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.”

I agree, Aaron- and I qualify that by saying learning from our mistakes, and allowing others to learn from theirs, is not the same as ‘sinning so grace may abound’. That is more of a boundaries issue. We can’t live other’s lives for them, and we aren’t qualified to do so if we could, as each of us are just as prone to sin as the other.

On a side note, it’s fair to say that the problem is usually with ‘rules’ themselves, but how we approach and implement the concept. We sometimes associate ‘rules’ with an ‘obey, no questions asked’ policy. Authority should be happy to explain the foundation and purpose of rules, instead of viewing questions as insubordination. Questions are an opportunity to teach, to open the mind to possibilities, to sharpen oneself as well as others. Too often we want to teach people what to think instead of how to think. The way we handle rule-making and rule-enforcing hinges on our objectives.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne] 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?

This is the crux of this issue. In what way does our obedience make us more pleasing to God (if it does) and in what way does it not?

This is the crux of this issue. Charlie can probably write it better than I, but I may take a stab at it later if I can wrap some words around it and children are sleeping.

[Aaron Blumer]

[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!

The fact is that we do sin every day. We shouldn’t try to sin and we should pray not to enter temptation and put ourselves to look at Christ. But God does use it to teach us deeper truths about Him and to know Him experientially. He does redeem it.

[Aaron Blumer]

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?

Some of this is relevant, and the wording an clarity of thought is very compelling:

5._____ The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations and the corruptions of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself; and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for other just and holy ends. So that whatsoever befalls any of his elect is by his appointment, for his glory, and their good.
( 2 Chronicles 32:25, 26, 31; 2 Corinthians 12:7-9; Romans 8:28 )

6._____ Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man’s doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.
( Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1; Romans 10:4; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7, etc; Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13 )

7._____ Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
( Galatians 3:21; Ezekiel 36:27 )

3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God’s displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )

Chapter 16: Of Good Works

1._____ Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word, and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions.

2._____ These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life.

3._____ Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ; and that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet they are not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit, but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

4._____ They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.

5._____ We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins; but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants; and because as they are good they proceed from his Spirit, and as they are wrought by us they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s punishment.

6._____ Yet notwithstanding the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight, but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

7._____ Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the word, nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, nor make a man meet to receive grace from God, and yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.

God’s desire is that we be in relationship with him. The reason that sin is a problem is that it interferes with that relationship. Focusing on SIN is a problem because it tickles our fallen desire to be in control of our salvation.

Rules focus on sin rather than on relationship, which is why standards/rules can be both helpful AND harmful. In some instances standards/rules help remind us to focus on things besides our desires, and at other times standards/rules take our focus off of God and on to ourselves. God can use our sin to help us “wake up” to the fact that our relationship with God is weak/non-existent — would it be better to NOT wake up to that realization? Of course not! So if my sin can be used by God, then I am thankful for it.

I’d much prefer this conversation be titled “In Defense of Relationship: How Rules Can Be Both Helpful and Harmful.” ;-)

What complicates life for authority figures is that a question often is insubordination—because the questioner has already decided the requirement is daft and is not seeking understanding, only protesting. So there’s substitute for discernment on the part of the authority figure. In any case, it’s his or her call to make.

Even when someone is protesting, it is a great time for mature authority to use that opportunity to teach instead of hitting the “How dare you question me!” button. A soft answer does turn away wrath, and in my experience, there is more to many protests than meets the eye. If an authority truly has the good of his students/congregation at heart, he will have the discernment, patience, and fortitude to seek out the underlying issues and address them. As leadership, we are also providing a template for handling conflict and disagreement when we are longsuffering, kind, and charitable, and don’t assume that the reason someone is asking questions, regardless of their apparent attitude, is because they are rebellious. Confusion, pain, and discouragment can present as anger. If after the authority has exhausted reasonable, compassionate responses, and the person is still being obstinate, at that point one could probably declare them ‘insurbordinate’.

Of course, I am not talking about obviously necessary or Biblical rules such as “Don’t commit adultery” or “No spittoons in the auditorium”.

