September 14, 2006
Perception is Reality? I don’t think so.
I can’t decide what to call this: “Reality, Perception, and the Cultivation of Hypocrisy” or “Reality, Perception, and the Culture of Fear” or “The Canonization of Misperception?” They all encapsulate what I am going to attempt to say.
There is a maxim among many ministries, particularly “fundamentalist” ministries, that is ground into the psyche of every “preacher boy” and repeated as the justification for many restrictions on staff members of churches and Christian schools. It is the “preacher’s rule.” Perception is reality, they are told.
Consequently, many activities are curtailed, life is rearranged, and habits are formed merely for the sake of perception. Actually, it is not perception that is dreaded as much as misperception, but the rule still holds. This maxim has gone far to undermine authentic ministry by cultivating a justification for “unrealness” while also castrating manly leadership of vigor and independence. I think that is due to the fact that the maxim is flat out wrong. It is misleading, panders to legalism, and nourishes the innate hypocrisy that resides in every human soul. It will ultimate corrupt not only leaders, but their followers.
Here’s a novel thought: Perception is NOT reality. Reality is reality and perception is, well, only perception.
Granted, there ought to be a self-denying sensitivity to the culture we live in so as not to irreversibly alienate hearers from the Gospel message that we are called to deliver. But that is a far cry from kowtowing to self-righteous, judgmental Christians. One pastor chastised a member in his church for allowing a prohibited music at that person’s private function. The music wasn’t bad. It just gave someone the perception of bad music. She had “lost her testimony,” she was told. Several large ministries that I know of, “flagship ministries,” now permit the staff women to wear pants in public as long as no one sees them. [Yeah, yeah, I said that right.] Another major ministry allows its staff members to go to theaters as long as it is outside of a fifty mile radius of the ministry. Hmmm. I wonder what they can do if they go one hundred miles away? Two hundred miles? Tantalizing stuff!
Who are they afraid of? Is there anyone in the real world that will be permanently ill-affected by the sight of a Christian woman in slacks? Is there any normal person that will have his faith ransacked by the mere sight of a staff member going into a cinema. Is there any regular Joe that will fall from the faith by the beat of music? Come on! Who are they really afraid of? The reality is that they are pandering to legalistic, judgmental, Christians who have been bred in a church culture that follows leaders who say “perception is reality” and canonized their misperceptions. And how can you “lose your testimony” to judgmental Christians who are bent on drawing their conclusions from their perceptions when their misperceptions carry within them the power to constrain sincere people? Or why should you care?
There are three reasons that immediately come to my mind for disliking the “preacher’s rule.”
First, it breeds hypocrisy.
Sinful men simply must not allow themselves a ministry maxim that encourages hypocrisy. We are not professionals that have to maintain an image. We are sinful personalities that have been shockingly redeemed and are finding ourselves surprisingly useful. We are who we are by the grace of God. We should not have a maudlin exhibitionism about our lifestyle, a fake humility that bares it all merely for the sake of being authentic. That in it self may be a carefully crafted perception, the perception of humility when pride is the reality. But neither should we construct an image of reclusive piety and dignified austerity when the fact of the matter is that we watch, “Everybody Loves Raymond.”
The fact that pastors are trained and cultivated to concern themselves about a “pastoral image” is not the figment of my imagination. It is for real. David Johnson writes in The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse this illustration, albeit sometimes extreme, of a pastoral ministries class:
Some time ago, this verse [Matthew 23:5-6] came to mind as I ws meeting in my office with a Bible college student who was doing an internship for a Pastoral Ministries course. The course was designed to teach people how to “act” like pastors.As I questioned him regarding the essence of the class, it became clear that “image” was everything. How things looked was what really mattered. Simply being a pastor was clearly not enough – looking the part was the key. The better your image, the more successful you would be. Some of the advice given in the class went as follows: “Your wife and children must address you in public as ‘pastor.’” This would serve to communicate reverence and respect for your position, which would be helpful in maintaining the proper image. “Sitting the platform appropriately is vital. Wear the right socks, never cross your legs in such a way as to show people the soles of your shoes. Reveal your soul, never your souls.” (Yes, they were actually told this.)
More advice: “You’re working on your car on your day off, and you discover that a trip to the parts store is necessary. Always change your clothes before you go out in public. Never let the people see you in a context other than pastoral dignity.” Image is everything.
And the voice: “When you ascend the platform, remember – you are the voice of God. Sound like it.” So we open our mouth and it sounds like we’re playing a part, an actor on a stage. Material for stand-up comics.
Another tip for success: “Have the phone at church ring into your home. When you answer it, always indicate, ‘First Christian Church.’” That way people will get the impression that you’re at church all the time, even though you are not.
It is also taught indirectly. I was first introduced to Steve Green in the homes of the faculty of an institution that taught that Steve Green’s music was worldly. I enjoy Steve Green today thanks, in large part, to the real influence the leadership of the institution had on me by what they really enjoyed, certainly not because of what was officially taught. Many people wonder why the faculty kids of so many fundamentalist schools where contemporary music is anathematized seem to have a real taste for contemporary music. May I suggest that it is because they acquired it from their parents? Most of the students and the constituency see the “perception.” The kids see the reality. And perception is NOT reality. Only the kids haven’t yet become sophisticated enough to be comfortable with the disparity.
Pastors need to be very careful that they do not allow people to think too highly of them as men. They should not consciously allow untruths about their godliness and saintliness to remain unchallenged in the minds of their flock. The command to not bear false witness applies to those of us who would consciously refrain from correcting the ebullient praise of a grateful member about our spirituality, prayer life, giftedness, or wisdom. By our acceptance of the exaggerated praise we would be consenting to what we know is not true. That is bearing false witness about us.
Naturally, it is tempting to think that their high view of us is conducive to effective influence and an increased potential for the Word of God to have a lasting effect in their lives. But that delusion merely feeds our egos. Recently a member asked me to help him in his prayer life because I was a “man of prayer.” Well, if struggling to pray, fighting my doubts, getting frustrated with God for unanswered prayers, forcing myself to stay awake while I read a list of names makes me a “man of prayer,” fine. But I know that is not what was meant. So, I confessed that I didn’t have a silver bullet and that all I could do was share how my own struggle was going. I guess that was acceptable. Now one extra person is praying for me.
Secondly, it emasculates manly leadership.
