution, but this is the stupidest practice I’ve yet encountered. Furthermore, I won’t wear one when I am not here.”

If it really is all about character — like the military — that should be ok. Nobody in the military is expected to follow military dress protocol when they are no longer in the military. Was that kind of attitude ok?

Furthermore, you say, “There is a reason military institutions have insane rules. They intend to develop character.” Are you sure that is the primary reason? In all parts of the military? Do they really want enlisted men to have “character” or do they want them to conform and obey in order to be a part of a well functioning machine? Is basic training primarily trying to instill character, or is it trying to breakdown individuality?

As far as the “Greatest Generation” thing goes, I don’t buy it for a minute. That greatest generation is who gave us the mess we have now. They produced the kids of the 60s. Their discipline was all about personal peace and affluence and it has made a mess. Thank goodness that they stood up to Hitler. They deserve much praise. But they were just as fallen as a group as any other.

Finally, if a school is serving in loco parentis (in the place of the parent), then it must listen to Scriptures advice to parents that they NOT provoke or frustrate their children.