Are Rules Dangerous? Part 2

Read Part 1

“Rules were meant to be broken,” an old adage goes. Christians tend to have a different attitude, but we recognize a kernel of truth in the folk wisdom. Rules are just so often wrong-headed, excessive, or motivated by foolish fears or lust for power. Sometimes they get in the way of the very things they are intended to accomplish.

Christian ministries can have too many rules and develop a cold, offense-focused culture. They can also err by according some rules a spiritual significance and power they don’t possess. These problems require that we give serious thought to what rules we have and what they are really accomplishing. But we should not overreact to the excesses and errors, criticize rules systems too broadly and blame them for problems that have other causes.

In Part 1 of this series, I presented two arguments for valuing rules more than most young Fundamentalists are inclined to. Here, I offer a third argument, then respond to some objections.

Argument from the nature of rules

A common complaint against rules systems is that they are prone to become what the Pharisees loved and Jesus condemned in Matthew 23 and Mark 7. The Pharisees had a habit of binding “heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay[ing] them on men’s shoulders” (Matt. 23:4). In addition, they were guilty of “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7).

These “commandments of men” were often fences: man-made rules added to torah in order to avoid violations of torah. Though the fence rules were not from God, the Pharisees routinely vested them with all the authority and seriousness of those God had revealed. They even went so far as to use their man-made rules as reasons to disobey God’s rules (Mark 7:8-13).

A side-by-side comparison seems to suggest that rules-heavy Fundamentalist ministries often do the same thing: erect fences and either officially, or by neglecting important teaching, encourage people to believe these commandments of men are equal to doctrine from God. I do not dispute that this happens. But this offense of the Pharisees is not as easy to commit as it may seem. This is true for several reasons.

Differences

First, the Pharisees were far from God and not truly interested in living holy lives (more on this later). Though often unsuccessful, Fundamentalist rule makers almost always hope to produce behavior that honors God.

Second, in my experience, constituents of rules-heavy institutions are not all that likely to see the rules as “doctrines of God” unless someone presents them as such (and even then it’s a hard sell). Believers are usually well aware that many of the rules reflect the consciences of those who are in charge in matters where Scripture is not entirely clear. In our highly individualistic age, most Christians are more than willing to question whether these rules are truly biblical.

And even with these rules in place believers are free to think matters through and arrive at their own beliefs. Today’s rule makers are Pharisee-like when they equate their rules with God’s revelation, but they are not committing this offense by simply saying “these are the rules” and leaving it at that.

Third, it’s significant that Jesus never actually faulted the Pharisees for making rules. Rather, when speaking of their rules, He faulted them for the hypocrisy of laying them on others when they had no intention of obeying them themselves (Matt. 23:4) and for the outrage of using their rules to subvert the commandments of God (Mark 7:8-13).

Fourth, we are all called to apply Scripture in ways that extend beyond what is directly revealed. Hebrews 5:13-14 calls us to develop discernment regarding the use of Scripture. Why would we need these skills unless God expects us to go beyond what He has directly commanded or prohibited and apply principles to other choices we face?

As we do that, we declare things to be right or wrong. We form rules. Since Romans 13:14 commands us not to set ourselves up for failure, a certain amount of fence making is also commanded. So “man-made rules” are essential—not only those we impose on ourselves by application, but also those imposed by leaders who watch for our souls (Heb. 13:17).

To summarize, the argument from the nature of rules is that the motivations and results of rule-making match the error of the Pharisees—and fall under Jesus’ condemnation—only when certain other errors are made. Rules themselves are not the problem and are, in fact, integral to biblical living.

Objections

Part 1 argued that the nature of sin and holiness are such that rules are often a real help in Christian living. Sin is so damaging, and obedience so helpful (to believers), that avoiding the former and choosing the latter always contributes to a believer’s growth. Though a discipler’s aim should always be obedience with faith and love, avoiding sin and doing right are always better than the alternative, even when faith and love are incomplete.

But this idea does raise questions. For one, if rules can help believers avoid sin and choose obedience, why not make as many of them as possible? Part of the answer is that a rule can fail in many ways and a limited number of them can actually accomplish their intended purpose. If a rule is the result of misunderstood or incorrectly applied Scripture, it fails. If a rule is an overreaching of authority, it may succeed in preventing the targeted sin yet do more harm than good in other ways.