Strong leadership is a liberated leadership, enslaved only to the will of God. It takes real manliness to stare down self-righteousness and say, “You play your music, but I won’t dance.” We need men to lead, not mere puppets whose strings are yanked by opinion polls. The notion that perception is reality and therefore it is the duty of the man of God to pander to the whims of people by fearfully kowtowing to their standards drains leadership of creative vitality and ensnares him in an iron-clad predictability. The intimidation is from the corner of those who are self-righteous, and self-righteous people know very little about the fullness of the Gospel.
So, really, who gives a rat’s behind about what anybody thinks about you? Stand up and be yourself. If people can’t hack the real you then don’t worry about being their leader.
My concern about the demasculization of leadership, the castrating of manly courage, is not because I have rebellious, iconoclastic blood flowing through my veins. Rather, it is because I believe that the most intimidating people to face in real life ministry are the self-righteous. The self-righteous love to control others by “discerning” the real “danger” of generally perceived innocuous actions. Worse – and this is the essence of self-righteousness – they justify clearly prohibited attitudes by virtue of the fact that they are performing according to their standard of choice. Sometimes a Gospel-driven leader needs to conscientiously and publicly defy their pet righteousness. That requires a man with testicular fortitude and gutsy courage. However, the man who conscientiously commits himself to the “preacher’s rule” will never even approach the brink of misperception because he himself believes that their hypocritical, hyper-judgmental perception is their reality.
Well, friend, it isn’t. Their perception is not reality. The reality is that you are a servant of the Gospel, saved by grace, exhibiting responsible Christian liberty, and encouraging the saints to be faithful to that which is actually in the black-and-white of Scripture, not the tyrannical traditionalism of a dead and boring faith. Their perception is NOT reality. They got it all wrong. Blow their minds and then tell them they can’t intimidate anymore. Jesus did it. He knew that He would be misperceived by the Pharisees. But He also knew the reality. And little by little the Truth liberated people from the tyrannical hold of pharisaical perceptions (or misperceptions).
Thirdly, it teaches judgementalism.
Another problem with the maxim is that it takes your focus off reality and hones in on discerning perceptions and acting on misperceptions. What a leader perceives can be a means by which he controls his staff. Soon the climate of a workplace is all about investing effort and energy in protecting how one’s self is perceived. Too much thought is invested in analyzing the conduct of others for possible bad perception. That is the making of the leaders.
Leaders actually try to control people based upon their perception even if they misperceive. The problem with believing that perception is reality is that it forces your hand to treat a harmless perception like a grotesque reality. It invites harsh over-reactions. Everybody knows that the male staff member should not have taken the female staff member back to her home without a third party, but you don’t have to can the guy and pin the scarlet letter on him as if he had committed adultery. The perception is dubious, granted, but the reality is probably that the staff members didn’t even think about the negative suggestions their ride home might provoke. Give ‘em a break. Merely consciously admitting the obvious that you don’t know reality for sure will temper how you respond to the perception. But, unfortunately, since perception is reality with these leaders they cultivate a culture of fear and they train their followers to control their leadership by the same means. Now, many leaders today are hamstrung by the cultures they cultivated.
I know one pastor of a large, fundamentalist church who once preached hell-fire-and-damnation on any yellow-bellied, faithless worldling that would ever dare borrow money to do the Lord’s work. Today he sits in a crowded building with over 2 million dollars in the bank, yearning to borrow money and convinced that would be a good decision, but paralyzed. He cannot move. You ask why he can’t just tell them he has changed his mind. He can’t. He taught them how to sniff out compromise. Change is more than likely the slippery slope to compromise. Therefore, it is compromise. Now, if he gives the mildest impression whatsoever of a “doctrinal” change, that perception will be read as a reality of sliding into compromise. He has taught his people to judge based upon perception, not reality, and now he is hampered by it.
A predisposition to judge based upon one’s perception affects the daily life of the average church member. A tired mom wants to go to prayer meeting at her “skirts-only” church, but she dare not jump in the car with the three kids under five unless she replaces her pants with a skirt, primps herself, and transforms herself into the perfect, got-it-all-together Christian woman. She opts to stay home and have a headache. (At our church we are not “skirts-only.” We are decidedly “comfortable-only!”)
A Christian teen wants to wear shorts to church (his parents don’t mind), but he knows that his wearing of shorts will be perceived as rebellion and then he won’t get the part in the church cantata this Christmas. So, he dons long pants while internally fuming that the mere perception of rebellion (as it is perceived in the eyes of the leadership) is a sure-fire indication of actual rebellion. He hates that. Internally he begins to rebel.
Christians need an environment where they know that they will get the benefit of the doubt. They long to be free from the “misperceptions” and accepted on the basis of, and even in spite of, the reality. It is only in an environment like that where they will flourish.
Perception is NOT reality. Only reality is reality. And much of the time we simply do not know what that reality is. I suppose that’s why God has told us to leave the judging to Him.
In the meantime, live by grace and be yourself.
This entry was posted in the following categories: Church Ministry , Fundamentalism , Things I have learned
Bob,
Not to encourage hypocrisy, but where does respect for others come into play? Take the teen you mention in the last example. If this were visiting his grandmother’s home for Sunday dinner (as opposed to a church service), and he knew that she felt that “short pants” would be too informal and casual for the ocassion, would it still be right for him to “be himself”?
I know we can go overboard with these things in our circles, but is it possible that in reacting to make external issues like clothing not be matters of sin, we end up deemphasizing consideration and demonstrating manners for one another? I mean, show me where burping out loud is condemned as sinful in the Bible. But I know I would not endorse or encourage such public boorishness.
Am I making sense?
Posted by: Greg Linscott at September 14, 2006 03:26 PMBob, you went from preaching to meddling in a very short amount of time. This was awesome!
After I met my sons new teachers at the beginning of this new school year, I tried to say something positive like ” well boys your teachers seem very nice “. Their response? Daaaaad, that was just their parent face, you should see them when your not here.
I think this is one of the biggest inherent sins in protestant Christianity is the sin of assumption. We hear part of some sin in someones life and we immediatly think the worst. Satan uses that all the time.
You’re right. But to me it seems perception is reality for stupid people.
For instance there are always three sides to every story. One side. The other side. And the truth.
