Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1
“Young Fundamentalists” are generally not fond of rules, especially in ministry settings. Exactly why this is the case is an interesting study in itself. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that many of them grew up in rules-heavy Christian schools in an era full of glowing idealism about what these highly-disciplined, conscientiously spiritual educational environments would produce. The inflated hopes of those days were sure to result in disappointment. And maybe the current rules angst is the result of a generalized disgust with the whole concept and all that seems connected to it. In defense of those who feel this way, it is only too easy to find examples of rules excesses and absurdities.
Whatever the reasons, young Fundamentalists are often eager to cast “man-made rules” in a negative light and to argue from Scripture that these rules are dangerous at best, and downright hostile to Christian growth at worst.
My aim here is to offer a “young Fundamentalist” perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to Scripture and wisdom.
Points of agreement
I count myself among those who believe any Christian ministry that seeks to grow believers must aim to develop principled and discerning servants of God. Young people (or old ones, for that matter) who merely conform to a slate of rules in order to avoid punishments have not arrived at “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13 NKJV), no matter how wise and comprehensive that slate of rules might be.
In fact, seeking to instill understanding of the reasons for rules is not aiming high enough either. Since we’re commanded to love the Lord our God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30), we’re not truly living the life unless we obey in body, intellect and affections. We are not fully obedient until we do the right thing driven by both faith and love.
But should we conclude that “man-made rules” do not contribute at all to walking in a manner worthy of our calling? Is it accurate to say that rules contribute nothing to sanctification? Should we even believe that they are—as some suggest—inherently dangerous and often hostile to growth in grace?
Argument from the nature of sin
Sin interrupts fellowship with God, dulls spiritual senses, weakens resolve, perverts affections, damages body and mind, poisons relationships and forms enslaving habits. I’m taking it for granted that I don’t need to prove that here. We’ve all seen it in our sins if we’ve been paying attention, and finding examples in Scripture is almost as easy as opening the Book at random and reading.
Given that sin does so much harm, may we not conclude that it is always better to do right than to do wrong? To put it another way, isn’t a believer who avoids a sin because of a rule-and-penalty better off than a believer who sins?
Perhaps some confusion on this point is due to binary thinking about the relationship between the inner man—the heart and mind—and outward behavior. Is it true that a believer either obeys with faith and love or sins? What if he obeys without faith and love or—as is more often the case, obeys with incomplete faith (and understanding) and less than pure love? Is this “sin”? Even if it is, is it no better than the sin the rule is intended to prevent?
I believe the dynamic between inner man and outward conduct is far from binary (all or nothing) and looks more like this:
- Best: do right out of faith and love
- Good: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)
- Bad: do right with some evil motive
- Worst: do wrong
Many gradations are possible between these levels, and it’s debatable whether “doing right with some evil motive” is doing “right” at all, but this scale illustrates the complexity of the possibilities.
To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.
So has the teen in scenario A been helped along in his journey toward Christlikeness? Absolutely. Would it have been better if he did the right thing out of faith and love without a rule? Definitely.
But this is where an important point comes into focus: the truth is, he can act out of faith and love without or with the rule. If he has the necessary faith and love, the rule is useless (1 Tim. 1:9) but harmless. If he lacks the necessary faith and love, the rule is a lifesaver, and those responsible for his care have done him a great service.
The argument from the nature of sin, then, is this: sin is so damaging that reducing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers. Not sinning is always better than sinning, even when understanding is lacking and love is not the primary motivation.
Argument from the nature of holiness
Just as sin is inherently damaging and habit-forming, every act of obedience is inherently helpful and habit-forming (1 Tim. 4:8). Obedience deepens fellowship with God (1 John 1:6-7), sharpens spiritual senses, strengthens resolve, tunes affections (1 Pet. 1:22), nurtures body and mind, enhances relationships and forms liberating habits.
And let’s not undervalue good habits. Habits are simply choices we make repeatedly until they become so much a part of us they no are longer made consciously. Growth in sanctification consists largely of old habits losing out to new ones (this includes habits of intellect and affections as well as habits of body). This is the Lord’s work in us, but our obedience is required and that obedience is frequently the tool He uses to produce yet more obedience (Phil. 2:12-13).
Admittedly, it is possible to obey a rule—even in the sense of “a generalized application of Scripture” (see below)—and not obey God in the fullest sense. That is, pleasing God could be furthest thing from the complier’s mind. He is not obeying fully because his affections are not God-ward in the act. But even though he is not obeying at the subjective level, he still obeying at the objective level and making a better choice. By doing so, he is getting a taste of clean living whether he wants one or not. I believe these “tastes” are always habit forming to some degree in the life of a regenerate, Spirit-indwelt person.
