But: "Hateful, bigoted or destructive interactions will not be tolerated."
Hate sin is bad and not tolerated. Sex sin is tolerated I guess, because at least there's no hatred, but love and compassion involved.
Very worldly morality isn't it. I could be wrong I suppose. Jesus did say, "go and sin no more", to the adulterous. He said the same to another sinner, and said, "unless something worse happens to you".
Biola does say that we have the power to live righteously and holy, and without sin. yet, our flesh, the devils in this world, and the world itself do fight with intensity against our soul and mind, and we daily need the full armour of our Lord.
It's a tough subject for sure, but it needs to be discussed. Thanks for posting it.
In defense of Biola, how exactly would you crack down on 'sexually active single students' anyway?
'Hateful, bigoted or destructive interactions' presumably are also public interactions. Unless you're nailing someone in the stairwell - in which case, I bet Biola may actually be concerned - there's no way to oversee sex unless you want to promote a really bad gossip culture.
Students at a Christian college should live according to Christian morality. For instance, premarital sex should be grounds for expulsion.
How about taking the Lord's name in vain?
I understand your position, but think this through. Imagine what kind of crappy culture this would create - gossiping, people spying on each other, etc. Worse, what about forgiveness? What about the recognition that sometimes people screw up and sin?
I agree that premarital sex should be against a given code. I agree some steps - say, sex-segregated dorms - are entirely reasonable to promote this code. But I worry that there's this tendency to go too far in the other direction here, as if expelling anyone for a screwup is the appropriate counterbalance to liberal sex attitudes. This doesn't seem like the right approach.
"This doesn't seem like the right approach."-Crude
Young people in our culture today need to know, and feel, the seriousness of sin. Their's is a culture of sin is not that big of a deal. I agree with Steve.
This school is not the Church:- or local church. The pastor's in a church need to deal with sin in a less strict way, and yet in the church we need to be more serious as well. FWIW.
Young people in our culture today need to know, and feel, the seriousness of sin. Their's is a culture of sin is not that big of a deal. I agree with Steve.
I agree with Steve that sin needs to be taken seriously. I am all in favor of all kinds of ways to address it. This one is a mistake.
The seriousness of sin is not made manifest by this approach. What is made manifest is the idea that Christians are hypocrites who talk about forgiveness, but who not only will punish - as a matter of policy - anyone who makes a mistake, but who go out of their way to pry into people's lives, looking for sinners to publicly punish and denounce, practically because they just enjoy doing it.
I agree that premarital sex is not only a sin, but a serious sin. As are many others. I note again that there's a difference between a private and a public sin. Trying to attack private sins in this way is counterproductive in all sorts of ways. This is a great way to make people think that sinning isn't the problem - being caught is.
Depends on how you define it. Do you mean swearing? Scholars argue that this commandment (or prohibition) has reference to perjury rather than profanity.
I also wouldn’t be surprising if it has reference to cursing, not in the sense of profanity, but hexing your enemies.
“Imagine what kind of crappy culture this would create - gossiping, people spying on each other, etc.”
I imagine that there’s already a gossipy culture among resident college students. Indeed, gossip and promiscuity go together.
“Worse, what about forgiveness? What about the recognition that sometimes people screw up and sin?”
I’m not talking about students who fall into sin, but students who revel in sin. Defiant sinners rather than contrite sinners.
“But I worry that there's this tendency to go too far in the other direction here, as if expelling anyone for a screwup is the appropriate counterbalance to liberal sex attitudes.”
There are professing Christian students who think Biblical sexual morality is laughable. They don’t even pretend to take it seriously. They mock it.
When was the last time you heard a sermon in which the pastor said premarital sex is a damnable sin?
“The seriousness of sin is not made manifest by this approach. What is made manifest is the idea that Christians are hypocrites who talk about forgiveness, but who not only will punish - as a matter of policy…”
Forgive whom? Penitent sinners or impenitent sinners? Conditional or unconditional forgiveness?
“…anyone who makes a mistake…”
To call sin a “mistake” is a popular euphemism. A “mistake” carries connotations of accidental or shortsighted behavior. That fails to capture the deliberate, calculated nature of sin.