Rule-making does carry risks, but not making rules poses many dangers as well. The attitude that “rules are dangerous and individual freedom is healthy” is naive.

Love

Another objection asserts that doing right is useless if not motivated by love, and rules often replace love with self-interest (avoiding punishment). “Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor…and have not love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3). The point of this passage is clearly that love is of supreme importance in Christian living. But taking the passage to mean “if I lack love what I do has zero value” requires a selectively literal reading. That is, if we take “profits me nothing” literally, we must also take “have not love” literally. The result is “zero love, zero value.” And when does a believer act with no love for the Lord at all? More likely, the poetic cadences of the passage indicate that we should not read it so literally. The apostle is not teaching that if love is lacking we might as well go ahead and do wrong.

“Touch not, taste not, handle not”

Some who object to a more positive view of rules point to Colossians 2:20-23. But the context is critical to understanding Paul’s point. Colossians was written to combat a growing proto-gnosticism that spread erroneous ideas about the nature of Christ as well as the nature of body and spirit. Asceticism played a key role in this philosophy and appears in v.23 (“neglect of the body”). Paul’s point was that those who have been buried and raised in Christ do not attempt to achieve their own righteousness by punishing their bodies. To the degree modern leaders adopt this way of thinking, they too become the targets of Paul’s rebuke. But rule making does not encourage gnostic thinking any more than rule un-making encourages antinomian thinking.

The error of the Pharisees

The most popular objection to a more positive view of rules centers on the Pharisees. The idea is that the frequency and intensity of criticism of the Pharisees in the Gospels indicates that believers are extremely vulnerable to the problem of “legalism” and that rule making tends to feed this error. But a close look at Jesus’ rebukes of the Pharisees suggests the Pharisees had deeper and more serious problem.

Jesus unmasks the Pharisees most thoroughly in Matthew 23. He reveals that the they imposed rules on others they themselves had no intention of obeying (Matt. 23:4) and that they were in love with the praise of men (Matt. 23:6-7). They tried to look good in public while committing “extortion and self-indulgence” (Matt. 23:25) and “devour[ing] widows houses” (Matt. 23:14) behind the scenes. But their greatest error was aggressive unbelief. They refused to enter the kingdom of heaven and sought to prevent others from entering as well (Matt. 23:14). Both John the Baptist and Jesus called them a “brood of vipers” (Matt. 3:7, 23:33), indicating that they were the spiritual kin of Satan himself.

A closely related error was the Pharisees’ belief in their own righteousness. They set up their own selective standards of righteousness (Matt. 23:23-24) and believed they could achieve righteousness before God by their own efforts (along with the vast majority of their countrymen, Romans 10:3). The Pharisees were self-righteous legalists not because they had strict and numerous rules, but because they were proud and unbelieving. This deep darkness of the soul drove all they did and said.

There was only one cure for the Pharisees, and there remains only one cure for Phariseeism today: the gospel. The gospel confronts us with our utter inability to achieve our own righteousness and commands that we accept instead the righteousness of God which is credited to sinners who do not deserve it in the least. The gospel is deeply and profoundly humbling, and believers who keep its truths front-of-mind do not stumble into self-righteousness or legalism under rules, no matter how numerous or strict.

Conclusion

Are rules dangerous? Given human nature, rule-making certainly poses hazards. But the same human nature indicates that not making rules is also hazardous. Leaders of Christian schools and other institutions must communicate the why’s and wherefore’s of their rules. But ultimately, what makes the difference is whether students and other constituents are reborn, adopted, Spirit-indwelt believers continually gripped by the gospel of Christ.


Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia, and served in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Discussion

Aaron,

I still think your missing the point of Jesus’ rebuke against the Pharisees. Scripture nowhere suggests that rules are wrong. In the home (and in the school) rules would be expected. They only become legalistic when applied to the church.

You seem to be saying “look, there is a case for rules in some settings”. Well, ok. Has this ever been denied? But Scripture is crystal clear that if we add rules to Christ’s church, it is an abandonment of the Gospel.

I also notice that you must appeal to nature and pragmaticism for your support. This is all well and good for “natural” domains (home, school, government). Yet the Church is ruled sola scriptura, and hence your argument falls. If you attempt to apply this argument for rules to the church, I see little difference, methodologically, with between this (which appeals to pragmaticism) and Roman Catholicism (which appeals to tradition). This was the error of Finney (pragmatic evangelism), the Seeker-sensitive movement (pragmatic leadership and program methods), etc.