But since authority figures are outnumbered, I have to think there are serious practical problems if you let everybody question/protest the decisions you make. Even with two kids, we endure far too much of that. It’s part of the foolishness bound up in the heart of the child that they think they know better than the parent who, though far from perfect, has learned a few things.

I don’t think authority can prevent ‘protest’ without in essence saying “My way or the highway”. And my point is more about assuming that protests stem from a rebellious spirit. There are often other underlying reasons for protests, and if we are going to treat people as individuals and not a mob, I believe we are obligated to hear people out on a case by case basis and help them deal with their heart problems. Does this take time and energy? Yep- so anyone not willing to take the time and energy to do what is necessary to teach and train kids, students, or congregants, shouldn’t sign up for the position. IMO the Biblical model is mentoring, not lecturing.

As far as kids go- what rules are they protesting? That they are not allowed to hit their siblings? That they can’t have a cookie before dinner? Or jump off the garage roof with a trashbag parachute?

I have alot of fun with questions like that. If brother #1 hits his sibling and thinks he deserves it, I just ask him if he thinks it’s ok for brother #2 to hit him whenever #2 thinks #1 deserves it. Well, of course not. Duh. If he is stupid enough to say “Sure”, then guess what happens? Oh yeah- kids are a ton of fun.

If a kid has enough money in savings to pay for an emergency room visit and possible hospitalization, then they are welcome to jump off any roof they’d like. And what’s a cookie but flour and butter and sugar? I don’t make a big deal about that stuff, since it isn’t an issue of morality or ethics. They know we have a limited number of cookies, that each person gets a certain amount, that if they indulge now they won’t have any for later, and amazingly enough, they have learned to self-regulate. Ditto bedtimes. They can stay up as late as they want, as long as they can get up in the morning and meet their school/chore obligations. It takes about 2-3 days for them to learn what their bodies can/can’t do. They understand why getting a good night’s sleep is important to their health and well-being, and it isn’t because “Mom said so”. This plants roots that benefit later with The Big Questions of morality and ethics come up. IOW, it’s a ‘safe’ way to let them experience making mistakes and learning self-control without anyone getting pregnant or arrested for armed robbery.

The bottom line is that authority has the responsibility to teach and train those they are responsible for. Part of that is being able to wisely address protest and help folks internalize truths instead of just taking our word for it.

[Aaron Blumer]

But my point was to deny that there is a distinction between spiritual benefit and pleasing God. I was reacting to the teaching that takes the truth of our unchanging position as “accepted in the beloved” and extrapolates the argument that “we don’t need to worry about doing right because it doesn’t make us more pleasing to God,” …

I am not sure that is the point of being accepted in the Beloved. The point of being accepted in the Beloved is that God’s gracious pleasure with my obedience is really His pleasure in Christ’s obedience through/in me and the Holy Spirit’s working in me. My righteousness is filthy rags, Christ gets all the glory for any obedience.

[Aaron Blumer]

… ergo rules cannot be helpful in sanctification.

Also, very important point: if you mean God’s laws, then of course those are helpful. But do you mean rules as in man’s rules? Like defining music or dress or activities or hair length?

What happens is, men make rules extrapolated from principles, and then in that atmosphere, people begin to judge their own and others’ “spirituality” or spiritual maturity based on conformity to those extrapolated rules.

Then the extrapolated rules often become more of the focus because they are more numerous, more exact, and visible. And then people get the idea that because s/he conforms to those extrapolated rules, s/he is “more pleasing” to God than the poor someone who doesn’t conform or doesn’t know that this is the more pleasing way in God’s view.

… I think this is what people are trying to talk about when they talk about “rules.”

[Aaron Blumer]

The argument is ultimately a passive-sanctifcation one where our responsibilities in growth in godliness exactly parallel our responsibilities in conversion: believe.

? I would like to explore that statement more …

[Aaron Blumer]

I keep coming back to the fact that the NT is full of imperatives and the positional truths do not erase the imperatives. …

Nonethelss He does not obey for us. We obey or disobey. It’s impossible to make sense of the NT imperatives with Christ as the actual subject of the verbs involved.

