Extremely strict colleges...your thoughts?

[glfredrick]

Good job with the guilt by association argument. But actually, Prairie may have been fundamentalist when Phelps graduated, but John Muir was never fundamentalist.

Phelps, while gaining a degree from John Muir railed against the behavior of the people who taught and administered the school. Clearly he took his legalism with him, but also gained the advantage of having a degree, even from a place he seemed to dislike. Ironic, huh.

 

[sag38]

While in seminary a person I knew went out one night, ran into some old friends, had a lapse in judgment, got drunk with them, and as he walked (more like staggered) across the parking lot was busted by the campus police. Now, he was given the boot. He broke a rule. However, there were no gestapo style checks of rooms where they looked for contraband such as unauthorized beverages, Pink Flyod albums (I would have been busted for listening to Pink Floyd), dvd players with a stash of movies hidden under the bed, and a TNIV Bible. Nor was there an atmosphere of having to worry about a neighbor reporting a "supposed" violation to the gestapo.

 

[John of Japan]

Again, my point is missed... Let me say it again.

PHELPS is a NUTCASE.

But, independent schools, with strict legalistic ways helped feed his lunacy. All his notions were reinforced instead of disavowed.

Can you prove this? "All of his notions?" Do you realize what you are saying here? Do you know anything about Phelps?

No IFB school I know reinforces the man's viciousness. We teach Christian patriotism, not to demonstrate at soldiers' funerals. We teach to evangelize homosexuals, not call them nasty names. (I've witnessed to them myself.) We talk about sending missionaries to Muslim countries, not hate speach against Muslims. (I was in a Muslim country last fall visiting a Japanese IFB missionary.) We teach to reach the world for Christ, not lash out at all sinners like Phelps does.

 

[John of Japan]

Phelps, while gaining a degree from John Muir railed against the behavior of the people who taught and administered the school. Clearly he took his legalism with him, but also gained the advantage of having a degree, even from a place he seemed to dislike. Ironic, huh.

Yes, ironic.

But I'm having a hard time figuring out just what legalism is to you. Is it just having rules? If so, every church with a constitution is legalistic. Is it having strict rules? If so, at what point of strictness does a school with rules (and all schools have rules) cross over into legalism?

 

[Salty]

If so, at what point of strictness does a school with rules (and all schools have rules) cross over into legalism?

John, didn't they teach that to you in school - if your hair is 2 & 31/32 inches long its okay, but once you grow that extra 1/32 inch - watch out, and for the ladies, don't you still make the girls get on their knees to make sure their dresses touch the floor? :saint:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Can you prove this? "All of his notions?" Do you realize what you are saying here? Do you know anything about Phelps?

No IFB school I know reinforces the man's viciousness. We teach Christian patriotism, not to demonstrate at soldiers' funerals. We teach to evangelize homosexuals, not call them nasty names. (I've witnessed to them myself.) We talk about sending missionaries to Muslim countries, not hate speach against Muslims. (I was in a Muslim country last fall visiting a Japanese IFB missionary.) We teach to reach the world for Christ, not lash out at all sinners like Phelps does.

Excellent post. It is just wrong to imply that the schools Phelps went to had any part in his wickedness.

Phelps did not take BJU's attitude about h0m0sexuals. That is simply a false and baseless charge.

Do you remember a few years ago when one of the major h0m0sexual groups protested outside BJU and the school's response was to send out box lunches to them? How does that attitude reinforce Phelps?

I am not defending all these rules and regulations. I think some of the stuff is over the top. But to try and imply that these rules had anything at all to do with making one of the most wicked men in America who is has no basis in truth.

 

[John of Japan]

Excellent post. It is just wrong to imply that the schools Phelps went to had any part in his wickedness.

Phelps did not take BJU's attitude about h0m0sexuals. That is simply a false and baseless charge.

Do you remember a few years ago when one of the major h0m0sexual groups protested outside BJU and the school's response was to send out box lunches to them? How does that attitude reinforce Phelps?

I am not defending all these rules and regulations. I think some of the stuff is over the top. But to try and imply that these rules had anything at all to do with making one of the most wicked men in America who is has no basis in truth.

