In Defense of Rules, Part 1

First posted October, 2009. Discussion here.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals of my generation are generally not fond of rules, especially in ministry settings. Exactly why this is the case is an interesting study in itself. In the case of fundamentalists, 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 environments would produce. The inflated hopes of those days were sure to result in some disappointments. 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 perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to both Scripture and experience.

Points of agreement

I count myself among those who believe any Christian ministry that seeks to grow believers must strive to develop principled and discerning disciples. 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” (NKJV, Eph. 4:13), 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 part 2)—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 subjectively, he is still obeying objectively 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 at least a little habit forming in the life of a regenerate, Spirit-indwelled 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?

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

Aaron,

Part of the concern for those who argue there are too many rules is that sometimes a rule is elevated be on par with scripture. I have no objection to a school or church placing a teen under discipline who goes on a drunken rampage. That’s far too easy. What he did was illegal in society and immoral from the Bible itself. So the precense of a rule against it shouldn’t be controversial to any Christian because it mereley repeats the clear teaching of Scripture.

Why might be (and is) controversial is a rule that isn’t in Scripture at all but the following of those rules have attached to them spiritual weight in the school/church. Can you think of another scenario where rules might be more arbitrary and unhelpful?

Shayne

A useful way to think of this is by using a histogram for diagramming.

One axis could be attitude/motive

The other axis would be the rightness/wrongness of the action

If you diagrammed this you would have what is called a “magic quadrant” of right actions/ right motives.

I tried to upload a diagram from my computer, but couldn’t figure out how.

[Shaynus]

Aaron,

Part of the concern for those who argue there are too many rules is that sometimes a rule is elevated be on par with scripture. I have no objection to a school or church placing a teen under discipline who goes on a drunken rampage. That’s far too easy. What he did was illegal in society and immoral from the Bible itself. So the precense of a rule against it shouldn’t be controversial to any Christian because it mereley repeats the clear teaching of Scripture.

Why might be (and is) controversial is a rule that isn’t in Scripture at all but the following of those rules have attached to them spiritual weight in the school/church. Can you think of another scenario where rules might be more arbitrary and unhelpful?

Shayne

Thanks. Part of the difficulty of discussing the subject is that different points are in dispute among different people. The idea that some institutions have too many rules is mostly agreed I suspect, as is the the point that some institutions intentionally or unintentionally create the impression that rules with a very distant relationship to actual passages of Scripture (and maybe only very broad ones even then) have the same authority as Scripture itself. And few dispute that it’s a bad thing when that happens.

Also not in dispute: lots of rules are arbitrary and unhelpful.

What I aim for in this couple of essays is to go after a specific set of claims I’ve seen/heard many in my generation make:

  1. that rules have no value in helping believers grow in grace
  2. that rules are inherently hostile to growth in grace
  3. that seeing rules as having an important role in sanctification is legalism
  4. that Phariseeism consisted primarily of attaching importance to rules
  5. that Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees constitutes a condemnation of this particular form of “legalism”

So it’s this way of thinking that I’m mainly targeting. In reality, attitudes toward rules are all over the map and it’s pretty hard to address the whole spectrum. But I hope with these ideas to encourage people not to shortchange the potential of rules that are wise, well administered/enforced, and accurately presented (the latter has to do with what sort of authority we give them)

Post is getting long, but I need to touch on one reason why we get the impression rules are being given equal weight with Scripture in some situations:

One common scenario really has more to do with authority relationships than it does with legalism, grace, sanctification (though not unrelated). When an employee or student joins an organization, he enters into a relationship that brings him under the authority of that organization. Col. 3:22 comes into play. The result is that when this organization has a rule that says “don’t walk east on the sidewalks on odd numbered Wednesdays,” disobeying the rule becomes a biblical issue. It violates Col.3.22 and other passages.

So when a conflict arises over a violation, the communication might put the issue in terms that sound like “You’re disobeying Scripture when you walk East on odd numbered Wednesdays.” Easy to conclude that these people think the Bible teaches something about what direction to walk on sidewalks. Actually, it’s application of very clear principles regarding authority.

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.

[Steve Newman]

A useful way to think of this is by using a histogram for diagramming.