There is no escaping the fact that in conversion we do not have work to do, but in sanctification we do.

He actually would not agree that in sanctification we have to work in the way you are saying, but you also have to understand the entire truths he is explaining. And I think that this is where we lack today in our understanding of faith and the gospel and why we are having this discussion about the necessity of “rules” or not.

Luther makes the point very extensively that works—outward works and even spiritual works like meditation, etc—cannot touch the soul. All these things can be done by hypocrites, unbelievers, or true Christians. All the needs of the soul are provided only by faith in the word of God. And what is that faith?

1. He says that God gives the commands, God fulfills the commands, and only God can fulfill them.

Now, since these promises of God [how He fulfills the commands] are words of holiness, truth, righteousness, liberty, and peace, and are full of universal goodness, the soul, which cleaves to them with a firm faith, is so united to them, nay, thoroughly absorbed by them, that it not only partakes in, but is penetrated and saturated by, all their virtues. For if the touch of Christ was healing, how much more does that most tender spiritual touch, nay, absorption of the word, communicate to the soul all that belongs to the word! In this way therefore the soul, through faith alone, without works, is from the word of God justified, sanctified, endued with truth, peace, and liberty, and filled full with every good thing, and is truly made the child of God, as it is said, “To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name” (John i. 12).

He calls that the first virtue of faith. Then he goes on to explain 2 more virtues of faith.

2. Right faith holds God to be true, righteous, and honors Him above all (my wording). “In doing this the soul shows itself prepared to do His whole will; in doing this it hallows His name, and gives itself up to be dealt with as it may please God. For it cleaves to His promises, and never doubts that He is true, just, and wise, and will do, dispose, and provide for all things in the best way. Is not such a soul, in this its faith, most obedient to God in all things? What commandment does there remain which has not be amply fulfilled by such an obedience? What fulfillment can be more full than universal obedience? Now this is not accomplished by works, but by faith alone.”

3. The 3rd virtue of faith—“It unites the soul to Christ.” Christ takes all the sin, death, and hell of our believing souls and makes that His own and conquers them. We gain, by belief, His grace, life, salvation, and righteousness.

He talks about how we are all priests and kings (in this life) through Christ and what that means. And how all this should be constant themes in preaching.

Then, he transitions and talks about good works and the outward man: “Here we shall give an answer to all those who, taking offence at the word of faith and at what I have asserted, say, “If faith does everything, and by itself suffices for justification, why then are good works commanded? Are we then to take our ease and do no works, content with faith?” Not so… . To this part belongs the fact I have stated before: that the Christian is the servant of all and subject to all. For in that part in which he is free he does no works, but in that in which he is a servant he does all works.”

1. “Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is not kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such blessings have been conferred on it, and hence has only this task before it: to serve God with joy and for nought in free love.”

2. There must be no idea of good works justifying us before God, but for subjecting our bodies so we can be well-pleasing to the One we desire to obey.

3. Every man needs to instruct himself how he should chasten his own body to keep it in subjection and able to obey.

“His works are to be done freely, with the sole object of pleasing God. Only we are not yet fully created anew in perfect faith and love; these require to be increased, not, however, through works, but through themselves.”

I’ll skip a bunch of good stuff … then, outward works—we do them because we live as the servants of others in the example of Christ’s life toward us on earth. We are free from works, but we subject ourselves to them as Christ did in order to love others.

Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.

This is the ideal we move towards … I have to go, but i will include one point he makes towards the end:

Since then we cannot live in this world without ceremonies and works, since the hot and inexperienced period of youth has need of being restrained and protected by such bonds, and since every one is bound to keep under his own body by attention to these things, therefore the minister of Christ must be prudent and faithful in so ruling and teaching the people of Christ, in all these matters, that no root of bitterness may spring up among them, and so many be defiled, as Paul warned the Hebrews; that is, that they may not lose the faith, and begin to be defiled by a belief in works as the means of justification. This is a thing which easily happens, and defiles very many, unless faith be constantly inculcated along with works. It is impossible to avoid this evil, when faith is passed over in silence, and only the ordinances of men are taught, as has been done hitherto by the pestilent, impious, and soul-destroying traditions of our pontiffs and opinions of our theologians. An infinite number of souls have been drawn down to hell by these snares, so that you may recognise the work of antichrist.