“…but who go out of their way to pry into people's lives, looking for sinners to publicly punish and denounce, practically because they just enjoy doing it.”
No, I’m not suggesting that college administrator’s should snoop on students. This isn’t a fishing expedition.
This is a question of Christian identity. A Christian college should have Christian faculty and Christian students. There should be minimal standards of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
“I note again that there's a difference between a private and a public sin. Trying to attack private sins in this way is counterproductive in all sorts of ways.”
That distinction is sometimes relevant in politics, where the key issue is a candidate’s public policies. But the church has a higher standard.
“This is a great way to make people think that sinning isn't the problem - being caught is.”
You probably should read the entire Student Code of Conduct. A quick 5 minutes with Google found it:
"Furthermore, students at Biola commit to refrain from practices that Scripture forbids, such as, sexual relations outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, theft and dishonesty."
"The University reserves the right to refuse or revoke admittance and/or dismiss any person who does not conform either to the stated guidelines and regulations governing student conduct, or to the expressed principles, policies, and expectations of the University."
"The University also reserves the right to take action against an individual for violating the Standards regardless of how much time has passed since the violation. The University also reserves the right to take disciplinary actions for violations of University standards by graduates awaiting degrees and students who withdraw from school while a disciplinary matter is pending."
"I agree with Steve that sin needs to be taken seriously."-Crude
Then you may want to take to heart his response to your comments.
"...abstain from fornication: ...God has called us to holiness. He who will not listen, does not listen to only man, but to God, who has given us His Holy Spirit. ... Abstain from all appearence of evil."-Paul to the Thessalonians 4
Also Jude is a good portion of truth to read and ponder as you ponder this subject.
God loves us with a great love, and this same love will never "soft-soap" our sin.
As gold has dross, that we can not see, and yet a furnance can draw out, as the gold is heated, so with sin. Expelling, and disciplines like these are good. We should hate to carry them out, but only the compassion and love Biola is talking about will do so. Otherwise their love is a moral worldly love, no different than your liberal churches in our day.
I imagine that there’s already a gossipy culture among resident college students. Indeed, gossip and promiscuity go together.
And when you raise the stakes to expulsion levels, you exacerbate things needlessly.
I’m not talking about students who fall into sin, but students who revel in sin. Defiant sinners rather than contrite sinners.
That's the thing: you are talking about students who fall into sin. Because that's the only kind your policy can hope to cover.
Or are you going to say "Premarital sex means expulsion - unless, of course, you say you're sorry."? Well, get ready for the insincere apologies. Or maybe you'll penalize those who are judged to be insincere? And how will you determine that?
There are professing Christian students who think Biblical sexual morality is laughable. They don’t even pretend to take it seriously. They mock it.
And publicly mocking biblical teaching is entirely reasonable grounds for a college to consider expulsion. I again stress the public versus private divide here. You weren't suggesting expulsion for deriding the school's teachings publicly, but for what's going to be a private act.
When was the last time you heard a sermon in which the pastor said premarital sex is a damnable sin?
A lot of pastors suck, clearly.
Forgive whom? Penitent sinners or impenitent sinners? Conditional or unconditional forgiveness?
You're only backing up my point by asking these questions. It would be a nightmare of a policy. There are better ways to achieve what you're after.
To call sin a “mistake” is a popular euphemism. A “mistake” carries connotations of accidental or shortsighted behavior. That fails to capture the deliberate, calculated nature of sin.
Fair enough - it's not a mistake. It's a deliberately done, stupid move in a moment of weakness for some, at times legitimately regretted. Forgiveness is still central in those cases.
No, I’m not suggesting that college administrator’s should snoop on students. This isn’t a fishing expedition.
It is, whether you like it or not. People gossip. People even spy. And when the stakes are as high as expulsion, people start to pry and go out looking for scandal.
That distinction is sometimes relevant in politics, where the key issue is a candidate’s public policies. But the church has a higher standard.
And you think it achieves that standard through this kind of legislation?
That’s a false dichotomy.
No, it's not. If the idea is to communicate that sin is a wretched thing in and of itself, you're not communicating such by making sure people are afraid of legislative penalties.