I’m still not sure even if your trying to apply this argument to the local church. If not, no worries. If so, then this is a highly alarming abandonment of the gospel.

But Scripture is crystal clear that if we add rules to Christ’s church, it is an abandonment of the Gospel.
I am confused. I missed this one somewhere. Christ’s church does have rules all over the NT. And breaking them without repentance leads to being disciplined out of the church in order to protect the gospel. So how can you say that adding them abandons the gospel?

[Josh Gelatt] Aaron,

I still think your missing the point of Jesus’ rebuke against the Pharisees. Scripture nowhere suggests that rules are wrong. In the home (and in the school) rules would be expected. They only become legalistic when applied to the church.

You seem to be saying “look, there is a case for rules in some settings”. Well, ok. Has this ever been denied? But Scripture is crystal clear that if we add rules to Christ’s church, it is an abandonment of the Gospel.

I also notice that you must appeal to nature and pragmaticism for your support. This is all well and good for “natural” domains (home, school, government). Yet the Church is ruled sola scriptura, and hence your argument falls. If you attempt to apply this argument for rules to the church, I see little difference, methodologically, with between this (which appeals to pragmaticism) and Roman Catholicism (which appeals to tradition). This was the error of Finney (pragmatic evangelism), the Seeker-sensitive movement (pragmatic leadership and program methods), etc.

I’m still not sure even if your trying to apply this argument to the local church. If not, no worries. If so, then this is a highly alarming abandonment of the gospel.
Josh, doesn’t your church have rules? In addition to what Larry pointed out, don’t you have a church covenant and constitution/bylaws?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Other than what is required for 501(c)3 status, I can not think of a single “rule” that we have. Our constitution/by-laws simple provide detail regarding what we believe the Bible teaches regarding membership, leadership, church discipline, etc.

Larry, you wrote: “I am confused. I missed this one somewhere. Christ’s church does have rules all over the NT. And breaking them without repentance leads to being disciplined out of the church in order to protect the gospel. So how can you say that adding them abandons the gospel?”

Because JESUS was the one who gave the rules. It is one thing to follow his rules (that is the Gospel). It is another thing to add our own (that is Legalism). Are you really saying “hey, Jesus’ rules are good. In fact, they are so good let’s add some more”.

Are you really suggesting we have the authority of Christ? How is this mindset any different from the Pharisees, or Catholics?

[Josh Gelatt] Aaron,

I still think your missing the point of Jesus’ rebuke against the Pharisees. Scripture nowhere suggests that rules are wrong. In the home (and in the school) rules would be expected. They only become legalistic when applied to the church.

You seem to be saying “look, there is a case for rules in some settings”. Well, ok. Has this ever been denied? But Scripture is crystal clear that if we add rules to Christ’s church, it is an abandonment of the Gospel.

I also notice that you must appeal to nature and pragmaticism for your support. This is all well and good for “natural” domains (home, school, government). Yet the Church is ruled sola scriptura, and hence your argument falls. If you attempt to apply this argument for rules to the church, I see little difference, methodologically, with between this (which appeals to pragmaticism) and Roman Catholicism (which appeals to tradition). This was the error of Finney (pragmatic evangelism), the Seeker-sensitive movement (pragmatic leadership and program methods), etc.

I’m still not sure even if your trying to apply this argument to the local church. If not, no worries. If so, then this is a highly alarming abandonment of the gospel.
Josh, there’s no abandonment of the gospel here if you do apply it to the local church. But no, the church is not really in view in this series.

At the risk of going off topic, though, I’ll say that what rules can accomplish is pretty much the same regardless of where you happen to be standing. But the focus of church life is much different than that of these other ministries (esp. schools).

It may help to define what you mean by “legalism,” since everyone feels free to use their own defnintion nowadays.

I’d also like to know where you believe you see “appeal ot nature and pragmatism” in the piece. Can’t really respond without a for instance.

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.

Just want to assert again—maybe in a more visible way:

It is impossible to apply Scripture to life without going beyond what is written and deciding the rightness and wrongness of choices not specifically mentioned in Scripture.