Yes, Luther certainly teaches good works—we do them in the model of Christ’s servanthood, who did them freely for us out of love.

So here’s the question: Do our works increase our sanctification? Do they add to it?

You are saying yes. I believe Luther would say no. Sanctification is all by faith. Works are the love-fruit of it—So we can please the one our soul is united to by faith. And as we are in Christ, the self-made servant of all, they are necessary for us because we are following His example in that service.

Now we’re getting somewhere. I plan to read some Luther this weekend and hopefully I’ll be able to join the conversation. Here are some suspicions I have:

1. The distinction between righteousness before God (iustitia coram Deo) and righteousness before men (iustitia coram hominibus) will play an important role here, since Luther would not affirm that all the same principles apply in both cases.

2. Regarding obedience, distinctions need to be made between the responsibility to obey, the power to obey, and the purpose/result of obeying.

3. Faith will take on an active but still Christ-centered character in its role empowering obedience.

4. Luther’s insistence on repentance as a way of life is vital, but needs to be understood in a specific manner.

i think luther is talking about sanctification in that piece a lot, not only justification.

His whole first sections argue why good works cannot touch the soul of man, cannot save or sanctify him.

Therefore the first care of every Christian ought to be to lay aside all reliance on works, and strengthen his faith alone more and more, and by it grow in the knowledge, not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who has suffered and risen again for him, as Peter teaches (1 Peter v.) when he makes no other work to be a Christian one. Thus Christ, when the Jews asked Him what they should do that they might work the works of God, rejected the multitude of works, with which He saw that they were puffed up, and commanded them one thing only, saying, “This is the work of God: that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent, for Him hath God the Father sealed” (John vi. 27, 29).

Hence a right faith in Christ is an incomparable treasure, carrying with it universal salvation and preserving from all evil …

Martin Luther. Concerning Christian Liberty (Kindle Locations 224-230).

I think the issue we have as our need today is that we do not know how to strengthen our faith. That would be an amazing topic to discuss.

Haven’t finished my reading yet, but I think this term “passive sanctification” isn’t helping. It hasn’t really been introduced or explained at length. I take it that you, Aaron, have heard/read certain statements or presentations of Christian living and judged them to be promoting a passive ideal. I think you offer a definition or at least a description when you say, “one where our responsibilities in growth in godliness exactly parallel our responsibilities in conversion: believe.”

Now, I think we can tie that back into our discussion. We’ve been using the terms “responsibility,” “obedience,” and some variations on “grow in godliness.” As I understand Anne, and she may be accurately relating Luther here, obedience is a responsibility, but it does not contribute directly to growth in godliness. That is, I do not become more godly by obeying better, but I do obey better by becoming more godly, which is a matter of faith and love. That’s a big statement; there’s a lot to be unpacked there, and I need some more time to read and think.

I will try to offer one contribution not from Luther, but I’m not giving up on Luther! Perhaps “believe” itself is a mutable responsibility. Sometimes belief causes me to act or think in a certain way; sometimes it causes me to stop doing so. Sometimes belief enables me to do something on my own; sometimes it allows me to let someone else do something for me. I think WCF 14.2 brings this up, as it alludes to a continuity between all acts of faith, but insists on a distinction between the principal acts and the others. (If I understand correctly, “saving” in the title refers not just to “how to get saved” but to the qualities which distinguish a saving faith from a spurious one.) The first part of the paragraph asserts that faith in fact causes us to act in certain ways. However, the principle acts are worded passively and refer not only to justification, but also to sanctification. These principle acts, I believe, are chronologically prior, but also persist in time and remain logically prior to the other acts. In some sense, then, the WCF asserts that active acts of faith are rooted in logically prior passive acts of faith.