You are trying to fight a cultural problem through what amounts to a purely legislative act. It's a bad move. I'll say again, there are better ways to achieve what you're aiming for here.
People living in dorms generally know who's sleeping around and who isn't, and who's continuing to sleep around and who isn't. I'm not suggesting it's some holier-than-thou students snitching out their comrades a la some sort of state police system. Rather, friends almost always know when something is up with their friends. So it's quite possible a Christian friend might start by privately telling his fellow Christian friend(s) who is engaging in premarital sex to turn away from their sin. Or concerned friends approach their sinful friends. There's a difference between spying on each other and looking out for one another.
Also, friends usually know their friends well enough to know when they're sincere or insincere.
If the school administration needs to get involved, then the sin has usually become a matter of public knowledge. It's usually no longer a private matter.
I went to a secular university. Co-ed halls and co-ed bathrooms. People having sex in the showers (among other places). Homosexuals engaging in homosexual behavior. Students and others walking around naked. I could say much more but suffice it to say there were horrible, blatant sins on campus. A Christian college shouldn't begin to resemble a secular university.
"That's the old policy. The question is how the old policy meshes with the new policy."
My quote is straight from the current Student Handbook/Code of Conduct website for Biola. There's nothing there to indicate that what I posted isn't current policy.
What you posted was "The Biola Statement on Human Sexuality". I don't see that this is a "code of conduct" in any way.
If you believe the current code of conduct has changed, I'm open to more evidence. But right now what you have provided doesn't show any change whatsoever to the current code of conduct.
“And when you raise the stakes to expulsion levels, you exacerbate things needlessly.”
To be cut off from the community of faith for defiant sin is a standard punishment in both the OT and the NT.
That’s basic church discipline, which applies to other Christian institutions like Christian colleges.
“That's the thing: you are talking about students who fall into sin. Because that's the only kind your policy can hope to cover. Or are you going to say ‘Premarital sex means expulsion - unless, of course, you say you're sorry.’? Well, get ready for the insincere apologies. Or maybe you'll penalize those who are judged to be insincere? And how will you determine that?”
i) Take the Queer Underground at Biola. Is that group apologetic about sodomy? Quite the contrary: it’s a pressure group that’s bent on mainstreaming sodomy in Evangelicalism. The whole “gay pride” mantra.
There’s a basic difference between succumbing to sin, then repenting, and flaunting sin or redefining vice as virtue.
ii) A mark of genuine contrition is to desist from the sinful behavior.
“You weren't suggesting expulsion for deriding the school's teachings publicly, but for what's going to be a private act.”
We’re not talking about commuter students who live off-campus, but students who live in dorms. Communal standards of conduct.
“It would be a nightmare of a policy.”
That’s not optional.
“People gossip. People even spy. And when the stakes are as high as expulsion, people start to pry and go out looking for scandal.”
If students choose to snitch on other students, that’s a disincentive to sexual misconduct. Not the best motive, but it prevents a dorm from degenerating into a brothel.
“If the idea is to communicate that sin is a wretched thing in and of itself, you're not communicating such by making sure people are afraid of legislative penalties.”
It’s not just a matter of “communicating,” but weeding or pruning rotten fruit. Students who refuse to abide by Christian ethics at a Christian college don’t belong there. Their presence dilutes the Christian identity of the institution.
“You are trying to fight a cultural problem through what amounts to a purely legislative act.”
i) I’m not dealing with the general culture, but with Christian institutions which ought to stand in some degree of contrast to the general culture.
ii) Excommunication is the Biblical way the community of faith retains its spiritual identity and common commitment to God.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial?[a] Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, 18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
Crude, there is a university that does this (Liberty University), and we do not gossip and spy on each other to see if someone else is violating the Liberty Way (which, interestingly enough, does not include direct blasphemy, but does include indirect forms of swearing).
I tend to agree that expulsion isn't always the most appropriate solution, though it is in many, if not most, instances. If I were running the place, I would only expel in cases that would normally require excommunication from a church. The main goal is to foster a Christian culture on campus, and so as long as someone is not overtly rebellious or disobedient to authorities, then I think less severe forms of punishment than permanent, irrevocable expulsion should be available.
