{"id":1500,"date":"2009-10-13T01:29:50","date_gmt":"2009-10-13T09:29:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2009\/10\/13\/does-your-philosophy-of-education-include-rules\/"},"modified":"2009-10-13T01:29:50","modified_gmt":"2009-10-13T09:29:50","slug":"does-your-philosophy-of-education-include-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2009\/10\/13\/does-your-philosophy-of-education-include-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"does your philosophy of education include rules?"},"content":{"rendered":"
An astonishing discussion is happening here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a> concerning Christian schools and rules. Dave Doran comments on it here<\/a> and offers a two part article on legalism as a partial response. The article is well worth reading (follow the links at Dave\u2019s site), although I don\u2019t entirely accept his conclusions about Pharisaism at the end of the article. The bulk of the argument against the verbal hand grenade, \u2018legalism\u2019, is excellent.<\/p>\n The author of the SI articles sums up his thesis this way:<\/p>\n While there are doubtless many fine Christian schools which do not operate in a legalistic fashion, I believe the majority of Christian schools operate with these three fallacious legalistic premises prominent in their thinking.<\/p>\n This thesis can be summed up like this: The majority of Christian schools use rules illegitimately as a means for achieving the spiritual goal of sanctification.<\/em><\/p>\n Is this true? Is sanctification the rationale behind the \u2018code of conduct\u2019 in any school? Should it be?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n While it is possible that someone can find an exception, it seems to me that strict codes of conduct are intended for a much different purpose than sanctification.<\/p>\n Consider the military academies, West Point, the Air Force Academy, Navy, etc. Do they have codes of conduct? I am under the impression they do. Consider military basic training. Codes of conduct? Yes. Why do these institutions employ such codes?<\/p>\n For the purposes of sanctification, to be sure! No, that can\u2019t be it. If it is their purpose at all, they are largely failing!<\/p>\n In fact, the military schools, the military itself, and educational academies on a military model instill codes of conduct (including many \u2018stupid rules\u2019) for the purpose of building character and molding military men who function well in battle.<\/p>\n Schools come with all kinds of different educational philosophies. Those that emphasize character development often have a fairly strict code to follow, including codes of conduct on campus and off campus. Education in such schools is seen as a privilege, not a right, and the students are expected to comply with the structure put in place in order to form their characters.<\/p>\n I would argue that individuals need to submit to rules that have no rational purpose in order to best form their character. (That doesn\u2019t mean that I think every rule should be irrational!) It is not very helpful to character formation if all the rules are perfectly reasonable and understandable by the one who has to comply. What benefit is there in a code of rules that all make sense and don\u2019t make the sinner chafe? Character is formed in the crucible of conflict. How much better is it to have it formed in home and school by presenting difficult demands to developing young people than to let \u201cthe cold wet dish-rag of reality slap them upside the head\u201d when they are out in the cold, cruel world.<\/p>\n Helen Keller is quoted<\/a> as saying:<\/p>\n Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In 2001, the state of North Carolina passed an act<\/a> requiring the development of character in its schools, saying that \u201cthe development of character in our children is the cornerstone of education.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n