Extremely strict colleges...your thoughts?

Sorry, none of that clicked with me. I have trouble following your reasoning sometimes. In particular, your use of the word "children" threw me. I have never said that college students were children.

I originally said that IMO young people are adolescents (not children) into their early 20s. Then I believe I proved that young people are adolescents into the early 20s in the opinion of reputable Christian psychologists, so it's not just the opinion of one lone missionary. It's a commonly accepted view in both secular and Christian psychology. I could give other quotes. (I have a fairly good counseling library.) So your reply is a non sequiter.

 

Then these silly rules should only be enforced on immature people by your own standard.

They are not good for adults but adolescents.

You still confirm that I am right.

You would not be for enforcing those silly rules on adults would you? Then they are for those who are seriously deficient in maturity.

I, do not think a twenty year old young man on fire for God needs that silly mess. I think he is mature enough to spread his own wings and fly and being saddled with a bunch of rules that God never promoted stifles and smothers his personality.

Development requires freedom at some point, doesn't it? If freedom is withheld development is retarded.

Silly rules against CCM and short britches and going to the movies, etc... are nothing but molds that silly people try to press those students into in an effort to raise up little carbon copies of themselves. They result in turning the weaker lot into little yes men and automatons, don't they?

 

There is a line in the sand, and it must be drawn. I was one of those "twenty-somethings" before I entered one of those "strict" colleges, and then I proceeded to go to two different ones. That was after I had graduated from a secular one. What a relief to be in a truly Christian atmosphere where there were some rules! At my previous college I had a room-mate that was a drunk. Now I didn't have to face any of his nonsense anymore. Rules were in place. I could draw you a long list of such comparisons, but I appreciated much stricter rules that resulted in a far more spiritual atmosphere. It did not make me an automaton of anyone. It did however smarten some people out who otherwise would have been shipped out.

I grew up in the military (not me but my father). I know what rules are like. Would you advocate changing the rules of the military in the same fashion as you do for colleges?

 

One of the benefits of a secular college is that it is a great time to engage with cultures of all types. That is a wonderful place for God's people to be if they are open to it and are called to that place.

Of course, I went to two evangelical schools, but the same principles apply on a smaller scare at those places.

The military is neither a Christian institution or an institute of higher learning. The same rules don't apply.

But I don't like being yelled at, so I wouldn't put myself in that position. That's why I think people should stay away from places like PCC, since I'm not a big fan of the substitute gospel implied by their regulations.

 

Regulations (rules) does not equal gospel.

 

I've already addressed the military thing. Though there is plenty of individuality in the military as a whole, boot camp, which best suits the silly rules and strictness of some of these fundi colleges, does not encourage individuality. It is intended to break you. To make you an automaton.

No one is advocating drunkenness in in Christian colleges but that is a far cry from going to the movies for goodness' sake. And you know it.

 

I hope your armed forces aren't reading your posts. I hope that they don't consider themselves as mere automatons either. What an insult that is to the forces. You need to go and ask them and see if they have "individuality." I am tending to think you may not come out in one piece if you make these charges in person. Remember I said, I lived with the forces; I grew up on a base. Yes, there is individuality--lots of it. Here is the comparison. They teach one to be a soldier in the army of their nation. A good Bible College will teach one to be a soldier in the Lord's army. Both need discipline and rules. We have too many lazy undisciplined "soldiers" in God's army today.

 

One of the points I was trying to raise earlier when I brought up Phelps (that got missed in the Godwin that raising Phelps name created) is that there seems to come out of the IFB-style strict rules-based interpretation a corresponding sense that those rules are utterly and absolutely correct, and that anyone who challenges them is not: A) in the will of God; B) a sinner waiting to happen; C) a liberal; and D) someone to dislike and/or war against.

We see the demonstration of such here on this board on a regular basis. No matter what thread is started, it always ends up as a KJVO debate, a Calvinist/Arminian debate, or some other such divisive issue. Those that hold to the "only" positions cannot see another (ANY other) position as valid, even if there is ample scholarship to suggest that there are other valid views, or that the Scriptures may be silent or even speak differently about those views.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their respective position here (like I could...) but rather, that as brothers and sisters in the Lord, we must realize that God, being infinite and capable, may indeed allow for slightly different expressions of culture without tossing out the once, for all, gospel.