In the cases of those who continue in their disobedience in authority, leading to a marring of the Christian character of the campus, they must be dealt with by indefinite suspension or expulsion. Too many universities in the past have apostatized because of relaxed standards of doctrine and practice to let impenitent rebels against the Christian culture continue as faculty or students at what is supposed to be a Christian university.
Crude, there is a university that does this (Liberty University), and we do not gossip and spy on each other to see if someone else is violating the Liberty Way (which, interestingly enough, does not include direct blasphemy, but does include indirect forms of swearing).
Does Liberty University expel people for premarital sex? And if so, can you name the last time anyone was expelled for this? And if no one has been expelled for this, do you think it's because no one has done this?
I tend to agree that expulsion isn't always the most appropriate solution, though it is in many, if not most, instances. If I were running the place, I would only expel in cases that would normally require excommunication from a church. The main goal is to foster a Christian culture on campus, and so as long as someone is not overtly rebellious or disobedient to authorities, then I think less severe forms of punishment than permanent, irrevocable expulsion should be available.
Then it sounds more like you agree with me than disagree. Overt rebellion and disobedience is a public matter, and I already said that's a completely different area, one where it's actually appropriate to crack down on someone, including expulsion.
Honestly, I don't think even Steve disagrees with me too much - we have the same basic goals here, but we differ on method. I find it important that I'm stressing the public versus private nature of these fights, and most of the examples of horrible campus behavior involves public displays. (And yes, having sex in a public shower is a public display. If someone gets expelled over that, then it's hard to argue that they didn't have it coming, repenting or not.)
Yep.
ReplyDeleteBut: "Hateful,
bigoted
or
destructive
interactions
will
not
be
tolerated."
Hate sin is bad and not tolerated. Sex sin is tolerated I guess, because at least there's no hatred, but love and compassion involved.
Very worldly morality isn't it. I could be wrong I suppose.
Jesus did say, "go and sin no more", to the adulterous. He said the same to another sinner, and said, "unless something worse happens to you".
Biola does say that we have the power to live righteously and holy, and without sin. yet, our flesh, the devils in this world, and the world itself do fight with intensity against our soul and mind, and we daily need the full armour of our Lord.
It's a tough subject for sure, but it needs to be discussed.
Thanks for posting it.
In defense of Biola, how exactly would you crack down on 'sexually active single students' anyway?
ReplyDelete'Hateful, bigoted or destructive interactions' presumably are also public interactions. Unless you're nailing someone in the stairwell - in which case, I bet Biola may actually be concerned - there's no way to oversee sex unless you want to promote a really bad gossip culture.
Students at a Christian college should live according to Christian morality. For instance, premarital sex should be grounds for expulsion.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteStudents at a Christian college should live according to Christian morality. For instance, premarital sex should be grounds for expulsion.
How about taking the Lord's name in vain?
I understand your position, but think this through. Imagine what kind of crappy culture this would create - gossiping, people spying on each other, etc. Worse, what about forgiveness? What about the recognition that sometimes people screw up and sin?
I agree that premarital sex should be against a given code. I agree some steps - say, sex-segregated dorms - are entirely reasonable to promote this code. But I worry that there's this tendency to go too far in the other direction here, as if expelling anyone for a screwup is the appropriate counterbalance to liberal sex attitudes. This doesn't seem like the right approach.
"This doesn't seem like the right approach."-Crude
ReplyDeleteYoung people in our culture today need to know, and feel, the seriousness of sin.
Their's is a culture of sin is not that big of a deal. I agree with Steve.
This school is not the Church:- or local church. The pastor's in a church need to deal with sin in a less strict way, and yet in the church we need to be more serious as well. FWIW.
donsands,
ReplyDeleteYoung people in our culture today need to know, and feel, the seriousness of sin.
Their's is a culture of sin is not that big of a deal. I agree with Steve.
I agree with Steve that sin needs to be taken seriously. I am all in favor of all kinds of ways to address it. This one is a mistake.