We are completely in agreement! :thumbsup:

 

[John of Japan]

John, didn't they teach that to you in school - if your hair is 2 & 31/32 inches long its okay, but once you grow that extra 1/32 inch - watch out, and for the ladies, don't you still make the girls get on their knees to make sure their dresses touch the floor? :saint:

I see. So the precise point a school crosses into legalism is the moment they make rules about a boy's hair and a girl's dress. Got it! :laugh:

Funny thing, here in Japan the public schools all have dress codes. Kids must wear the school uniform in Jr. High and High School. So they're legalists here, right? But the high school girls then roll their skirts up to miniskirt length, so they're not legalists, right? And girls are technically not allowed to die their hair, so the rules are legalistic, right? But one of our church girls with natural red highlights was told to die her hair so it would be black like every other girl's hair, so they're not legalististic...no wait, they are legalists.... What are they? I guess I'll have to wait for glfredrick to define legalism for us.

 

[John of Japan]

While in seminary a person I knew went out one night, ran into some old friends, had a lapse in judgment, got drunk with them, and as he walked (more like staggered) across the parking lot was busted by the campus police. Now, he was given the boot. He broke a rule. However, there were no gestapo style checks of rooms where they looked for contraband such as unauthorized beverages, Pink Flyod albums (I would have been busted for listening to Pink Floyd), dvd players with a stash of movies hidden under the bed, and a TNIV Bible. Nor was there an atmosphere of having to worry about a neighbor reporting a "supposed" violation to the gestapo.

IFB seminaries are usually much less strict because of the number of married students and students living out on their own. They don't go into the homes and check. The only way you would have gotten into trouble with these items is if you lived in the dorm, and then with most IFB seminaries you would have only gotten demerits (though maybe a lot). That's unless that unauthorized beverage was whiskey or something. :tongue3:

I'm reminded of when my parents were in the China Inland Mission candidate school in the 1940's. An old single biddy came around to check for lights out, etc. That school was stricter, to hear the stories, than the typical modern IFB seminary. Yet CIM was doing a great work for Christ in those days, and I seriously doubt if any missionary candidates were ruined by the rules.

 

[glfredrick]

Here is a nice list of IFB websites.

How much of what is portrayed in those sites does everyone agree with?

http://www.ifb1000.com/

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a nice list of IFB websites.

How much of what is portrayed in those sites does everyone agree with?

http://www.ifb1000.com/

Lots of it: soul winning, Bible truth, hymns, modest clothing. What are we supposed to say? Dozens of websites, dozens of subjects. Your question is much too broad.

Now, please define legalism for us. At what point do rules become legalistic? Or is it legalism to have any kind of rules? What say ye?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here is a nice list of IFB websites.

How much of what is portrayed in those sites does everyone agree with?

http://www.ifb1000.com/

I thought the topic of this thread was schools with extremely strict rules? When did it become a discussion of IFB churches?

 

[Bob Alkire]

I thought the topic of this thread was schools with extremely strict rules? When did it become a discussion of IFB churches?

I did as well, Roger. As I pointed out, while on a football scholarship at a state school our rules back then were tougher than the 2 years my son went to PCC.

Did it work? I don't know, but we had very few kids being locked up for breaking the law as so many schools do to day. But I'm a rules type of a guy, if my children mess up, I would put the blame on me most of the time, I didn't set the correct values for them, or I didn't live them. I didn't allow my 2 year old to run around any where they wanted or do anything they wanted, nor do I do it with them at 15, 18 or so on as long as I was in charged. My son who is 40 now gave me a big old hug last Christmas and said, thanks dad, you really loved us, I now know what you went through with two in college now.

 

[exscentric]

Is it not legalistic to demand that one have no rules :thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

glfredrick feels free to strictly criticize strict rules, and went so far as to compare independent Baptists with strict rules to the beliefs of the notorious Fred Phelps, saying strict rules are what caused Phelps to be the vicious person that he is. (Of course he gave no proof for this assertion when I called him on it.)