On Saving Faith

2. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

I think where Luther’s view of sanctification comes from is all tied up with his view of salvation. We differentiate our emphases in the two events: We emphasize belief in salvation and work in sanctification.

Luther says, the only thing that can effect the soul is faith in the gospel—this is the same for salvation and for sanctification in his view. I tend to think he is right. If we think it all out (which we are trying to do), it’s the only way that is sensible.

Also, we have this thing about progressive and positional sanctification. I think we need to see ourselves more in the positional sanctification. It is more effective for the practical outworking of Christlikeness.

But that in no way means that we ignore, or dismiss as unimportant, our deeds or works or rules, etc. They are very very important. It’s just essential to rightly understand their place.

About the inner man being dead, etc., Luther just takes into a deeper understanding of our faith—he strengthens our faith by explaining what happens to us when we believe, by “preaching” to us what is going on in salvation. You see, he focuses us on Christ, we look at him and his righteousness, truth, love, self-sacrifice, all his perfections… and we realize that all these godly perfections have been applied to us. And as we examine what he did and who he is, and God himself works in us to apply this to our lives, to apply what we see when we look at Christ, we are transfomed. We grow in knowledge, self-control, perserverance, virtue, etc. That’s the main thing—faith, exploring to the four corners what we believe.

God may personally lead us to personal rules, spiritual disciplines, etc., as we move more and more into wanting to express Christ, to inquire into the perfect life he lived and see how he lived it for me personally and how I can imitate him in that. When we join organizations or institutions, we obey the rules as an expression of love, and if they help us love our neighbor, restrain our sins, that is good. it’s not the end of our growth, nor is it the main focus of spiritual maturity—faith is.

Now, you mention “passive sanctification.” You see, when I, for example, talk about belief as being the main thing in sanctification, it isn’t so much passive perhaps. It’s more an emphasis thing.

Well, OK, when I’m talking to someone struggling with sin, this is how I explain it: The main thing you need to do is look at Christ. He served you by living every day as a perfect day, fulfilled God’s every law for you every day, died for your failures, etc. So, by God’s grace helping you to do this, put yourself in front of him and look, examine, ask him to show you himself and then how he would live out your life—our how he did live out life for you in perfection.

Rules—you know, when someone has a persistent sin problem, rules are easy to make, easy to break—until God does his work to transform that person. My husband has a rehab center, they have quite a few rules. More men leave than stay. Some stay and become stable believers as they learn about the gospel. Some stay for the winter and obey the rules as a farce with some, usually temporal “societal” benefit. Others just leave.

Making rules is a tricky thing; it’s necessary, we have them in our family. but it’s a minimum way of life. Read your Bible every day is a minimum rule. Meditate on it day and night, love it, see it written on your heart– those states are where our faith in the Gospel and looking at Christ lead us.

Am I making any sense at all? Vitaliy could probabably explain it better. He has it more in his body at cell-level ;)

He has me reading Luther’s Bondage of the Soul, so if I read anything interesting, I’ll let you know!

God can use rules to help us grow in grace if He wants, I agree, but you really have to put qualifiers on that.

“Is it always better not to sin.”

It sounds great. But the thing is, there is no such person (excepting Christ). People can obey rules, but still be sinning. They can even deceive themselves that they are “good with God” because they’re obeying the rules and they miss seeing their sin. Can we even obey rules to the level that we are pleasing God and meeting His standards? (Only by faith in Christ! not the rule itself!)

On a human level, you can hurt people less by obeying (good) rules and you can get a good reputation.

But rules are not the main driver or even a main driver in spiritual growth. God’s initiative is. Following rules in order to become a better person—you’ll reach a human limit and probably burn out. The Law never made anyone better; it just opens our problem.

John Wesley (from his sermon about means of getting God’s grace) warns:

1. that we can limit God’s work in us by expecting Him to cause our growth through certain means— like rules. He can cause growth while we’re obeying rules, but He can cause the growth before we obey, after we obey, or when we fail to obey. We need to have our same unchangeable hope on God for growth—and expect His initiative for our growth during times we’re flying spiritually and times we’re crashing.