The seriousness of sin is not made manifest by this approach. What is made manifest is the idea that Christians are hypocrites who talk about forgiveness, but who not only will punish - as a matter of policy - anyone who makes a mistake, but who go out of their way to pry into people's lives, looking for sinners to publicly punish and denounce, practically because they just enjoy doing it.
I agree that premarital sex is not only a sin, but a serious sin. As are many others. I note again that there's a difference between a private and a public sin. Trying to attack private sins in this way is counterproductive in all sorts of ways. This is a great way to make people think that sinning isn't the problem - being caught is.
Crude said...
ReplyDelete“How about taking the Lord's name in vain?”
Depends on how you define it. Do you mean swearing? Scholars argue that this commandment (or prohibition) has reference to perjury rather than profanity.
I also wouldn’t be surprising if it has reference to cursing, not in the sense of profanity, but hexing your enemies.
“Imagine what kind of crappy culture this would create - gossiping, people spying on each other, etc.”
I imagine that there’s already a gossipy culture among resident college students. Indeed, gossip and promiscuity go together.
“Worse, what about forgiveness? What about the recognition that sometimes people screw up and sin?”
I’m not talking about students who fall into sin, but students who revel in sin. Defiant sinners rather than contrite sinners.
“But I worry that there's this tendency to go too far in the other direction here, as if expelling anyone for a screwup is the appropriate counterbalance to liberal sex attitudes.”
There are professing Christian students who think Biblical sexual morality is laughable. They don’t even pretend to take it seriously. They mock it.
When was the last time you heard a sermon in which the pastor said premarital sex is a damnable sin?
“The seriousness of sin is not made manifest by this approach. What is made manifest is the idea that Christians are hypocrites who talk about forgiveness, but who not only will punish - as a matter of policy…”
Forgive whom? Penitent sinners or impenitent sinners? Conditional or unconditional forgiveness?
“…anyone who makes a mistake…”
To call sin a “mistake” is a popular euphemism. A “mistake” carries connotations of accidental or shortsighted behavior. That fails to capture the deliberate, calculated nature of sin.
“…but who go out of their way to pry into people's lives, looking for sinners to publicly punish and denounce, practically because they just enjoy doing it.”
No, I’m not suggesting that college administrator’s should snoop on students. This isn’t a fishing expedition.
This is a question of Christian identity. A Christian college should have Christian faculty and Christian students. There should be minimal standards of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
“I note again that there's a difference between a private and a public sin. Trying to attack private sins in this way is counterproductive in all sorts of ways.”
That distinction is sometimes relevant in politics, where the key issue is a candidate’s public policies. But the church has a higher standard.
“This is a great way to make people think that sinning isn't the problem - being caught is.”
That’s a false dichotomy.
You probably should read the entire Student Code of Conduct. A quick 5 minutes with Google found it:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, students at Biola commit to refrain from practices that Scripture forbids, such as, sexual relations outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, theft and dishonesty."
"The University reserves the right to refuse or revoke admittance and/or dismiss any person who does not conform either to the stated guidelines and regulations governing student conduct, or to the expressed principles, policies, and expectations of the University."
"The University also reserves the right to take action against an individual for violating the Standards regardless of how much time has passed since the violation. The University also reserves the right to take disciplinary actions for violations of University standards by graduates awaiting degrees and students who withdraw from school while a disciplinary matter is pending."
"I agree with Steve that sin needs to be taken seriously."-Crude
ReplyDeleteThen you may want to take to heart his response to your comments.
"...abstain from fornication: ...God has called us to holiness.
He who will not listen, does not listen to only man, but to God, who has given us His Holy Spirit. ...
Abstain from all appearence of evil."-Paul to the Thessalonians 4
Also Jude is a good portion of truth to read and ponder as you ponder this subject.
God loves us with a great love, and this same love will never "soft-soap" our sin.
As gold has dross, that we can not see, and yet a furnance can draw out, as the gold is heated, so with sin.
Expelling, and disciplines like these are good.
We should hate to carry them out, but only the compassion and love Biola is talking about will do so.
Otherwise their love is a moral worldly love, no different than your liberal churches in our day.
Grifman said...