Posted by: Bruce at September 14, 2006 06:34 PMBob,
I’d be interested to see if you thought these two links added anything to this discussion…
http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/commentaries/thosebleepinglyrics.html
http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2006/09/13/nonsense_and_insensibility
Posted by: Greg Linscott at September 14, 2006 07:35 PMI’m not too impressed, Bob. I have posted my discomfort with what you said here:
http://ebaptist.blogspot.com/2006/09/disturbing-post.html
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
For the sake of discussion:
Greg Linscott’s post: I think Bixby is not addressing the idea of manners. He hasn’t clearly enunciated or differenciated what he is specifically addressing—maybe he needs to do that now—but from the whole article, it looks like he’s talking about issues specific to (pastoral) leadership and the ways that dribbles down to everyone in the congregation. I don’t think he means politeness or curtesy to be the main focus of this piece or the issue he’s writing about. We could say that Bixby’s topic may, at some points, be questions of polite curtesy, but how people can deal with those situations are pretty varied.
Hi, Don Johnson: You certainly know how to pick out the most colorful writing :o) He could just delete about three words, and it would all be pretty mundane and say ALMOST the same thing. is it the ideas that bother you or the wording? I don’t know, but perhaps what language he finds suitable for writing isn’t the same as language suitable for the pulpit. I find the ideas he started with—what he read in David Johnson’s book—rather disturbing. . . . I am digressing here, but do you think we can use profanity? Or exclaimations? It’s acutally a question that sometimes plagues me. I do have moments of somewhat profound anger when I WANT to use profanity—not the Lord’s name but swear words. But then I honestly struggle with whether or not the Lord allows me to verbally express frustration in any way—is there a difference between saying a curse word or saying an acceptable word that expresses the same heart? I really don’t know. Seems like not. I also am bothered by the verse that says that we will give account for “vain” words. And I haven’t gotten past the thought that those kinds of expressions are usually “vain”—they are not edifying. (“Profane” words specifically refer to Deity, maybe?)
It would be interesting to discuss the root issue that he is addressing. Or is that what is really bothering our minds?
Posted by: Anne Sokol at September 15, 2006 02:08 AMIt occurs to me that some of us are not very good listeners or readers of others’ blogs. Much would be gained if we were to intuit the proper genre of another’s blog and critique that blog in keeping with the authorially intended genre. For example, if someone writes a blog editorial-style, is it fair to critique his piece as if it were intended as an academic paper? Should we respond to a journal-type blog as we would to an essay? Neither would be in keeping with sound principles of interpretation or communication. But I have seen quite a few examples of genre-misidentification with resultant communication breakdown in the blogosphere. Andreas Kostenberger (HT: Greg Linscott)
My blog is a conversation. I am not preaching behind the pulpit. It is more like a journal where I write in ways that don’t offend me personally. Anyone who reads my blog is doing so voluntarily. Most of the topics that I address on my blog I would not bring up in preaching. Preaching, to me, is reserved exclusively to the proclamation of the Gospel, the exposition of the Word, and the teaching of the will of God. Ask anyone in my church and they will tell you that I am very disciplined about staying on track when I am behind the pulpit. On most occasions when I wander into the realm of personal opinion I will bracket the statement by saying, “This is my opinion. You don’t have to buy into this, etc., etc.”
I think a careful reader would notice that my target was fairly well-defined. I averred, “Granted, there ought to be a self-denying sensitivity to the culture we live in so as not to irreversibly alienate hearers from the Gospel message that we are called to deliver.” Certainly manners and sensitivity matter. But then on repeated occasions within the conversation I emphasized the futility of pandering to self-righteous people. Obviously, I don’t think that offending them at times is in appropriate. Obviously, I think that a conscious provoking of them by defying their self-righteousness is sometimes justified. I can take the heat.
As to Greg Linscott’s scenarios:
The teen who goes to grandma’s house - Of course, he ought to be polite. Of course, he ought to respect her age. Of course, he ought to be sensitive to her. But must she (grandma) be the one who obligates the teen to come according to her standards? Is it right that she has so created an atmosphere of criticism and rigidity that the teen feels obligated to give a perception of conformity to her mores just to keep her happy? Is grandma teaching the right thing when she knows that the teen wants to wear shorts and she knows it is not rebellion, but she persists to exersise control by making him believe that she is satisfied with him if he maintains the perception of a “good Christian young man?” I don’t think so. But when grandma does that, it’s one thing. When the church does it, I really dislike it.
The profanity in music? I think you are really missing my point. But the short answer is that I think it is uncalled for.
Don,
1. You are not my friend. You have taken several opportunities to either start a thread or post specifically to attack me personally. I trust that your crafty way of posting a link on my “provocative” blog will increase traffic to your unknown blog. I decided to leave your free advertisement up. You’re welcome.
2. I wasn’t trying to impress you. I have never tried to, never will.
3. I find it surprising you used Southside as an example. I think you know as well as I do that for a long period of time perception and reality were not the same.
4. My language may be colorful, but it wasn’t anything more than what it was. Obviously, for you I gave the perception of euphemistically referring to bad words. Perception is not reality.
All,
I hope that the main point of my argument does not get derailed by Greg’s and Don’s concerns, but if so I then must take the responsibility for that. And then I would very much regret that my provocative style got in the way. But I seriously doubt that I offended the critically thinking young person who is grasping to understand the rhyme and reason of what is going on around him or her and the many intelligent people who have lived like prisoners under the thumb of oppressive systems of thought.
As to my colorful language. First of all, the context of my “testicular” statement was in the context of male leadership. Males have testicles. That’s just a fact of life. I was strongly, very strongly, emphasizing male leadership, appealing for manly fortitude and strong action. Since time immemorial mankind has used phallic references to speak of courage and strength.
If a reference to testicles is offensive, then I say get real. The Bible itself is replete with graphic metaphors. One prophet condemns Israel by saying they have the testicles of a mule. In other words, big and lusty.
It is not godly to be prude. Unfortunately, Victorian prudery seems to want to tame language, even God’s language, but one has to ask himself why six times (that I know of) in the Scripture males were referred to as those that “pisseth against the wall” instead of just “men” as most of the modern translations have sanitized the phrase. A “bathroom” expression, if you will.
Unlike what my “friend” implies by claiming that I “rant,” I did not lose control of myself. I deliberately wrote provocatively, but I do not secretly pine to say words that are blatantly immoral or blasphemous. That does not mean that I might not regret my choice of words in this venue. That often happens. But, what it does mean is that I think strong language, even phallic references, are appropriate at times. I may not always be right about selecting the proper time, venue, or subject. However, when I pray to my Father for someone who is hard to get along with, I often tell God that the individual is a “pain in the butt.” I don’t think God minds the frank speech near as much as Don does and usually the Holy Spirit convicts me for having a bad attitude toward the person, but never about using the word “butt.” Thankfully, I don’t either pray to Don or concern myself about his approval.