I made a partial case for that under “argument from the nature of rules.”

Much more could be said but the article had a broader purpose and was running pretty long already.

Of course, codifying those applications in the form of rules that you “enforce” on others, is an additional step and not precisely the same thing as “application.” But it’s doubtful that those given the responsibilities of leading a family or school or other ministry can carry that out without codifying some of the applications they believe to be vital for the well being of those under their care. Can this be overdone? Absolutely. My point is just that it is not accurate to blame rules for all the things people are fond of blaming them for and it is not accurate to say that rules cannot play an important part in spiritual growth. They can and often do.

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.

If your not applying man-made rules to the church then there is no issue. As far as I am aware, no one really objects (on scriptural grounds) to man-made rules in homes, schools, and governments. That being the case, your series is unnecessary since few would disagree (in principle) that rule-making is OK for those spheres.

But, you are trying to assign a spiritual value to rule making. If you stayed in the sphere of civil or moralistic value then your point would be well taken. But by trying to claim a spiritual value for rule making you are usurping Christ’s authority.

Where is the sufficiency of Scripture in this view?

[Josh Gelatt] If your not applying man-made rules to the church then there is no issue. As far as I am aware, no one really objects (on scriptural grounds) to man-made rules in homes, schools, and governments. That being the case, your series is unnecessary since few would disagree (in principle) that rule-making is OK for those spheres.

But, you are trying to assign a spiritual value to rule making. If you stayed in the sphere of civil or moralistic value then your point would be well taken. But by trying to claim a spiritual value for rule making you are usurping Christ’s authority.

Where is the sufficiency of Scripture in this view?
Josh, see post #7 on this—we were writing at the same time I think.

Where is the sufficiency of Scripture if we do not apply it to life?

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’m not really trying to hijack this thread…

You said, “it is not accurate to say that rules cannot play an important part in spiritual growth. They can and often do. “

Where in Scripture does it say this is one of God’s means to sanctify His people?

Where in Scripture is there an example of this being used to sanctify His people?

On anther note, the sufficiency of Scripture isn’t given by making a rule that no one who is a member can drink alcohol (for example). It is given by teaching our people to use godly discernment in all things and resist anything that will not move them closer to the Savior (perhaps for them that is a cheeseburger). We need to stay where Scripture stays, and have no right to make scripture specific where it has intentionally stayed vague.

Thus, we are to apply Jesus’ principles….not whatever man-made rules we think happened to align with those principles. Far too many Fundamentalist think of themselves as the Holy Spirit. I remember reading somewhere that somebody already has that job…

Dear friends,

Of course Aaron’s thoughts in these articles were provoked as a response to my articles on “Legalism and the Christian School” movement. I want to apologize for not being more active in this discussion. I have been swamped. Pray for me.

I will, however, be writing a few lengthy responses in the next few days. Mostly, I want to focus on points of agreement, because I think important progress has been made in this topic since we began.

But underlying it all, there are important differences reflected in these threads on the key issue of process and means of sanctification. This requires careful thought and is worthy of some debate.

More to come.

Mike Durning

I finally took the time to catch up on reading through the different legalism/rules posts around here. As I read through Mike Durning’s series, I was refreshed. He hit many things head on with what I’ve experienced. He avoided Christian colleges, but in my experience there, the supposed wonderful products of Christian education were treated no better than kindergarteners when it came to trusting them to make reasonable decisions. So now, after enduring Christian education to its end, when you leave the Christian college, then you are magically supposed to just “get it” and be able to thrive on your own with a full-fledged discernment-capable mind. Unfortunately for many it didn’t work.

Anyway, I was disappointed by Aaron’s articles, especially as they seem to express a wrong view of sin and a wrong view of sanctification. It’s not entirely clear and the topic is complex, but I lean toward Josh Gelatt’s strong negative reaction to this. Where in Scripture do we see external obedience praised as “good”? And how is mandated “obedience” supposed to make one more likely to have internal obedience develop later? This seems to be moralism.

In the Sunday Schools I grew up in, we learned stories of the Bible as character lessons. Rules of what to do and not to do were stressed to the extreme throughout my Chrisitan school and in my youth group, camp, etc. The whole environment facilitated the growth of “goody two-shoes”, of which I was chief. I was constantly praised for what I looked like, merely because I could keep many of the external rules. Meanwhile, those who couldn’t keep them fell off the deep end and left church or had other bad things happen to them.