ReplyDelete"You probably should read the entire Student Code of Conduct."
That's the old policy. The question is how the old policy meshes with the new policy.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI imagine that there’s already a gossipy culture among resident college students. Indeed, gossip and promiscuity go together.
And when you raise the stakes to expulsion levels, you exacerbate things needlessly.
I’m not talking about students who fall into sin, but students who revel in sin. Defiant sinners rather than contrite sinners.
That's the thing: you are talking about students who fall into sin. Because that's the only kind your policy can hope to cover.
Or are you going to say "Premarital sex means expulsion - unless, of course, you say you're sorry."? Well, get ready for the insincere apologies. Or maybe you'll penalize those who are judged to be insincere? And how will you determine that?
There are professing Christian students who think Biblical sexual morality is laughable. They don’t even pretend to take it seriously. They mock it.
And publicly mocking biblical teaching is entirely reasonable grounds for a college to consider expulsion. I again stress the public versus private divide here. You weren't suggesting expulsion for deriding the school's teachings publicly, but for what's going to be a private act.
When was the last time you heard a sermon in which the pastor said premarital sex is a damnable sin?
A lot of pastors suck, clearly.
Forgive whom? Penitent sinners or impenitent sinners? Conditional or unconditional forgiveness?
You're only backing up my point by asking these questions. It would be a nightmare of a policy. There are better ways to achieve what you're after.
To call sin a “mistake” is a popular euphemism. A “mistake” carries connotations of accidental or shortsighted behavior. That fails to capture the deliberate, calculated nature of sin.
Fair enough - it's not a mistake. It's a deliberately done, stupid move in a moment of weakness for some, at times legitimately regretted. Forgiveness is still central in those cases.
No, I’m not suggesting that college administrator’s should snoop on students. This isn’t a fishing expedition.
It is, whether you like it or not. People gossip. People even spy. And when the stakes are as high as expulsion, people start to pry and go out looking for scandal.
That distinction is sometimes relevant in politics, where the key issue is a candidate’s public policies. But the church has a higher standard.
And you think it achieves that standard through this kind of legislation?
That’s a false dichotomy.
No, it's not. If the idea is to communicate that sin is a wretched thing in and of itself, you're not communicating such by making sure people are afraid of legislative penalties.
You are trying to fight a cultural problem through what amounts to a purely legislative act. It's a bad move. I'll say again, there are better ways to achieve what you're aiming for here.
People living in dorms generally know who's sleeping around and who isn't, and who's continuing to sleep around and who isn't. I'm not suggesting it's some holier-than-thou students snitching out their comrades a la some sort of state police system. Rather, friends almost always know when something is up with their friends. So it's quite possible a Christian friend might start by privately telling his fellow Christian friend(s) who is engaging in premarital sex to turn away from their sin. Or concerned friends approach their sinful friends. There's a difference between spying on each other and looking out for one another.
ReplyDeleteAlso, friends usually know their friends well enough to know when they're sincere or insincere.
If the school administration needs to get involved, then the sin has usually become a matter of public knowledge. It's usually no longer a private matter.
I went to a secular university. Co-ed halls and co-ed bathrooms. People having sex in the showers (among other places). Homosexuals engaging in homosexual behavior. Students and others walking around naked. I could say much more but suffice it to say there were horrible, blatant sins on campus. A Christian college shouldn't begin to resemble a secular university.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"That's the old policy. The question is how the old policy meshes with the new policy."
My quote is straight from the current Student Handbook/Code of Conduct website for Biola. There's nothing there to indicate that what I posted isn't current policy.
What you posted was "The Biola Statement on Human Sexuality". I don't see that this is a "code of conduct" in any way.
If you believe the current code of conduct has changed, I'm open to more evidence. But right now what you have provided doesn't show any change whatsoever to the current code of conduct.
Crude said...
ReplyDelete“And when you raise the stakes to expulsion levels, you exacerbate things needlessly.”
To be cut off from the community of faith for defiant sin is a standard punishment in both the OT and the NT.
That’s basic church discipline, which applies to other Christian institutions like Christian colleges.