The argument from the nature of holiness, then, is this: obedience is so helpful that increasing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers even when their faith is incomplete and love is not their primary motivation.
Summary
I’ve argued here that rules in ministry settings (especially schools) are not as dangerous or hostile to growing in grace as many suppose. I’ve done so on the basis of the nature of sin and the nature of obedience. But the case is far from complete. It barely scratches the surface.
In Part 2, I’ll offer an additional argument—this time, from the nature of rules themselves, then address a series of objections, including these:
- If what you’re saying about rules is true, shouldn’t we make as many as possible? (We know that leads to disaster!)
- Doesn’t Jesus’ handling of the Pharisees show that rule-making is inherently hazardous?
- Doesn’t Colossians directly forbid rule making (Col. 2:20-23)?
- Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 13:3 teach that doing good without love is worthless?
(Part 2)
- 90 views
[Aaron Blumer] To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.I actually agree with most of this post, but when I read this example, my question became “Why would the school have this rule and that parents not?” Which is going to influence the decision making processes of the child more- his parent’s input, or the rules at the school?
It isn’t the presence or even the number of rules that I have concerns about, but the seeming assumption of the parents as being second in the chain of command when it comes to the role of schools and even churches. We are often asking kids to do/not do things that their parents practice on a regular basis, and on the other hand, there are behaviors and activities allowed and encouraged that some parents have objections to.
There are many clear guidelines that delineate the responsibilities of parents to children and the teaching/mentoring roles of older adult men/women to the younger adult men/women. The Bible doesn’t tell older women to love and teach the younger women’s children, but to teach the younger women to love their own husband and children.
If we can get these obvious methods of discipleship and edification down better, I think the ‘rules’ issue would become less of a point of contention.
Obviously organizations like schools have to govern kids - so obviously we can’t toss out rules.
People love to trust rule-keeping - that can be spiritually dangerous. how do we protect them from that?
Why is this a big deal? - Governments and other organizations have lots of rules without producing self-righteous hypocrites - why do schools/churches fall into this trap?
_______________ www.SutterSaga.com
_______________ www.SutterSaga.com
[Susan R] I actually agree with most of this post, but when I read this example, my question became “Why would the school have this rule and that parents not?” Which is going to influence the decision making processes of the child more- his parent’s input, or the rules at the school?These are two very different questions. The answer to the first is simply because there are alot of negligent and immature parents out there.
The answer to the second is complicated. Other things being equal, parents have more influence than schools by a long shot. But when whether the child is truly a believer is a huge factor. If he or she is, then he has been indwelt by the Spirit and a sanctifying work has begun that God will continue until the Day of Christ. So helping a regenerate kid who isn’t mature enough to make the right choice and who’s parent’s aren’t nurturing him very well avoid disaster makes a huge difference. If the child has no desire to grow in grace (which would make it hard for me to believe he’s saved) the parent’s more negligent attitude is more likely to win the day in his moral development and spiritually—well, dead is dead.
As for the example in general… The aim there was to make it easy to see how a rule can really help avoid the disastrous consequences of sin. It works just as well if the rule is a government one, though of course, they do not intend it to have spiritual benefits. But these benefits can occur even when not intended. Much more so when intended.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It is a very interesting book that deals with the subjects of parenting kids who will not rebel against their faith. Many of the principles would apply to the Christian School movement as well. I think it would be a good addition to the articles that have been on SI in the past couple of weeks about rules and schools.
While I do not agree with everything in this book I recommend it as a good read for parents and Christian school workers.
Keri www.thegracepost.com
There is no inherent conflict between a parent having rules in their home and a school having rules for their students. There is no school worth its salt that does not have rules governing conduct. Those who compare the Talmud and Mishnah to a simple student handbook in a school are comparing apples and oranges, or should I say apples and watermelons to be more accurate in the analogy. If the parents are in fundamental disagreement with the rules of a particular school, they have the option of sending their children to a school with which they are in agreement. The only compulsory education is the public school monopoly which forcibly takes our money and compels our children to attend government schools. The reductionist ethic regarding rules in the public schools has not created a healthier, more civil, more moral environment in which children and teens are being educated. The morals in public colleges are near total corruption where the rule is “don’t have sex in your dorm room while your other roomate is present”.