The main point of my “rant” was that perception is not reality in the sense that the construction or maintenance of an image does not constitute reality. Allowing staff members to go to theaters as long as they are fifty miles away does not constitute a no-theater stance even if the gullible constituency is duped. That’s hypocrisy.
Having grown up in a church where perception was often reality, I think I understand where you are coming from. I won’t get into the specifics, but those perceptions caused me at times to feel I was a bordering on heresy and was edging towards ungodliness - since I believed that was how people would perceive me.
A few things I had to learn:
-Preferences should not be standards.
-Personal preferences (not convictions) should be respected, but not “obeyed” just for appearance sake.
-Convictions (i.e. doctrinal issues, Jesus as Lord, etc.) are worth dying for and dividing over, while preferences are not.
-I needed to overcome the perceptions and live according to God’s Word, not others’ standards.
Regarding being in the pastoral position, I agree it is important for the people to know we are like them - because we are. We are no better just because we (or our husbands) have a title or position. They know we have physical limitations (we have to eat and we get tired too!) so why can’t they know that we are still learning or having spiritual struggles? We shouldn’t air our dirty laundry, but some honest self-evaluation and transparency wouldn’t hurt.
Jason and I look forward to seeing all of you next week.
Posted by: Adele at September 15, 2006 09:34 AMBob,
Thanks for responding. I am trying to understand your point, but I think that you are leaving something out in your overall point. Indulge me by continuing with the grandmother scenario for just a moment. While grandma may recognise, as you note, that 1. her teenage grandson wants to wear shorts, and 2. this desire is not sinful rebellion, she may still have legitimate motive for wanting him to dress suitably for the occasion of Sunday dinner. Perhaps she sees he is growing careless and sloppy in his grooming habits and wants to encourage him to address this. Perhaps there is a businessman dining with them that day who would be a potential employer for her grandson, and she wants him to make a good impression. Perhaps her grandson lives in Maine, and after a long, cold winter, she really doesn’t want to see his fish-belly white legs. :)
Some of these policies you mention seem quite ridiculous. It’s sad that institutions feel such policies need to be in place, say, for movie attendance. I personally have felt little compulsion to even rent a newly released DVD in quite some time, much less attend a theater, but I digress. But, if pastors and pastoral staff can’t be entrusted to make wise decisions to the glory of God without broad, sweeping policies like this… (:::sigh:::)
It is also interesting to note that I have never heard of a ministry that had a “No Losing Your Temper Publicly” policy, or a “No Exceeding the Speed Limit” policy, etc. etc. Anyway…
Obviously, a smug, self-righteous facade is not glorifying to God. But I have no problem with institutional rules designed to aid in the process of developing discernment and teaching consideration to the students or membership- if it is clearly communicated that lack of compliance with these principles outside of the institutional context does not necessarily constitute sin.
PS: As far as the selected phrases you chose, I want to say I was not offended in the slightest.
Posted by: Greg Linscott at September 15, 2006 09:37 AMBob, you are my brother in Christ, so I count you as a friend. But I don’t like your language.
As for my ‘craftiness’, I have had the experience of having technical difficulties on your blog before and seeing my comments deleted. I chose to put them in a place where that is less likely to happen.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
I don’t understand what your problem here is. Bob is using strong language - He did not cross the line. IMO - your reaction is over the top. These phrases might offend the ears of Type A’s, but not Type B’s.
Bob,
Great article - The issues you tackle here are wonderful. But I feel I must send you an extra “thank you” - I never realized that you spelled “butt” with two t’s. That’s amazing!
I might say your article really “Kicks butt” - specifically “rats butts!”
I wonder which types those rats are your kicking? Hhmmmm!
Joel
PS - Bob, now this is the Bob we all know and love. Life isn’t the same when your not on your horse - well apparently you’re on a fertile mule this time! - charging the castle - kicking butts and being a man’s man as you do it!
Bob, Reading your article made me do push-ups!
Later…..
Posted by: Joel Tetreau at September 15, 2006 06:36 PMVintage Joel! You crack me up with your war analogies and your ability to psycho-evangelic-analyze every conversation for types no matter what the topic!! You always make us laugh. Thanks, friend.
Posted by: Bob at September 15, 2006 09:33 PMI appreciate what you’re saying about “keeping it real,” Bob, especially in light of the ridiculous tips for pastors which you cite. Crazy. The whole “preaching voice” or “praying voice” thing is obnoxious. Terrible. And the idea that we descend each week from an ivory tower (where we’ve been wearing a tie 24/7)is so foreign to the NT. Reasonable transparency is not only honest, but very helpful for those following.
Still, curbing our liberties for the sake of our ministries isn’t an unmanly thing to do (as your follow-up article concedes, I think). Protecting our reputations & protecting our ministries is sometimes hard to distinguish. II Cor. 6:3 deserves some thought, and I’d prefer to err on the side of caution.
Since your colorful allusions have been the object of special attention, I’ll let you know that I could gladly have gone without reading them. We hear enough about a “rat’s ****” from the world. Why here? I don’t think it’s necessary or wise, especially when so much attention has been drawn to vulgar language from Mark Driscoll, some CCM songs, etc. It’s distracting, at best, distasteful at worst, IMO. Perhaps I’m just one of the prudes you mention. Anyway, I’m not intending to berate you, just chiming in. But I don’t like it, especially when you know that many of your readers are ladies. I’d just let your ideas attract the attention.
BTW, I had the same thoughts about Sproul’s “for the hell of it” comment at T4G, and I’ve cringed more than once at an illustration or side comment from fundies.
My twenty cents. :)
Posted by: Chris Anderson at September 15, 2006 11:25 PMEvery church should have a culture of fear. In the early church, after the death of Ananias and Sapphira, the fear led to purity, which lead to unity and growth. Church discipline and the examination of the Lord’s Table all invite fear. The article was provocative. This question: Is it true that independent Baptist churches essentially are led by a bunch of fakes? I couldn’t tell you. I guess they do in Bob’s circles.