“That's the thing: you are talking about students who fall into sin. Because that's the only kind your policy can hope to cover. Or are you going to say ‘Premarital sex means expulsion - unless, of course, you say you're sorry.’? Well, get ready for the insincere apologies. Or maybe you'll penalize those who are judged to be insincere? And how will you determine that?”
i) Take the Queer Underground at Biola. Is that group apologetic about sodomy? Quite the contrary: it’s a pressure group that’s bent on mainstreaming sodomy in Evangelicalism. The whole “gay pride” mantra.
There’s a basic difference between succumbing to sin, then repenting, and flaunting sin or redefining vice as virtue.
ii) A mark of genuine contrition is to desist from the sinful behavior.
“You weren't suggesting expulsion for deriding the school's teachings publicly, but for what's going to be a private act.”
We’re not talking about commuter students who live off-campus, but students who live in dorms. Communal standards of conduct.
“It would be a nightmare of a policy.”
That’s not optional.
“People gossip. People even spy. And when the stakes are as high as expulsion, people start to pry and go out looking for scandal.”
If students choose to snitch on other students, that’s a disincentive to sexual misconduct. Not the best motive, but it prevents a dorm from degenerating into a brothel.
“If the idea is to communicate that sin is a wretched thing in and of itself, you're not communicating such by making sure people are afraid of legislative penalties.”
It’s not just a matter of “communicating,” but weeding or pruning rotten fruit. Students who refuse to abide by Christian ethics at a Christian college don’t belong there. Their presence dilutes the Christian identity of the institution.
“You are trying to fight a cultural problem through what amounts to a purely legislative act.”
i) I’m not dealing with the general culture, but with Christian institutions which ought to stand in some degree of contrast to the general culture.
ii) Excommunication is the Biblical way the community of faith retains its spiritual identity and common commitment to God.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial?[a] Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
17 Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
18 and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
Grifman said...
ReplyDelete"If you believe the current code of conduct has changed, I'm open to more evidence."
I didn't say for a fact that it's changed. Rather, it's ambiguous in light of current developments.
Crude, there is a university that does this (Liberty University), and we do not gossip and spy on each other to see if someone else is violating the Liberty Way (which, interestingly enough, does not include direct blasphemy, but does include indirect forms of swearing).
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree that expulsion isn't always the most appropriate solution, though it is in many, if not most, instances. If I were running the place, I would only expel in cases that would normally require excommunication from a church. The main goal is to foster a Christian culture on campus, and so as long as someone is not overtly rebellious or disobedient to authorities, then I think less severe forms of punishment than permanent, irrevocable expulsion should be available.
In the cases of those who continue in their disobedience in authority, leading to a marring of the Christian character of the campus, they must be dealt with by indefinite suspension or expulsion. Too many universities in the past have apostatized because of relaxed standards of doctrine and practice to let impenitent rebels against the Christian culture continue as faculty or students at what is supposed to be a Christian university.
Nate,
ReplyDeleteCrude, there is a university that does this (Liberty University), and we do not gossip and spy on each other to see if someone else is violating the Liberty Way (which, interestingly enough, does not include direct blasphemy, but does include indirect forms of swearing).
Does Liberty University expel people for premarital sex? And if so, can you name the last time anyone was expelled for this? And if no one has been expelled for this, do you think it's because no one has done this?
I tend to agree that expulsion isn't always the most appropriate solution, though it is in many, if not most, instances. If I were running the place, I would only expel in cases that would normally require excommunication from a church. The main goal is to foster a Christian culture on campus, and so as long as someone is not overtly rebellious or disobedient to authorities, then I think less severe forms of punishment than permanent, irrevocable expulsion should be available.
Then it sounds more like you agree with me than disagree. Overt rebellion and disobedience is a public matter, and I already said that's a completely different area, one where it's actually appropriate to crack down on someone, including expulsion.
Honestly, I don't think even Steve disagrees with me too much - we have the same basic goals here, but we differ on method. I find it important that I'm stressing the public versus private nature of these fights, and most of the examples of horrible campus behavior involves public displays. (And yes, having sex in a public shower is a public display. If someone gets expelled over that, then it's hard to argue that they didn't have it coming, repenting or not.)