The rules in our Christian colleges are much less today than they were 30, 40, 50 years ago. I think the real culprit is the autonomous idea that says, “I don’t want anybody telling me what to do”.
Pastor Mike Harding
Sin interrupts fellowship with God, dulls spiritual senses, weakens resolve, perverts affections, damages body and mind, poisons relationships and forms enslaving habits. I’m taking it for granted that I don’t need to prove that here. We’ve all seen it in our sins if we’ve been paying attention, and finding examples in Scripture is almost as easy as opening the Book at random and reading.I would recommend going over this again. But instead of a consideration of “sin,” do this twice. First, apply the logic to “inner sin.” That is, a sin of the heart that exists independently of rules. For example, the student who doesn’t touch a girl, but lusts continually.
Given that sin does so much harm, may we not conclude that it is always better to do right than to do wrong? To put it another way, isn’t a believer who avoids a sin because of a rule-and-penalty better off than a believer who sins?
Next, apply the logic to “external sin.” That is, the breaking of rules that have been established. For example, the student who breaks a rule that prohibits all physical contact, but does so without any hint of porneia in his heart.
I think that will help. You do however, have a point. To my mind, this is all a question of how sanctification works. Just like salvation, it is entirely the work of God (monergism). And we work.
I would recommend two passages for your thesis:
Romans 6 seems to say that doing sin makes us more enslaved by death. Thus, harder in the future to resist. Obviously, there are sins that master us more than others.
Matt 19:16-24 seems to say that there are some external conditions that make it harder to be saved. I want to be careful not to contradict that God’s grace is enough for anyone to repent, but Jesus is saying that people who are accustomed to wealth find it harder to follow Him.
Best: do right out of faith and loveBest: do right out of faith and love
Good: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)
Bad: do right with some evil motive
Worst: do wrong
Worthless: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)
Bad: do right with some evil motive (but if evil is the lack of good, then doing right simply to avoid punishment is evil.)
Bad: do wrong
Worthless: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)Why? Why does the Bible use fear of punishment as a motivation to do right if such action is “worthless”? On what biblical basis do we conclude that such action is “worthless”?
Reading these discussions, and resisting the urge (until now) to comment, I think much of this discussion on rules is misguided. The fact is that the Bible makes rules. And the Bible appeals, at times, to what some would call “base motives” as reason to obey the rules. It seems to me that some are simply trying to be “more Christian than Christ” or “more biblical than the Bible” in this regard.
Yes, we should focus on the heart, but that is usually insufficient, particularly in formative years. Walls help to guide until one is sufficient strength to stand on their own.
A school exists to turn out a product. Why should they not have standards that assist them in turning out that product. Consider a manufacturer. They have certain standards because they desire to turn out a certain product. We all applaud that because when we go buy something we want to know that it is worked. And people will lose their jobs for violating those standards. But somehow, when we get to a Christian school for instance, we throw all of that (or a lot of it) out in the window under the guise of avoiding legalism. Truth is, that the process for turning out a mature believer is greatly enhanced by standards of conduct. It seems in this regard that the children of darkness are indeed more wise than the children of light.
I grew up in Christian education that most would consider legalistic and I never heard anyone suggest that keeping the rules would make one spiritual. I never heard anyone from outside my circles say that. The only people I have heard say it are people who are quoting other people. It’s all secondhand. Now, perhaps there are some who think that keeping rules will make them spiritual.
But look a little deeper: Will keeping rules make one spiritual? Yes, it will. The Bible plainly teaches that avoiding certain things and doing other things will in fact have a direct affect on one’s spirituality. Sure the heart is connected, but that is the nature of humanity. “Meaning well” (i.e., having the “right heart”) is not sufficient. But walls help to “guard the heart.” The heart is affected by our circumstances and our lives. We cannot disconnect them.
Go back to the prom rule discussion. There were many who decried that rule as legalistic. But I imagine that most of those people have no problem with a rule about being late to class. Here’s the irony: No that I know of suggests that being late to class is a great temptation to compromise moral integrity, or that it will greatly damage one’s testimony, or that it will put a person in a place that is not healthy for their spiritual life. The prom is clearly presents all of those possibilities. So some, in the name of biblical Christianity, are willing to regulate the less dangerous and less important and unwilling to regulate the more dangerous, more important, and more directly tied to biblical revelation. I find that odd.
