In Defense of Rules, Part 1

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.”