One axis could be attitude/motive

The other axis would be the rightness/wrongness of the action

If you diagrammed this you would have what is called a “magic quadrant” of right actions/ right motives.

I tried to upload a diagram from my computer, but couldn’t figure out how.

Is the diagram a graphic file? You should be able to click “File attachments” below, then click Choose File and browse to the file on your PC—then click Attach. Then Save the post.

If you can tell me where that process breaks, we’ll see if there’s something to fix there. It may be that with the site update just installed, that’s not working right yet (It works for me, but there could be some kind of permissions problem).

Without seeing the diagram, I’m guessing that what I’m visualizing is pretty close. The “magic quadrant” would represent an ideal, though. I think I would not diagram the situation that way, myself because it might give the impression that all the other quadrants have a value of zero. But I think the biblical evidence is pretty solid that the arrangements of motives and actions is hierararchical.

Another problem is that it’s not always possible to separate the right/wrong of the action from the motive. Sometimes the motive is the determinative factor, but not always. For example, I can “speak the truth in love” or speak it in spite. The latter would fundamentally change the character of the act. But consider another behavior: I can “refrain from comitting murder out of love” or “refrain from committing murder out of fear of the law (self-interest).” The latter is not evil, but is not as noble as the former. So in that case, you have a hieararchy or spectrum of possibilities.

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.

I tend to be a ‘by the book’ kind of person. I want boundaries. I like boundaries, often for no other reason than I am a bit OCD and want to know what is expected of myself and others so there are no surprises. Not terribly noble. (Note- not talking about Scriptural/moral/ethical boundaries, which go deeper than just providing ‘guidelines’, capiche?)

One common scenario really has more to do with authority relationships than it does with legalism, grace, sanctification (though not unrelated). When an employee or student joins an organization, he enters into a relationship that brings him under the authority of that organization. Col. 3:22 comes into play. The result is that when this organization has a rule that says “don’t walk east on the sidewalks on odd numbered Wednesdays,” disobeying the rule becomes a biblical issue. It violates Col.3.22 and other passages.

So when a conflict arises over a violation, the communication might put the issue in terms that sound like “You’re disobeying Scripture when you walk East on odd numbered Wednesdays.” Easy to conclude that these people think the Bible teaches something about what direction to walk on sidewalks. Actually, it’s application of very clear principles regarding authority.

I basically agree, but I do have concerns about some aspects of where I believe this thinking can lead. Rules should, IMO, have some reasonable explanation. Does the rule serve a utilitarian or organizational purpose? Is it grounded in Scripture- if not with a clearcut mandate, at least with some principle or example? Is it for the purpose of trying to instill what the authority deems as a ‘good habit’, or to avoid something that authority considers dangerous or detrimental or slippery slope…?

My major ‘objection’ to arbitrary rules is that no one wants to admit when they are arbitrary. I can usually understand a rule that’s arbitrary if authority is honest enough to admit it, or at least say “There is no direct correlation with this rule and Scripture. We simply think this is best for the student body/congregation”. Okey-dokey then. But “Pastor said” is not the same as “Thus sayeth the Lord” no matter how you slice it, and I think it would help if that line was more clearly drawn. Yes, authority should be obeyed, but Christian authority also has guidelines they are required to follow, and the laity/student body knows that. I find that gov’t authority and church/school authority are too often conflated. For example, Rom. 13 and Heb. 13:17 are used to extort obedience from a church or student body when the leadership has gone crackerdog. Paul may have submitted to an unGodly authority to a degree (note how he didn’t actually obey the unGodly authority, he simply submitted to the consequences of his ‘criminal’ action of preaching and teaching Christ), but Paul never taught that the brethren should submit to a false teacher, or someone who doesn’t qualify for ministry per 2 Tim. 3 and Titus 2.

I think it is the “You must not speak against The Man Of God” thinking that has everyone itchy about the purpose of rules and proper exercise of authority.

On communication: yes, it makes sense to have folks as informed as possible on the whys and wherefores of rules—not only so they can understand how they relate to Scripture but also for the sake of morale. People are just happier if they know why they have to dot their i’s and cross their t’s a certain way… a little happier at least.