As people of wisdom, we should be able to acknowledge that certain things/places/atmosphere present temptation that would be better avoided. Why encourage or permit young people to put themselves in a place of overt temptation? Will all fail? No. Will some? Sure. Again, wisdom seems to be missing here too often.
If we are talking about Christian schools, I am assuming we are talking about Christian parents. If the parents do not, in fact, believe in 1) the illegality of teenage drinking 2) avoiding the abuse of alcohol- the problem is not going to be solved by applying rules and restrictions to the children. That would be a case of parents not being equipped, mentored, or held accountable to bring their children up ‘in the nurture and admonition of the Lord’. You might make somewhat of a difference in the sowing/reaping aspect of a young person’s life by enforcing rules that their lazy parents won’t, and that’s not a bad thing- but what about the long term? And aren’t the future repercussions what we should be most concerned about? Sometimes rules are just a Band-Aid that temporarily hide a festering wound- they do nothing to address the infection.
I want to make it clear that it isn’t having rules I am most concerned about, but the lack of emphasis on equipping and supporting parents and concentrating on kids instead, as if the parents are a lost cause, and the idea of schools enforcing rules of conduct in the home (that aren’t already specifically covered by God’s Word or the law of the land).
I need to see how extrabiblical morality fits with 1 Tim. 4:1-5 and Col. 2:20-23.What do you mean by “extrabiblical morality”?
I certainly see the necessity of a school having rules on a purely “instutional level” (i.e., wearing a tie to class), and I also appreciate the value of a structured environment, where class begins on time, there is no talking during class, etc., etc. To me, all of those things are more in the category of doing things “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). They apply to one’s sanctification only in a secondary sense — i.e., talking in class is not immoral, but doing things disorderly is. In other words, the rule itself drives the serious person to an inner heart issue while also accomplishing the desired end outwardly.
What I have never bought into, and what was culture shock to me when I first entered Fundamentalism, was an extra-Biblical layer of rules which sort-of relates to sanctification, sort-of relates to building a fence around God’s Law, sort-of flows out of conviction — but when push comes to shove — can only finally be justified on an institutional level…except that somehow we still end up looking down on others who do not practice that same “standard.”
I have yet to see that type of rule-making bear the fruit of holiness in anyone’s life.
(I think Susan is on a similar wavelength with her concern about the school’s rules interrupting the God-given relationship of parents and children.)
One of the great victories within Fundamentalism over the last decade, as I see it, is the putting away of some of these childish things.
My counsel: Once we get outside of the lowest common denonimator of necessary “instituational rules,” let’s focus on substantive Bible teaching. When we get “really good” at that, we can start worrying about adding rules :)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
What I have never bought into, and what was culture shock to me when I first entered Fundamentalism, was an extra-Biblical layer of rules which sort-of relates to sanctification, sort-of relates to building a fence around God’s Law, sort-of flows out of conviction — but when push comes to shove — can only finally be justified on an institutional level…except that somehow we still end up looking down on others who do not practice that same “standard.”As with my above comment, I have to wonder what we are talking about here. It is hard to respond without knowing what we are talking about.
One of the great victories within Fundamentalism over the last decade, as I see it, is the putting away of some of these childish things.That certainly has the affect of trying to win the debate by defining those who see it differently as “childish.” Perhaps you don’t mean such …
Once we get outside of the lowest common denominator of necessary “institutional rules,” let’s focus on substantive Bible teaching. When we get “really good” at that, we can start worrying about adding rulesI also wonder why “substantive Bible teaching” is somehow set against rules. I think that is a common underlying theme in these threads: If we have Bible teaching and discipleship, we don’t need rules. I don’t see that distinction in the Bible, and wonder where it comes from here.
Can you imagine Ford saying, “Let’s not have rules, just make cars.” Or Pfizer saying, “Let’s not have rules, let’s just make medicine.” Or Nabisco saying, “Let’s not have rules, let’s just make food.” I can’t imagine any of that, and I imagine no one here can because they recognize that rules aid in turning out of a product. No one at Ford, Pfizer, or Nabisco would say that working on your care, whipping up a homebrew medicine, or baking cookies means you need to have the same rules as they do (though they might be helpful). But neither do they consider them “extra.” They are a part of producing a product.
Part of the inadequacy of the rules in Christian school is rooted in the fact that I really question whether most churches have a good understanding of what the rules in the Bible are about. Oliver O’Donovan has a superb treatment of this in “Resurrection and Moral Order.”
