The Christian school kid from Ohio probably can’t dance anyway
Hello,
I’m Marty. Thanks for reading my stuff.
I went to Pensacola Christian College from 1993-1997. There were so many stupid rules I can’t even tell you. I couldn’t go to a movie, hold hands with a girl, or go anywhere without a belt on (of course, it couldn’t be hanging down, looking like I was all gangsta though). Obeying these rules were hard. There was a handbook of rules several pages in length. But I knew this information when I went to PCC, and I was not going into my 4 years of schooling negligent of what was ahead.
So when I heard the story of the young man in Findley, Ohio who decided that he would attend the prom of a neighboring high school against the rules and wishes of the Christian school that he attended, I was shocked to read in several articles that he had no clue that he attending the prom would call for consequences.
Then I heard all the radio stations and read all the articles and editorials and talked to several people who thought the school was being ignorant for such a steep punishment, and worse yet, for even having the rule in their books. “Dancing? Why shouldn’t the kid be able to do that? What kind of a lame school would stop a kid from going to a prom?”
These are all great questions, but none of them are the point. we can crack all day and then some on the school for being legalistic or for the punishment being too steep (which by the way, I believe they are legalistic and the punishment is too steep), but none of these thoughts mater in light of the actual point of the discussion.
Authority.
I know the school well. I played basketball against this school when the early 90′s as an attender of a rival Christian high school in Ohio, and they are extremely legalistic. And I have no clue why this kid is actually telling the news media that “he didn’t know the rules applied “outside of the school”. I went to these schools, and you kind of get the hint that when all the girls have skirts two fingers below the kneeline and when all the guys have short hair, but not too short, that the rules apply everywhere. What was he gonna do, not dance in the cafeteria?
All that being said, the father now plans on filing a law suit because the school enforced the breaking of this rule by not allowing him to walk during graduation.
To this, I say, “get over it.” You knew the rules. You knew there would be consequences. And you thought it was worth it. But now if it was worth it, you need to deal with the consequences.
I believe that authority is important. Imagine if I decided that I wanted to take a walk the next time I was in Washington DC. As I walked, I decided to stop by Pennsylvania Ave. From there I saw this big white house and decided to go in. Some men stop me and say something like, “You can’t go in there sir.” I say, “Why not?” The reply, “Because this is the residence of the President, and you are not authorized to enter.” I of course would say, “I believe that to be a stupid rule. I go into my friends houses all the time back in massachusetts. I walk into his house. he walks into mine. I’m a safe guy, and I’d never do anything to hurt Prez. Obama.”
This would hardly be a good excuse, would it? You see, the issue is not whether or not the rule is stupid. The issue is not whether or not I agree with the rule. The issue is submission. I can choose to ignore whatever rules I want, but if I do, I must also face the consequences that come with breaking the rules. It’s called authority…
Related posts:
I saw this story too. Crazy. Welcome back home bro.
Couldn’t agree more, glad to have you blogging again.
The problem with most of this is that other Christians are doing most of the bashing I have read about this subject. We cannot fall into the trap of placing “judgment” on the school for enforcing “rules” they believe in.
I know what “LEGALISM” is….I have experienced it first hand in my life.
Having “rules” does not make one “legalistic”. What makes one “legalistic” is when those rules are applied to those who are not obligated to follow them. Meaning, if someone who is not obligated to follow them are judged because they did not follow them… then this is legalism.
For example… if the school said…
” Male students at must keep their hair cut above the ears, and off the collar.” (this is a rule)
But if they said…
“All men, in order to be spiritual, must wear their hair above the ears and off the collar.” (this is legalism)
In this case, I support the Christian School….their rules spelled it out at the beginning of the school year. The parents and the boy had a chance to disagree and go a different direction. However, the student and the parents signed an agreement to abide by the rules. He and the Parents are OBLIGATED to follow them.
They were not forced to drink the Koolaid here folks…they choose to not honor their obligation to follow the rules. There should be consequences for everyone who does not follow the rules they place themselves under. It makes no difference whether that is at work, church, school, home or in your marriage or as a child of God. We place ourselves under rules…we need to honor our obligation…if we choose not to…we should expect consequences.
Do not get me wrong…this issue is NOT about whether or not I think the rule is stupid or not. I think the rule is stupid. As a former Christian School Principal, I always believed that the rules should be designed to set standards of behavior for the school day and at school activities. The goal was balance…but I know there were times where we crossed the line. We indeed did impose a rule or regulation that impeded a parents ability to make the right choice as a parent for their child. However, that in and of itself did not make us legalistic. Some rules that I was encouraged to enforce in my years as Principal I felt were not something I personally believed in or thought were effective. However… they were the rules and if you have them…you need to enforce them.
Going to a Christian School is a “choice”…no one makes a parent send their children to a Christian School. They choose this option as to what they feel as parents are best for their children. This means that they “choose” to go to the school and abide by the rules of the school. It was an obligation that they agreed to.
I will agree that this matter could have been handled in a different way. From the reports I read, the Principal has done nothing but make it worse. The fact that it made national news probably did more harm than good for the cause for Christ. There are no winners here….we all lose. The boy, the parents and everyone else that claims Christ gets thrown under the bus because of how it has been played out in the media.
There are more important issues that we as Christians need to be involved with. How about challenging ourselves to making sure we fulfill our obligations to the “rules” we have in our life. Like the Great Commission. God wants all of us to grow in Him…hopefully that does not allow Christians to criticize other well-meaning Christians, simply because they thought their rule was stupid.
Hmmm.
Mostly I agree with what’s been said thus far. But I think there’s a few things that are going unsaid.
First off, there is a distinction between a ridiculous college and a ridiculous high school. This distinction cuts both ways: on the one hand, the students of pensacola ought to be more on board with pensacola’s rules as one would expect these students had a larger hand in choosing this destination than high school students did. On the other hand, the student is in fact younger.
Secondly, it’s worth noting that courts are a place that people have historically shown their discontent with rules. It might be that the taking of this issue to the courts is the family’s attempts to deal with this wrong. The Supreme Court, in fact, doesn’t hear cases where the “victim” doesn’t have standing to sue: In other words, the only people who can bring a case to them are people who are impacted by the way things are.
Within limits, schools certainly do have a right to have silly rules. But what’s the limit? What counts as silly and what counts as dangerous? I think these are the questions that we ought to be asking in this case: Is this a place where the rules fall within the range of acceptable, even if we don’t agree with them?
MY first guess is that schools have the right to dictate how the students look when they are in school. I’m less sure about how much rights they have when the student is out of school. (I think I’m with DML on this)
I think DML is also right to notice that we should have different expectations on believers and on nonbelievers. But I don’t believe that’s legalism. It seems to me that legalism is about an overemphaiss of rules that create an appearance of obedience with out getting to the things that really matter. (Cleaning the outside of the cup, as it were.) It’s about idolatry in a way: the letter of the law is worshipped while the spirit the law was written in is ignored. (Law here can mean God’s law or any other one.) I think by these definitions, legalism really is an important aspect of this whole debate.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think it’s a very one-sided view of scripture that focuses on expectations that we be obedient to the laws and rules of man. Whether it’s the law of the country or the law of the church, I think that scripture provides as many examples of Godly revolutionarieis as it does Godly rule-followers.
well said again
if you sign up to attend some crazy place – fall in line – if not get out
thus, the reason I left pcc