There are people who just are not able to handle the rules; they want to obey, but can’t handle it at that point in their development, and God can still work in them in a different way to continue their growth in grace.

2. Wesley also warns us not to think that rules themselves have spiritual power. Without God, they are dry leaves, a shadow. Only the Spirit and the blood of Christ have power to save and sanctify.

3. In using rules, look only on the power of the Spirit and Christ’s virtues, don’t focus on the work of the rule itself.

4. Don’t congratulate yourself for obeying the rules; it will turn it all to poison and you only enlarge your sins. Praise God alone and humble yourself before Him.

About Luther and believing … I’m about to give up trying to explain it over and over why believing IS the work. Faith, as God means it, is the most powerful force on earth. Limiting it to inaction or passivity is why Christianity is shallow and ineffective today.

also, i’m sorry if that last post sounded ungracious. there was a lot going on while i was typing. the thoughts are Vitaliy’s and i was feeding baby, answering kids questions, etc. So it’ was kind of rushed and not expressed too well, just read it all in vitaliy’s gentle, Ukrainian-accent voice ;)

Aaron, I don’t think you’ve really framed anything here fairly. Virtually nobody says, “Throw out all rules to living.” Luther, the modern “gospel-driven” Reformed guys, etc., all have rules in their lives. Issues break down to WHICH rules are good, HOW rules should be employed, and WHAT they accomplish. Furthermore, as Anne has noted, your characterization of faith as passive is misleading.

I suggested reading Luther because his treatise is not about justification or sanctification, but rather, as the title indicates, about the state of the Christian vis-a-vis rules, man-made or otherwise. His thesis is that the Christian is both free from all men and a slave to all men, and that this paradox is resolved by understanding the purpose of rules.

The most important assertions are:

1. Rules (prescribed works) do not justify.

2. Rules do not increase faith and love. (This is the most directly relevant to your project)

3. The obligation to do good works is in no way removed by liberty.

Several others are:

1. God’s law functions primarily to lead us to Christ, not to produce correct behavior. (This is a dispute between Lutheran and Reformed spirituality)

2. Good works can be increased by increasing faith and love, which is done primarily by preaching Christ and his promises as the fulfillment of the law.

3. Self-imposed rules can be of value in subduing the flesh. (I think this is relevant to your thesis as well, and is a potential point of rapprochement.)

4. Good works are to be done solely for the glory of God and the love of the neighbor, not in order to receive any personal benefit, even a spiritual one.

Below is a potential “histogram” diagram. It might be helpful to figure to what degree the actions and motives are right to sharpen your thinking.

I don’t think it’s in my power to explain it. Luther’s first part of CCL, where he talks about why works, even spiritual ones, cannot touch the soul, only faith does. It took me a while to figure out that part. If you read it from the actual source you might have more clarity of his arguments and why you agree or disagree with them.

It’s been a profitable conversation in many ways for me. I got to thinking how I could apply this to one area of my life. I think God wants to change me. We have church groups starting to meet in our house now three times a week b/c two other couples that had available apartments are gone for a while. And I do it more as a social rule/obligation, not from love, it irritates me some. So I’m going to rethink how I can view things from the lens of faith and love and expressing Christ and see if it can change my perspective on this “chore” so I can grow.

Have you outlined his arguments why the works or states of the body don’t touch the inner man?

That was very interesting. I would like to see your outline of his arguments, then why you disagree with them or see them as inconsistent? I haven’t seen them in that way. Your arguments strike me as more humanistic, in that sense, more incorporating man’s logic than scriptural… .

But I think we cannot communicate to each other these things b/c we are operating on different levels somehow.

for example, the statement that it’s always better not to sin, does the Bible even address this topic in this way? it is a man’s-logic reasoning. some people have had great spiritual breakthroughs after their greatest sins, even though it was painful and full of consequences.