The churches with which we fellowship are not that way. I know I’m not faking it when I treat people well, even though I don’t feel like it. I know I’m not faking it when I give to my wife even though I might be tired. I know I’m not faking it when I get in appropriate clothing for corporate worship, even if I’m in a hurry and am more comfortable in a t-shirt. It isn’t about me anyway, is it? If it’s about God, how hard is it? And where is the courage that is necessary to convince people to put their own comforts first? I’ve found that you don’t have to do anything to get people to think about themselves. Just because we like to please ourselves doesn’t mean that we are hypocrites when we go ahead and please God anyway.
KB
p.s. When I talk this way (the way you do in this article and especially to Don in the comments) or close to it anywhere, the “young fundy’s” call names and take their ball and go home. So faux sensitive (especially in light of zero words about your style, Bob). Part if genuineness, it would seem, is giving it out and TAKING IT.
Posted by: Kent Brandenburg at September 16, 2006 12:51 AMKent,
Right Kent - the taking of the life of Ananias and Sapphira was a stark deal. Part of the positive effect was that it was God that took their life. It wasn’t a type A++ pastor who shot them in the head because they were rebellious and not blindly loyal to the pastor.
True what you say about the fear of the early church. The difference here is that Bob is speaking to an unhealthy fear - tied to an unhealthy practice of abusive leadership who attempt to shackle extra-biblical standards on God’s people, all the time explaining that this form of neopharisaism is really “good for them.”
You say a few true things in your second paragraph, but nothing you say that is true would make Bob guilty of anything.
And Kent, don’t try to compare your ideas of ministry and leadership to Bob’s circles. His approach to leadership and NT Christianity is the real deal.
If you were trying to make a point - you missed.
Joel
Posted by: Joel Tetreau at September 16, 2006 01:10 AMBob Bixby,
Great post. I think you are pointing out something which needs to be noticed and addressed within fundamentalism. The culture of fear you describe is all the more present and thick in hyper fundamentalist circles. There preachers are taught to demand loyalty from their followers, and the big shots bend over backward to preserve their reputation. Troubled church members who need Biblical counsel, love, and help are often perceived as a threat to so-and-so’s ministry. Too many people are discarded all too soon.
If only people could have “the benefit of the doubt”! Wouldn’t that be more along the lines of “Love is patient…does not insist on its own way…does not rejoice at wrongdoing…bears all things, beleives all things, hopes all things, endures all things”?
With regard to your comments about preachers being taught to be overly concerned about their image, I couldn’t help but thinking about a line from pastor John Piper’s message last week (I am a member of his church). He was describing the elders’ meetings and said something like “We elders believe that we only achieve B+ decisions around here, there are no A+ decisions, just Bs and B+s”. I appreciate his openness and willingness to be real and not to impress his flock with the impression that the elders are unapproachable and impeccable in their abilities.
This brings up one last point. Often in this system of canonized misperception, where preachers are supposed to change clothes before being seen by any normal church members, there is a stand-off-ishness to the pastors. They do not want to intermingle with the church members too much, lest the fact that the pastor is a mere human becomes too plainly noticeable. This is a terrible tendency which reinforces an incorrect clergy/laity distinction within our churches.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
God bless,
Bob Hayton
Posted by: Bob Hayton at September 16, 2006 01:14 AMSo now I have a searching question:
How do we examine our lives and ministries to see if we are “authentic” or portraying reality? How can I recognize this perception hypocrisy in myself?
Posted by: Anne Sokol at September 16, 2006 09:38 AMAnne, your question is one that I’ve been pondering since I read this article.
To some degree, I believe I am getting to the point where I don’t care what people think about me or my methods. There was a time in my life I believed very different. For instance, Pastor Brandenburg and Pastor Bixby seem to be polar opposites to me as far as personnalities go and some simple differences I see in what they write. I have not met either in person but my perception of them is that they are grown men with maturity and each are unmoved unless you can prove to them otherwise.
That doesn’t mean they are not teachable. That also doesn’t mean that they don’t give consideration to what a church member may present to them. They are just not going to be easily persuaded one way or the other because someone brings them an emotional plea.
This is where I have made some changes in my own thinking as to how someone perceives what I do.
Yet scripture is clear that we must be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. But to be paralyzed because someone has a different opinion or is offended. Forget it.
I know this line of thought may be offensive, but here we go…..I’ve been offended in the bathroom before….but that doesn’t mean I stop going!
Thanks for your response, Joel. I think I’m staying on point here. The six examples used as illustrations in the article are: (1) Women’s dress, (2) Movies, (3) Television watching, (4) CCM (Steve Green brand), (5) Casual church dress, and (6) Prayer. According to the article, the first 5, all of them, should be permitted all the time if they’re Scripturally permissible. Number 6, if you don’t have much of a prayer life, don’t act like you do as a leader—be honest about how poor it is. On #1 our church believes pants are a male article of clothing. On #2 we don’t think that going to a theater is wrong, but it could be a bad testimony or stumbling block like going to a bar—-we take this position genuinely. On #3, television isn’t wrong, but it could be if not controlled, sort of like magazines. #4—-Almost all CCM is wrong based on Biblical principle. #5—People come to church in casual dress at our church; we encourage through our example primarily to do better for God in worship. Love does not behave itself unseemingly or unbecomingly, especially towards God. #6—-By all means have a real prayer life. All hypocrisy is wrong with regards to any practice in the Christian life, but everyone practices some hypocrisy, part of the struggle in sanctification. I don’t think any pastor would be right to enforce things he and the church don’t believe just to fit into a “fundamentalistic culture.”
A last point I got was: If someone confronts you about something that is a stronger standard than you, don’t let them stop your authenticity; harshly put them down. Subtle sidepoint: They can’t really be for this strong standard; they’re likely fakes like other people who take strong stands. And that’s OK as long as you are on the side with the lesser standards. I’ve noticed that if you turn it around with young fundys, the harsh-responder is a trouble-maker. Harsh put downs are only authentic if they are directed toward someone with a stronger standard. Why? “I know of people with strong stands who are fakes.” Do you see the hypocrisy in this? It seems that “young fundys” think they should be able to challenge, but they are touchy when challenged themselves.
“If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” We shouldn’t make room for love of the world in our churches. It is a healthy culture of fear that keeps the world, and the love of it, out of the church. Worldly people won’t like that and they might even say that it’s all because of “blind loyalty to a pastor,” but our church will authentically continue dealing with worldliness.
