Encouraging hypocrisy, not responsibility
How community standards reflect culture and not the Bible
February 6, 2008
Carl Hildebrand
The community standards at Trinity Western University have become a collective joke amongst a large number of students and faculty. The vast majority of TWU’s students disobey them without thinking twice. Somewhere (in administration?) someone thinks that the community standards play an important role in TWU’s self-understanding as an Evangelical Christian community. I would suggest that in some way they do.
As it stands now, community standards attempt to dictate a very specific understanding of Evangelical culture. I think it’s safe to say that Evangelicals typically distinguish themselves by their adherence to the sole authority of the Bible. However, is complete abstinence from alcohol and tobacco products a cultural practice informed by the authority of Scripture? No it’s not. It’s a practice informed by the ethos of former generations of Evangelicals. It is extra-biblical. The absolute prohibition of alcohol and tobacco by biblical authority is virtually indefensible.
On a humorous note, my own pastor has argued for a Biblical definition of smoking. Through a careful reading of Scripture, he has taught that in the Old Testament God was pleased by the aroma of burnt offerings that arose from Israel’s temple. Now that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, God is equally pleased by the aromas of our own “burnt offerings.”
Moreover, as I already mentioned, the community standards are almost completely ignored by TWU students. This reveals a severe disconnect between the words and actions of TWU community members. It exposes our beliefs as indefensible and our conduct hypocritical. As Evangelical Christians who are fundamentally concerned with our witness to and engagement with the world, this disconnect proves damaging. It’s not good enough to say “Well, then believe in them” because such belief cannot be manufactured and is not required, as it is extra-biblical.
So if this is how community standards inform our self-understanding thus far (and it doesn’t look good), how could they inform our self-understanding in the future? First of all, community standards should demarcate that conduct which is sinful. This should be done according to the more widely agreed upon Scriptural interpretations of orthodox Christians. I think here of the importance of sexual purity, among other things. This demonstrates that TWU is fundamentally committed to living in obedience to the Lord.
Then, within these confines, the community of TWU should be free to articulate its own extra-biblical cultural conduct, as well as alter that conduct as time changes. To cement or enforce such cultural practice without biblical warrant is not healthy. It’s a form of what is commonly called “legalism.” It produces a stagnant, inflexible community that is more concerned with its own laws rather than the laws of the Lord. Therefore, it is important not to simply replace the former extra-biblical community standards with a codified version of today’s standards; they will just need to be changed again in 10 years. Instead, it is better to mark clearly what is right and what is wrong in a general sense, as defined by the most historically and biblically defensible means. Aside from this, God gives us the freedom to exercise wisdom and adapt our cultural practices as the world both within and without Evangelical Christianity changes. Recognition of this freedom is essential to our own self-understanding, maturity and growth as an Evangelical community.
In allowing this freedom, TWU will have an exciting opportunity to define the ethos and cultural practice of subsequent generations of Evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christianity is undergoing some significant cultural transitions, between the emergent church on one hand, and an increasing awareness of historical Christian practice and theology on the other. In light of this transition, if we are free to openly dialogue about matters of cultural practice at TWU, a more balanced relationship between freedom and responsibility will be supported. Professors, too, will be officially free to participate in the discussion and offer their own increased wisdom and experience. By understanding the community standards in this way, we will attain a proper self-understanding of our freedom and responsibility before God and each other.
Now you go...
2 Responses to “Encouraging hypocrisy, not responsibility”
Got something to say?
Carl you are so brilliant, I am so glad that you are my brother!
Carl - tsk tsk. You must really be insecure if you need to forge my endorsement in order to praise yourself. I’m not sure if I should be ashamed you are so desperate or take your sycophancy as a compliment. I wonder where you get it from . . .