About arbitrariness: I doubt that folks who run organizations really have time to make arbitrary rules! I suppose someplace there’s an organization that has a “rule making department” that has nothing else to do, but generally rules happen in response to problems. So this has important implications:

  • It means those under authority should assume a rule is not arbitrary even they can’t figure out what the purpose of it is
  • It means those in authority have to review rules periodically to see if there is any longer any reason for them.

Rules that seem arbitrary might be ones that became useless as conditions changed and nobody noticed… and nobody remembers anymore why the rule was made.

(Another reason to try not to have too many!)

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.

[Aaron Blumer]

On communication: yes, it makes sense to have folks as informed as possible on the whys and wherefores of rules—not only so they can understand how they relate to Scripture but also for the sake of morale. People are just happier if they know why they have to dot their i’s and cross their t’s a certain way… a little happier at least.

About arbitrariness: I doubt that folks who run organizations really have time to make arbitrary rules! I suppose someplace there’s an organization that has a “rule making department” that has nothing else to do, but generally rules happen in response to problems. So this has important implications:

  • It means those under authority should assume a rule is not arbitrary even they can’t figure out what the purpose of it is
  • It means those in authority have to review rules periodically to see if there is any longer any reason for them.

Rules that seem arbitrary might be ones that became useless as conditions changed and nobody noticed… and nobody remembers anymore why the rule was made.

(Another reason to try not to have too many!)

I grew up as a faculty kid at BJU, so I know a few things about living under rules, and many that seem arbitrary. One thing that I’ve learned is it’s important for leadership to communicate reasons for rules so people know when it’s the right thing to break them or be flexible with them. Different rules should be explained to have different levels of importance.

We had a guest come to the Dining Common at BJU once back when there was a rule against women wearing pants there. The hostess denied entry to the guest (it was a very hot day, and the woman was very pregnant I believe) because she was wearing pants. Common sense says that allowing someone in as an exception is loving and harms no one, but the hostess didn’t know she had flexibility until after it was all over.

My understanding is that BJU is trying to do a much better job of explaining rules, or getting rid of ones that no longer make sense.

[Aaron Blumer]

About arbitrariness: I doubt that folks who run organizations really have time to make arbitrary rules! I suppose someplace there’s an organization that has a “rule making department” that has nothing else to do, but generally rules happen in response to problems.

Ha. Ha.

It may not be in a handbook or church constitution, but let’s not forget mandates blurted from the pulpit are often understood as de facto ‘rulings’. After awhile, people just don’t know what the ‘rules’ are, because one evangelist hates cell phones and Facebook, and another one voices his pet peeves about women’s apparel, while the pastor refers to television as “hellivision” and Paris Hilton as one of Satan’s minions. Jaded much?

I think it is common sense that there is a time for general guidelines, and a time for hard-n-fast rules. But to be blunt- I don’t care if leaders ‘don’t have time’ to explain their reason and purpose. They lobbied for the job, and part of the job is being reasonable, communicating with those under their authority, being humble and responsive. I’m a bit weary of authority that demands that those under them obey without question and grant them the benefit of the doubt, knowing that there will be a sale on mink coats in the Sahara before they will grant that same respect to those they ‘lead’. The ‘call of God’ (whatever that means) is not enough to mandate how people should live their lives, especially when they refuse to lead by example.

Some rules are for our physical safety, some for mental/emotional protection, and others help to guard our hearts in the spritual sense. But these can get all confused if they aren’t communicated properly. Instead of just saying “It’s good for a man not to touch a woman” and declaring a 6” rule (until it’s time to shake hands and then it’s OK) why not explain all the issues and implications that Paul brings up in that chapter? Obviously it’s not just ‘touching’, because what man worth his salt would let a woman who fell down lay on the ground, or drown, or refuse to do CPR because he would be ‘touching’ her? After all, CPR is called ‘the kiss of life’, and we can’t have a guy kissing a woman he ain’t married to, now can we? Let her croak- she’s in God’s hands! Trust the Lord and pass the offering plate!

Aaron,

I’m interested in your series. I think that the issue of rules is a perennially thorny one in the history of Christian theology, perhaps peaking in intensity at the Reformation. The issue is also wrapped up in a number of other tricky subjects: the nature and means of sanctification, the current proper use of the Old Testament, the lordship of Christ, the liberty of the believer, the role of the Holy Spirit, etc.