Posted by: Kent Brandenburg at September 16, 2006 12:22 PMI’m not sure you’re hitting this on the head correctly. These are how the issues were presented:
“THE MUSIC WASN’T BAD. It just gave someone the PERCEPTION of bad music. . . .Several large ministries that I know of, “flagship ministries,” now permit the staff women to wear pants IN PUBLIC AS LONG AS NO ONE SEES THEM. [Yeah, yeah, I said that right.] Another major ministry allows its staff members to go to theaters AS LONG AS IT IS OUTSIDE OF A FIFTY MILE RADIUS OF THE MINISTRY.” (emphases mine)
Bixby is addressing circumstances where one thing doesn’t match the other.
Posted by: Anne Sokol at September 16, 2006 01:22 PMKent,
I’m not all together sure that your points really contradict my points. I’m not against a higher standard per se. I’m against duplicity. That’s my point anyway. I know a number of people who have a higher standard than I on some issues and they are neither duplicitous or judgmental.
I don’t know if you lump me in with “young fundies,” but I am one rare blogger that let’s almost anything go in my thread line even when it is sharply attacking me. I personally do not mind being challenged. I am following this conversation and carefully rethinking whether I was right or not to have used the language I did. In the meantime, I think that any careful reader can see that there is a world of difference between Chris Anderson’s challenge and Don Johnson’s challenge. Since Anderson has proven himself to be a friend in the past on many occasions the “wounds of a friend are better or more profitable than the kisses of an enemy.”
In the meantime, I personally agree with your thought that there should be a healthy culture of fear in the church. But I wonder if we are talking about the same thing. In Acts 5 fear fell upon the whole church. Why? God killed two people for duplicity. They were not killed for not maintaining a standard, particularly a man-made standard. They were killed merely for pretending to be something/do something that they were not/had not done. The perception was not the reality. I know that I am very motivated by fear in that sense. Thus, my post.
By the way, I just read your article thursday or early friday morning on local church attendance - and suddenly I see you on my blog… It’s a very small and strange world this blogosphere. The article is good, by the way, and I intend to use it as I want to write a lot on the local church next week, Lord willing, if I am not still digging my butt/behind/posterior (pick your word)out of the mess this conversation has gotten me in. :-)
Posted by: Bob at September 16, 2006 01:30 PMI came here via Don’s blog. I came in time to read your smack on him. I couldn’t get offended about your language in your piece. I don’t think I necessarily consider you a young fundy. I am confronting some of the duplicity I see among some of your friends, who love it when you do it. I’m not against their love of you or even when you do it, but I am when they pull the “Christian speech” card on others (“scoffing,” “scorning”). Maybe we are pointing out the same thing in opposite directions. We see both right wing and left wing duplicity. I can respect Scriptural arguments, but the constant reversion to tone and style, as a means of discrediting, grows tedious and tiresome. They can’t defend a position, so they push the “tone” button and we are jettisoned from the discussion.
That’s probably about it. All things combined, I take the woman’s skirt position, don’t think casual is for church, and would rather my leaders didn’t attend the movie theater, and perhaps I was as feeling as though another point was: only strong standards equal hypocrisy. Sometimes the lady too fatigued to get a skirt on for church is pumped with energy and vigor for her favorite recreation or entertainment trek. Duplicitous fatigue. The boy who hates dressing up for church is careful about his baseball stirrups. It is all about what we love.
Posted by: Kent Brandenburg at September 16, 2006 02:29 PMBob,
Put me in the category of “not offended” by your choice of words. In my opinion, they were an appropriate euphemism to convey the level of emotion that you felt. There will always be those with higher sensitivities, but if you holster every literary tool available to you so that you don’t offend those with the highest sensitivities, your writing, and in your case, your preaching, would be much less effective. That doesn’t mean that we should go out of our way to be offensive, or be provocative just for the sake of being provocative, but I really didn’t think that was the case.
As for the post, I thought it was well stated. I’m looking forward to reading the book.
Pat
Posted by: Pat at September 16, 2006 05:11 PMThinking ‘Perception is Reality’ isn’t the problem, Hypocrisy is. I Thess. 5:22 “Abstain from all appearance of evil.
If they teach skirts at church, they should teach skirts at home (but of course no one preaches details on modesty anymore).
There is no reason to use dirty language to get your point across, that’s what the world does, always trying to shock people to get the point across instead of just telling the truth plainly.
Posted by: Lance Roberts at September 17, 2006 02:06 AMBob,
You’ve made some helpful points and observations, and I do appreciate much of what you wrote, but I wonder if you aren’t (1) reading too much into the motives behind all the scenarios you mentioned (that “perception equals reality”), and (2) neglecting some biblical material that might militate against some of your conclusions.
Let me explain. Paul, in 1 Cor 8:13, mentions that he will not eat meat again if it causes his brother to stumble. Likewise, in 1 Cor 10:28 he mentions that he will not eat perfectly good meat for the sake of the man you told him about the meat’s origin and for the sake of the conscience of the other man (apparently the man who offered him the meat). This seems to suggest that I can do something in one context (when I am clearly influencing no one to sin) that I cannot do in another (when I MIGHT be influencing another to sin). Paul is not a hypocrite in this, but someone using pastoral discretion.
I’d argue from this that there could be perfectly good activities that MIGHT influence someone in my church/school/Sunday school/etc. to sin. I may do these things if I am sure that I am influencing no one to sin, but should abstain if there is any doubt. Now we can quibble long and hard about what falls into this category: CCM? going to a movie? playing poker but not for keeps? mixed swimming? social drinking? etc., etc., etc. In fact, my list may differ from yours for no other reason than I have a former addict in my church and you don’t. But at some level, 1 Cor 8/10 seems to inform us that we should be conscious of issues such as these.
I would suggest that in many cases it is a genuine attempt to apply 1 Corinthians 8/10 that drives some of the activities that you so malign.
Let’s say, for instance, that you are hired to serve in ministry X, and thus take on the responsibility to help guard the spiritual health of the people at ministry X. The pastor/president of ministry X, ever conscious of the spiritual health of his people, which he knows intimately, requests that employees not engage in certain activities that might cause the people in ministry X to sin. And so he makes rules of conduct to prevent this.
Then an employee grouses about a rule and says, “Ain’t no verse about that one!!!” So in keeping with the spirit of 1 Corinthians 8/10, the pastor/president concedes that, so long as you are in no danger of influencing someone in ministry X toward sin (say, 50 miles away), then you can engage freely in all that your biblically informed conscience allows. But when you are closer to home, you have to be more conscious of the influence you wield as an employee of ministry X and refrain from these activities.