In the context of treating the value of “quandary” situations in ethics, he notes that a “code presents the moral law ‘straightforwardly” in that it “presents it as a catalogue of moral claims … without conveying any principle of order by which the relations among them may be understood as a moral whole” (199-200). Such codes are perfectly legitimate and necessary, as O’Donovan observes, for didactic purposes. However, they are not sufficient: “The items in a code stand to the moral law as bricks to a building. Wisdom must involve some comprehension of how the bricks are meant to be put together” (200). Crucially, O’Donovan notes that “[t] his has an immediate bearing on how we read the Bible.” It is inadequate simply to quote the numerous moral commands in Scripture. Indeed, it would be inadequate even if the Scripture recorded every possible moral prescription (ibid.). “We will read the Bible seriously only when we use it to guide our thought towards a comprehensive moral viewpoint, and not merely to articulate disconnected moral claims.” As O’Donovan notes, contra objections to “totalitarian theological construction,” developing such a comprehensive moral vision is our only choice if we wish to take the Scripture seriously as a guide to ethics (ibid).
Rule codes are not evil; they are helpful for specific purposes. But they often appear arbitrary because I think that, for most Christians, they are arbitrary. A “because the Bible says so” is fine for a child; just like “because my daddy told me so” is fine for a child. However, if that level of understanding persists, it will result in a wholly arbitrary conception of rules. The issue to which O’Donovan directs our attention is that moral codes, like the Ten Commandment, provide a short summary of prescriptions and proscriptions that arise out of a comprehensive conception of the moral order. An analogy would be rules for building something; no one thinks the numbered list in the instruction manual is somehow valuable in itself or arbitrary. Everyone understands that the list of instructions is based on the designer’s knowledge of the order of the object, and based on that order he prescribes certain actions if one wishes to achieve harmony with that order (say, by having a working bike or bookshelf).
So, churches will necessarily if passively teach legalism if they teach rules apart from the context of the moral order from which and in which those rules derive their rationality and relatedness to each other. Rules by themselves, as O’Donovan notes, do not tell us how they are to relate each other; that assumes a moral order, just as intructions to build a bike assume one knows what a bike is.
So, in application to school, it’s easy to see that if schools simply have rules, with no order in which their relations can be discerned and their rationality understood, the rules are arbitrary, and kids understand this just as well as adults. The inability for an administrator to explain a specific rule (something people from certain colleges have surely encountered) is rooted in the fact that the rule is either arbitrary or the administrator does not understand the order in which the rule is rational and the set of relations in that order within which it coheres.
A significant source of the tension in Christian school rules clearly derives from confusion in the rules and administrators’ minds between the types of rules they are lumping together and the different purposes and orders to which those rules are related. So Larry, for example, cites the rule of not being late to class, but this precisely misses the point and evinces the conflation I’m talking about. Class order and student’s maximal capacity to learn are two interrelated goods, both of which can be made more probable through a set of rules (although most colleges don’t, because the rightly assume students know that the purpose of class is learning, that being in class is necessary for this, and that if they don’t want to achieve educational ends, that’s their problem). This is a straighforward, pragmatic rule predicated on achieving two interrelated goods of education: one, class order, which is subordinately related as an extrinsic good to the other, student learning, which is an internal good of education.
Now, it is a completely different matter when a school has a rule, say, about going to the prom. If the rule says this activity is wrong, it is doing so with reference to some assumed moral order and idea about the human good. But not only this, it is also dictating to the student what means are harmful for attaining the good in question (say, sanctification). Here Susan’s questions become very important because it is hardly clear that a school, as an educational institution, has the right much less duty to dictate what the moral good is for a student, or to tell them authoritatively through presciptions about the moral order, and this more so if the alleged good is unique to the church, as santification is. This kind of prescription derives binding authority in my view, as a Protestant, from Scripture or natural law, and can be mediated through the authority of a parent to a dependent child.
Anything beyond goods proper to education is necessarily outside of the domain of a school qua school, and thus any rules that only derives meaning, authority, rationality, and coherence (with other rules) by reference to some extra-educational end and order yet use the school’s coercive power for their implementation puts into question the prior domains of legitimate, binding authority: the parent (for dependent children) and the local church (for all professing believers). The only conceivably legitimate instance in which this kind of boundary crossing occured would be in the context of parent’s schooling their children, in which case educational ends and other ends would naturally overlap, or a local church operating qua local church in an educational capacity, which would demand for consistency total co-extensiveness between the members of the school and the members of the local church.
Discussion