The rules, largely being cultural issues (length of hair, manner of dress, entertainment styles, music styles, etc.) do not speak directly to the gospel or the true "fundamentals of the faith" that we all (ought) to hold in unison. They are tertiary issues that only divide what Jesus wants united. THAT is the sum total of my resistance.

 

The way they are enforced, that's what it amounts to.

They are basically told that "good Christians don't do" things that are clearly not prohibited by the Bible. They bow at the altar of appearances and good behavior.

 

Students are in school to learn A discipline, not to merely acquire disciplined habits. That's not the job of the school. They should have the most basic, essential rules that are dictated by the law of the land and necessary for students to peacefully coexist.

The kind of rules they have at PCC and similar places take the work of the Spirit out of the equation. And they implicitly are distrusting, saying "we can't trust you to live by your conscience, so we're going to force you to." What a dehumanizing concept.

 

Very well put- very.:thumbsup:

 

Let me see if I can put this tactfully. BALONEY! There. :tongue3:

You have this habit of putting your opinions of what my opinions are as Gospel truth. And that's without actually interacting with me at all. You've not even asked me what I think an adolescent is, how they should grow, how college can help them, etc. Yet you crow.

And so far all you know about me and my views on this subject is that I believe fundamentalist colleges ought to have strict rules. You don't even know if I think evangelical colleges should have strict rules! You know absolutely nothing about what I think those fundamentalist rules should be. (What do I believe about music? You haven't a clue!) You know nothing about what rules I agree with or disagreee with. You know nothing about what I think the Biblical basis is for those rules, or the theology behind it. Yet you list various rules you are familiar with, and then crow as if you knew all my thoughts, and have successfully defeated me in open debate.

I'm tired of this. I have a life.

 

John- you are full of bologna in this post, partner.

You are in a thread TITLED extremely strict colleges and you have pitted yourself against those who say they are not necessariyl a good thing. Your view point is clear. It does not take a forensic scientist to figure out that you are defending these "extremely strict" colleges, does it?

And you have agreed that such colleges are beneficial to those lacking in maturity.

By doing so you yield that I am right that such silly nonsense is for children not for young men of God.

And for that matter, most of the stupid rules that come to mind when we think of "extremely strict colleges" are not good for children either. These stupid CCM rules?? Not going to the movies even if it is a G movie????

State your position clearly if you don't want it to to be assumed. If not you are wasting our time by posting on here. This is not just a fellowship site; as a matter of fact this segment is not designed for fellowship. There are segmetns of this site that are designed for that. If you want people not to demolish you positions then flee for refuge to those areas. This is a debate site. In order to debate you must have a clear position. If you argue against those who DO have a clear position then it is assumed by thinking people that you take the opposite position.

It seems apparent to thinking people that you are for these silly little institutions with their adolescent, unbiblical rules. You seem to side with these who think the Word of God is not sufficient for the Christian college student's rule of life and conduct.

If that is not your position, and I hope that it is not, be manly enough to state it. Fair enough?

 

I am not familiar with the rules at PCC and don't use it as the "model" for all the "extremely strict colleges" as the OP states. I know I don't agree with all their rules (because some have been referred to on this thread); I never said I did. If that is your only experience then you are not very well educated in what this thread is talking about.

 

It's one of the best-known "extremely strict colleges." I know of some others, but this is the one with which I am most familiar.

Don't feel like you need to point out any perceived lack of knowledge in others here.

 

From another thread:

The latter school is the one whose handbook was mischaracterized in the OP.

 

I went to dear old Maranatha BBC aka, the Mary-Martha School of Missions and Matrimony, West Point on the Rock River (not to be confused with the Citadel on Wade Hampton) in 77-81. It was only a few years after the age of majority had been lowered from 21 to 18. So, parents still expected the school to act in loco parentis. If you think of the rules in that way, they make better sense. Now, 30 years on, they seem weird and antiquated.

As for the music, curfew, and grooming standards, much of it stems from a desire to instill a sense of discipline on the students. At least, the students don't have to march the quad to work off their demerits ala the service academies.