Just so you know, there is no 50-mile rule in the ministry where I work. I personally question the effectiveness of such a policy because, quite frankly, the cat always seems to get out of the bag, 50 miles or no. But I just want to suggest that there might be something other than “hypocrisy” or “perception equals reality” that stands behind these kinds of actions.
MAS
Posted by: Mark Snoeberger at September 18, 2006 09:12 AMMark,
I appreciate your observations, and I agree. I don’t think that undermines my argument. Perhaps they balance it or show the other side as I myself was wont to do here.
You say:
Let’s say, for instance, that you are hired to serve in ministry X, and thus take on the responsibility to help guard the spiritual health of the people at ministry X. The pastor/president of ministry X, ever conscious of the spiritual health of his people, which he knows intimately, requests that employees not engage in certain activities that might cause the people in ministry X to sin. And so he makes rules of conduct to prevent this.Then an employee grouses about a rule and says, “Ain’t no verse about that one!!!” So in keeping with the spirit of 1 Corinthians 8/10, the pastor/president concedes that, so long as you are in no danger of influencing someone in ministry X toward sin (say, 50 miles away), then you can engage freely in all that your biblically informed conscience allows. But when you are closer to home, you have to be more conscious of the influence you wield as an employee of ministry X and refrain from these activities.
1. First, you and I would agree that while there is “no verse about that one,” there are principles and verses about obeying authorities, so from the employee’s perspective, I would say, “Conform. Quite complaining. Or get another job.” I think you would agree.
2. From the leadership perspective the ethical dilemma comes from allowing employees to engage in said activity 50 miles away while maintaining the perception that the ministry is universally against such activity. This is more than just being sensitive to the weak.
If the ministry declares itself to be “strong” concerning said activity, but voluntarily restricts its activities and those of its employees, fine. No, I would add, “Great!” But when the ministry endorses the position of the weak as strong and preaches the position of the weak for the sake of perception while allowing the “strong” to secretly do otherwise, that’s wrong. I think that is obvious.
Or, worse, when the ministry actually begins to believe that the perception is reality, it actually embraces incongruities of lifestyle in private and lifestyle in public as normal. When they cater to a self-righteous constituency as “clientele,” they have lost their right to be leaders, I think, even if they were to garb that action with Romans 14 and 1 Corinthiens 8/10. I’ve seen this happen.
Thank you for the perspective you bring up. You’re right.
Posted by: Bob at September 18, 2006 09:46 AM“Christians need an environment where they know they will get the benefit of the doubt.”
Bob you have once again made a statement that causes me to ask, “Then why would you send your kids to BJU?”
In fact, your whole article pointing out phony standards seems like an argument against most, if not all, the self-identified fundamentalist schools.
By the way, it is more than clear that you are not saying all standards are phony. You are clearly saying that if it’s allowed 50 miles away it’s not a real standard — it’s phony. If faculty listen to a musician in their homes their school shouldn’t put a church off limits for hosting that musician’s concerts — it’s phony. And the list could go on and on and on.
I don’t think you ever answered this question about your kids’ future college the last time I asked. To be clear, I was not offended at the lack of an answer. You have no obligation to answer me.
Nevertheless, I can’t say that I don’t give a rats behind about hearing the answer — if I wasn’t curious I wouldn’t have asked. I wonder where to send my kids to college (or at least to encourage them to look) and it’s helpful to see how other people are thinking.
Even so, I have the testicular fortitude not to be offended by the reality that you might have better things to do than answer a prying question from some guy you don’t even know.
Hang in there on this one and don’t let the donkeys, or as Bob Jones Jr. would say the . . . well, I better not write that . . . don’t let the donkeys get you down.
Posted by: Keith at September 18, 2006 12:02 PMKeith,
You suggest that having a flexible standard means that the standard is “not real” at all, but “phony.” I’m not sure I buy this.
I’m under the impression that many fundamentalist schools have in recent years become more sensitive to the accusation of “legalism” (loosely defined for sake of argument as representing non-biblical standards as moral absolutes). As sensitivity increases to this problem, rules are now cast with greater flexibility (e.g., the 50-mile rule).
A look at today’s “handbook” as opposed yesterday’s “handbook” (speaking generically here) reveals a careful admission that not all institutional rules are moral absolutes, and as such have room for flexibility. When I attended college, for instance, there was a rule against unmarried men and women holding hands. Fine and dandy (…well, fine at least, maybe not very dandy). When Christmas rolled around I asked a dean whether this applied to Christmas Break. He cautioned me to exercise due care, but ultimately said, “No, this is an institutional standard, not a moral one. Once you leave campus on Christmas Break, you’re back under the authority of your parents.”
I think this was a very healthy response. And when someone accused my alma mater of being “legalistic,” I was able to point to this incident and prove otherwise. My alma mater was NOT saying, “Holding hands is a sin,” but rather, “For the consideration of the spiritual well-being of everyone here, you may not hold hands while you are a student here.”
Legalism? No.
Double Standard? I guess so. I’d prefer think of it as due flexibility on a biblical non-absolute.
But Hypocrisy? No.
Admittedly, if you cast a standard as a moral absolute and then secretly allow it on some occasion (say, at the home of a faculty member or 50 miles away), then you have a serious hypocrisy problem. But if you cast a standard as a non-moral safeguard for a specific setting, then I’m not sure the phony/hypocrite charge sticks any more.
MAS
Posted by: Mark Snoeberger at September 18, 2006 01:42 PMBecause I don’t have time to wax elephants, I will simply say that I agree with Mark’s answer to Keith’s question. For starters. I, for one, am a strong proponent of strict institutional rules; not stupid rules, but sensibly strict. But I digress.
(I’m not dodging, Keith. I appreciate your challenges. I just have to think on ‘em.)
Posted by: Bob at September 18, 2006 01:53 PMAt the moment, I can’t wax elephants either. I may attempt to do so at a later time.
For now, all I’ll say in response to Mark is that I completely agree that institutions can and should have institutional standards. Those standards can also be in place according to specific parameters.
Nevertheless, stating “our authority doesn’t supersede your parents when you are at home,” is qualitatively different from saying “our faculty can do X as long as they are 50 miles away and none of our weaker-who-think-they’re-stronger brethren who send us students and money” will see.
Furthermore, for many years handbooks and orientation sessions have stated that “these are institutional rules” while the subcultural reality stated otherwise.
Posted by: Keith at September 18, 2006 02:35 PMI agree with that too. (I’m in such an agreeable mood today!)