I have twice asked glfredrick to define legalism. He believes we are legalists, but apparently can't even define the term. Therefore I declare victory in this debate.

 

[Salty]

... Therefore I declare victory in this debate.

I second the motion - all in favor say :thumbs:

 

[Tom Butler]

I have always described legalism as the view that your spirituality is measured by what you do (or don't do).

For instance, our spirituality used to be measured by the length of our hair (the shorter it is, the more spiritual you are); the length of one's dress (the longer, the more spiritual); the kind of cards you played, etc.

Somebody joked about it, saying "I don't smoke, drink or chew, or go with girls that do."

Dancing was mostly a no-no, particularly dancing in which the partners touched. Some modified it, saying dancing was okay if you were six feet apart shaking.

As far as cards, gin rummy was out, but Rook was okay.

Spiritual people stay away from the movies. Later, spiritual people could go to the movies, just not on Sunday.

My church's business meeting minutes of the late 1920s indicated that the church disfellowshipped a man for gambling. He invested in the stock market. (Considering what happened to the stock market in 1929, maybe the church was right).

The specifics change. The Pharisees had different criteria. The bottom line is that legalism measures your spirituality by external rules.

 

[John of Japan]

I have always described legalism as the view that your spirituality is measured by what you do (or don't do).

This is a pretty good definition. It puts the blame where it belongs in this thread: on the motives of the rule-maker.

I've quoted this definition on the BB before and think it is a good one.
“Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).

So the problem is not whether or not the rules at Suchandsuch Bible College are strict or not, but what the motives for the rules are. I believe that the main motives for having high standards in a college should be:

(1) Protection from temptation for the students, who have been entrusted to the college by their Christian parents.

(2) Avoiding causing offense to immature or new Christians.

(3) The glory of God. The believer should ask himself or her self: Can I do this activity to the glory of God?"

John R. Rice wrote: "First, we believe Christians ought to do everything to the glory of God. We are not our own. It is the Christian's joy to take Jesus Christ into every pleasure, every heart's desire, into every secret of the heart. He is to please God about his amusements" (Amusements for Christians, p. 5).

 

[Luke2427]

This is a pretty good definition. It puts the blame where it belongs in this thread: on the motives of the rule-maker.

I've quoted this definition on the BB before and think it is a good one.
“Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).

So the problem is not whether or not the rules at Suchandsuch Bible College are strict or not, but what the motives for the rules are. I believe that the main motives for having high standards in a college should be:

(1) Protection from temptation for the students, who have been entrusted to the college by their Christian parents.

(2) Avoiding causing offense to immature or new Christians.

(3) The glory of God. The believer should ask himself or her self: Can I do this activity to the glory of God?"

John R. Rice wrote: "First, we believe Christians ought to do everything to the glory of God. We are not our own. It is the Christian's joy to take Jesus Christ into every pleasure, every heart's desire, into every secret of the heart. He is to please God about his amusements" (Amusements for Christians, p. 5).

These motives are fine for children, but they do not work well for young men of God. These colleges tend to impress the student body that their standards make them spiritual. Any of us who've attended these colleges can testify that the atmosphere was one of judgment for the ones whose facial hair was not trimmed neatly enough or whose dress was not quite loose enough or whose make up was a little too heavy.

This is the inevitable outcome of demanding things Scripture does not demand.

BTW, you quote your grandfather a lot- that's good in a lot of ways- he was a great man- but I wonder if you believe everything he wrote in this book of his that I have called, "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers"?

 

[John of Japan]

These motives are fine for children, but they do not work well for young men of God. These colleges tend to impress the student body that their standards make them spiritual. Any of us who've attended these colleges can testify that the atmosphere was one of judgment for the ones whose facial hair was not trimmed neatly enough or whose dress was not quite loose enough or whose make up was a little too heavy.

Strict rules worked okay for me and many of my preacher friends. :smilewinkgrin:

BTW, you quote your grandfather a lot- that's good in a lot of ways- he was a great man- but I wonder if you believe everything he wrote in this book of his that I have called, "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers"?

Completely irrelevant.