I’d love to try to take an approach to this that acknowledges the history of this problem. It would be interesting to get a couple of people on SI, who perhaps see themselves as being in different places on this subject, to gather around some key historical texts, such as Martin Luther’s Freedom of a Christian, Calvin’s (or Turretin’s) expositions of the three uses of the law, Lewis Sperry Chafer’s He That Is Spiritual, and a modern book that takes the approach of which you are skeptical. We could note where real differences lie and what forms of expression get ideas across clearly, and then see if our literary journey has changed our minds or given us new resources for communicating.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Charlie… not a bad idea at all (and throw in something from the Puritans as well?). Volunteers?

Susan: the whole unwritten rules inferred from pronouncements thing… I see this is a completley different kind of “rule-making” that what I’m talking about. It’s really doubtful that “opinion expressed from pulpit” is any kind of legitimate process for making a “rule.”

For the most part, I’m not thinking of churches so much as ministries, etc. But some of what I’m saying would apply to churches—I just tend to forget that some churches are so large they really need some rules to run things. I guess we’ve got some rules at our church but they’re all either in the Covenant or developed by a committee or something—operational/regulatory kind of stuff. In neither case is a pastor’s decree involved.

I realize some churches/ministries operate that way. These have bigger problems than their understanding of how rules factor in the process of growth (!) though there tends to be plenty of confusion on that score as well.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] Susan: the whole unwritten rules inferred from pronouncements thing… I see this is a completley different kind of “rule-making” that what I’m talking about. It’s really doubtful that “opinion expressed from pulpit” is any kind of legitimate process for making a “rule.”

For the most part, I’m not thinking of churches so much as ministries, etc. But some of what I’m saying would apply to churches—I just tend to forget that some churches are so large they really need some rules to run things. I guess we’ve got some rules at our church but they’re all either in the Covenant or developed by a committee or something—operational/regulatory kind of stuff. In neither case is a pastor’s decree involved.

I realize some churches/ministries operate that way. These have bigger problems than their understanding of how rules factor in the process of growth (!) though there tends to be plenty of confusion on that score as well.

I agree that opinions expressed from the pulpit are not legitimate ‘rule making’. I understand that we are not thinking about churches per se, but Christian ministries- how often do Christian ministry dynamics and procedures become confused with church methodologies? We’ve seen that here at SI- how often have we had to remind people that SI is not a church? And we’re just an online magaziney-forum thingy. Any time Christians get together to ‘do’ something, we trip over which Biblical principles are and aren’t applicable to the situation.

So when Dr. Snodgrass makes pronouncements from the chapel pulpit or classroom lectern, there is often confusion about what is and isn’t a ‘real’ rule. I had a professor who believed that no one was ‘perfect’, so even when I got every answer right on a test, he’d mark one wrong. The Dean kept telling him he couldn’t do that, so he started marking down my reports to compensate. The problem I saw was that his ‘authority’ to do this was more respected than my right to have my papers graded accurately.

So- going back to the 6” rule example- that is a case where the situation dictates whether or not ‘touching’ is appropriate or inappropriate. Obviously the rule applies to displays of sexual affection/attraction, not shaking hands, or helping someone struggling physically, or getting onto a crowded bus, or the ways we use touch to comfort someone in pain or grief. But Christian schools, Bible colleges and universities often do not even attempt to explain or address that, perhaps because they are afraid that any ‘exception’ will give the student body some kind of excuse engage in sexual activity? Which just makes the whole thing seem goofily prudish and undermines their credibility.

I think another reason many institutions don’t go into detail about exceptions is that it’s just often completeley impractical to do that. Where would you stop? But the better institutions develop means for dealing with “violations” that are excusable or justified or not really violations at all. These are not always effective, but it’s a way of going about the messy business of drawing lines and simultaneously having a little bit (but hopefully not too much) of flexibility.