Posted by: Bob at September 18, 2006 02:43 PMKeith,
I’ll agree that there’s not identity between “our authority doesn’t supersede your parents when you are at home” and “our faculty can do X as long as they are 50 miles away and none of our weaker-who-think-they’re-stronger brethren who send us students and money will see.” My point was not to suggest identity. My point was that in either situation there can be flexibility IF the insitutional standards are not cast as moral absolutes. They are institutional standards—that’s all. A faculty member can stay up past the midnight curfew, eat dinner barefoot, or go on vacation and swim in the ocean with a thousand other people, male and female—all in violation of institutional rules at his school. This is not hypocrisy because the rules in question are not transcendent moral absolutes—they’re institutional standards.
All this aside, though, you seem to be assigning a nefarious motive to the flexible standard that frankly may not be present. You’ve painted the picture of a clandestine plot that allows the faculty have fun when they’re out of the public eye, but also keeps the students and money rolling in. Maybe that’s how some places operate—I don’t know. But I don’t think it’s fair to predicate this sentiment of “most, if not all, the self-identified fundamentalist schools.”
MAS
Posted by: Mark Snoeberger at September 18, 2006 03:45 PMIf I were a better elephant waxer, the following post would not be so long. I apologize in advance . . .
Mark,
It seems like your affection for fundamentalists institutions is causing you to jump to their defense. If you wish to be loyal to fundamentalist schools, have at it. There is much to praise in what they have accomplished over the years. In God’s providence he began to draw many to himself through their work.
Furthermore, I apologize for writing, “Our faculty can do X as long as they are 50 miles away and none of our weaker-who-think-they’re-stronger brethren who send us students and money will see.” You are correct that this bit of rhetoric does assign motive beyond my ability to substantiate.
Nevertheless, I will continue to be skeptical about your argument that the fundamentalist schools are just showing a healthy balance of institutional order and flexibility.
Your first two examples not only do not prove your point, they argue against your point. Every reasonable man can understand why an institution might set curfews in a dormitory full of young people (some would never sleep which would make it hard for others to sleep) but not set curfews for faculty in the privacy of their own homes (they are older, have proven themselves, and if one is foolish enough to stay up too late he won’t hurt anyone but himself). Every reasonable man can understand why an institution might require students to wear shoes in a crowded cafeteria (a lot of people, metal pots and pans, and hot stuff don’t make for barefoot safety) but allow faculty to eat barefoot in the privacy of their own home (fewer people and again no one at risk but the faculty member). These are reasonable examples of institutional flexibility. One need not be an apologist for fundamentalism to accept them.
Even with your third example of coed swimming, most reasonable men could buy the argument that we schedule the boys and girls to swim in the campus pool at different times for logistical reasons — if it’s true, if it’s not true they should tell the truth.
What reasonable men can’t understand is — How could going to a movie theatre accross the street impact the institution any more than going to a movie theatre 50 miles away? How could women wearing pants on campus impact the institution any more than women wearing pants off campus? How could listening to Steve Green music openly and publicly impact the institution any more than listening to it privately in faculty homes?
With all these things — coed swimming, theatres, pants, music — and many more, the institution would be honorable to (a) Allow them and openly admit that they believe them to be acceptable — even on campus as far as logistics will allow, (b)Prohibit them and openly admit that they believe them to be wrong (or that there is concern they might be wrong and the matter is being studied), or (c) Prohibit them at some times and in some places and openly admit that they are doing so because the institution wishes to work with some groups who view them as wrong — even though the institution doesn’t.
Unfortunately, it seems that within fundamentalist college subcultures one rarely sees this type of open, courageous, and in Bob’s words, manly type of leadership.
If these colleges want to shed the mantle of legalism, they shouldn’t just make ridiculous rules more flexible, they should get rid of ridiculous rules. They should make some sensible rules and announce them with some testicular fortitude.
Finally, it seems to me that fundamentalists groups are characterized by the habit of publicly acting like “we don’t do x,y,z” but privately doing most or all of them. Please know, that some people I love and in many ways respect are in those groups.
Even so, the “perception is reality” game that is played in those fundamentalists groups creates a weirdness I just can’t buy.
I think the “perception is reality” game also mitigates against giving students “the benefit of the doubt”. It often treats them as if they are guilty until proven innocent. And, that’s why I wondered why Bob would want his kids to go to BJU.
Posted by: Keith at September 18, 2006 05:45 PMKeith,
Your suggestion that Mark’s opinion is biased made me chuckle. I’m not sure you’re the best judge of objectivity; bashing fundamentalism appears to be your hobby.
At any rate, the comments Stephen Jones makes at the beginning of this message may be helpful if someone genuinely wants to understand how at least one fundamental institution views its rules. His chat on the topic takes about 8 minutes.
The thoughts on chewing gum are particularly edifying.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at September 19, 2006 01:01 PMSorry for the broken link. You may have to copy & paste it into your browser.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsbible&sermonID=1190614246
Posted by: Chris Anderson at September 19, 2006 01:06 PMChris,
Fundamentalist Bob Bixby is the one bashing fundamentalism here. I’ll admit that I see no reason to disagree with him this time.
Let me just add that I never claimed objectivity for myself. I don’t think anyone can be completely objective.
Nevertheless, I am willing to admit when my rhetoric is inacurate or inappropriate. Whereas those whose biases causes them to defend fundamentalist shiboleths seem unable to admit when they are coming up with post hoc defenses.
Oh, and by the way, I only have three hobbies: Surfing, Flyfishing, Snowboarding. Is bashing evangelicals and mainline pastors your hobby?
Posted by: Keith at September 19, 2006 01:12 PMKeith,
I was and am amused, not angry. Your earlier post honestly made me smile. Anyway, you got in your dig, and I admit that I started it. So it’s “1 to 1.” Rather than putting up a silly defense, I’ll just leave it there.
The only part of my posts that really mattered was the link.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at September 19, 2006 01:34 PMChris,
I’m not angry either. And, I’ll agree to a truce.
I don’t know when I can listen to the link. I’ll try to sometime, but I’ll admit at the outset that I am biased against believing certain claims of “this is just an institutional rule” from fundamentalist colleges. In past personal experience that claim has been made with less than full honesty about some rules. Some rules like lights-out, etc. are definitely institutional, but others carry more philosophical, subcultural, and emotional weight than people want to admit.
Posted by: Keith at September 19, 2006 02:59 PM