For example, at BJU there is the discipline committee, which—last I knew—included several students. I think I only faced it once, but in any case I don’t remember much about it except that certain kinds of infractions automatically went to committee, precisely because they tended to concern matters where there is a lot of ambiguity. Other offenses left you the option of appearing before the committee if you wanted to try to get the matter excused or whatever. It was like getting a traffic ticket where you can either pay the fine or appeal to a court and see if you can get out of it… or get the penalty reduced due to mitigating circumstances, etc.

But going back to what is, to me, the bigger question: is there something in rules that is inherently hostile to spiritual growth or “growing in grace” (or inherently “legalistic”)? What these few examples suggest is that while rule-making and enforcing is easy to botch, there are ways to compensate for tendencies… and I think this argues (though the biblical and experiential arguments are stronger) that rules are not inherently toxic to vital Christian living. The biblical evidence suggests they can have truly valuable role.

(By “experiential” argument, I’m talking about stuff like the fact that kids need rules to keep them safe until they mature enough to know to come in out of the rain, not play in traffic, etc. Since Scripture puts progress in sanctification in terms of maturing and growing up (Eph. 4:13-15, 1 Pet. 2:2, Heb.5.13-14, 1Cor.3:1-3) we should expect analogies from natural maturing to be instructive.)

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.

Aaron, but I don’t think most students know about such a committee, even if there is one. Students tend to not know their “rights.” I knew evough to get exceptions passed through administrative conference (and serveral times I was able to have exceptions granted). The only reason I knew to ask for an exception was because my own dad was on the committee (BTW, he rarely knew about the exceptions ahead of time). I’m just saying that there needs to be more teaching on what rules are general guidelines and which really are founded in scripture. I do think a very static set of rules is not “inherently” legalistic. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t tend that way, and that legalistic hearts are drawn to legalities.

I may get around to writing the piece on Martin Luther and rules, but probably not ‘til fall. but it would be inneresting.

so i talked with Vitaliy about this thread, and he actually has a lot of good things to say about rules in general. They can be helpful in forming habits, in establishing a good reputation (social/cultural rules), for protection, and it could show some level of spiritual maturity that a person willingly submits himself to the rules.

It is a problem if a person puts their hope on rules that it somehow makes them more pleasing to God.

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.

I think these results of obedience could be by God’s gracious intervention but they are not automatically true. Someone could obey and just get angry and bitter in so doing.

Also, i’m not sure it’s true that it’s always better that we don’t sin. It would be better if we could learn deeply and experientially about God without sinning, but I’m not sure it’s possible in this life. For example, I was thinking about my girls and what I would do if one became pregnant out of marriage, and I really started praying that this wouldn’t be, and God posed the question to me, that what if that was the sin needed to bring that child to Himself for salvation? … I don’t know. It’s something to think about.

I guess I would question two things, generally, about rules, and I do acknowledge that they are needed. First, I think that very often people do get sucked in to thinking that because they obey the rules they are more righteous somehow before God. I think it can lead someone into a false idea of spiritual maturity or righteousness… . maybe I need to explain that with examples … and I’m not sure how or if that implication could be avoided.

Second, I started to wonder why clothing and music had *hundreds* of rules, but there are few to no rules about things like caring for orphans. The emphasis seems a little cock-eyed generally, but maybe that’s the nature of “rules.”

[Anne] so i talked with Vitaliy about this thread, and he actually has a lot of good things to say about rules in general. They can be helpful in forming habits, in establishing a good reputation (social/cultural rules), for protection, and it could show some level of spiritual maturity that a person willingly submits himself to the rules.

It is a problem if a person puts their hope on rules that it somehow makes them more pleasing to God.

Which if these is not “more pleasing to God”?

  • good habits
  • good reputation
  • protection
  • the level of maturity expressed in willing submission

To put it another way, how is it possible to use a rule to accomplish good in our lives and that good not be more pleasing to our Lord? …. and if it is not more pleasing to Him, why should we bother?

[Anne] i’m not sure it’s true that it’s always better that we don’t sin

I’m not sure what to say to that one. Almost by definition, it is always better to not sin than to sin. By “definition” I mean we can almost define sin as “that which we should never do.” There is no meaningful definition of sin that can allow it to be “sometimes right” or “sometimes better.” But Paul already answered that question. Shall we sin that grace may abound? May it never be!

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.