The whole aura was Christians do X. So you need to do X. Doing X keeps you “right with God”. You should feel guitly for doing X or correspondingly for not doing Y. You are a big sinner! Just “grit your teeth and do it”. “Just determine to do right”. “Just dedicate yourself again to God.” “Let Go and Let God”.

Everything was about what we do or don’t do. Not much was about what God did for us, and clear teaching emphasizing that. This is what is missing in much of this. The rules can become a smokescreen that teaches us (directly or by osmosis) that God loves a law-keeper. We were to strive to be really good law-keepers. And then if we did that, we would arrive as the “product” the Christian church-school was aiming at all along….

I don’t think it means rules are the problem. It’s the over-emphasis on them divorced from a full-orbed context of careful Gospel-teaching. It’s easier to think that just as academics is a result of teaching labors + hard work by students, so also morality and Christian character can be a result of teaching labors + rules + hard work by students. Problem is academics and a God-glorifying true morality of heart are radically distinct things. The Bible’s clear that the above formula doesn’t result in God-glorifying true morality of heart.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Because JESUS was the one who gave the rules. It is one thing to follow his rules (that is the Gospel).
Following his rules isn’t the gospel. And Scripture never says that adding rules is an abandonment of the gospel that I know of. That is why I asked you for scriptural support. I noticed you didn’t give any.
It is another thing to add our own (that is Legalism).
No it’s not. Legalism is when you try to earn favor with God by doing stuff.
Are you really saying “hey, Jesus’ rules are good. In fact, they are so good let’s add some more”.

Are you really suggesting we have the authority of Christ? How is this mindset any different from the Pharisees, or Catholics?
No, no, and n/a.

These “commandments of men” were often fences: man-made rules added to torah in order to avoid violations of torah. Though the fence rules were not from God, the Pharisees routinely vested them with all the authority and seriousness of those God had revealed. They even went so far as to use their man-made rules as reasons to disobey God’s rules (Mark 7:8-13).

A side-by-side comparison seems to suggest that rules-heavy Fundamentalist ministries often do the same thing: erect fences and either officially, or by neglecting important teaching, encourage people to believe these commandments of men are equal to doctrine from God. I do not dispute that this happens. But this offense of the Pharisees is not as easy to commit as it may seem. This is true for several reasons.

Differences

First, the Pharisees were far from God and not truly interested in living holy lives (more on this later). Though often unsuccessful, Fundamentalist rule makers almost always hope to produce behavior that honors God…
I do see the effort to distinguish the actions and motivations of Pharisees and “Fundamentalist rule makers.” But I am not completely sure that this offense of the Pharisees is as difficult to commit as suggested. The Pharisees made an effort to make as much as possible as quantifiable as possible. I imagine it was so they could point to the behavior thereby “produced” (a verb attributed to Fundamentalist rule makers in the above quote) and check it off as fulfilled (indeed, behavior that was no less intended by many of the Pharisees to honor God). I don’t know that we can say they were not truly interested in living holy lives, only that they were interested in prescribing what a holy life consisted of so that it was achievable through their own efforts.

I believe that there is a natural tendency in the “heavy rule-making mindset” to quantify things, to have the answers all in hand; to be afraid (or too lazy?) to work something out oneself (or allow others to work it out for themselves) with fear and trembling. It’s easier to have it quantified for us, and then tick all those boxes. This inevitably leads to a focus on specific behaviors themselves (and blindspots towards other behaviors). This seems to be basic math. Of course, we know that living a holy life goes beyond mere behavior. But I am still seeing a bit of ambiguity and confusion/conflation between the two: as in, why does being truly interested in living holy lives make the similar-seeming efforts to produce similarly God-honoring behavior any more holy than the efforts of the Pharisees?

I ask this because the Objections (including Love and Touch Not Sections) are the bits of the article that seem to have to do with holy living and sanctification. And yet, it seems that your point is that these are all well and good, but you still better have rules no matter what; because at the very least you can’t do without the “good” behavior that rules must surely produce; that if nothing else, our goal should be to produce God-honoring works (obedience) because that in itself “always contributes to growth” — despite the acknowledgement that God condemned the Pharisees for just that sort of thinking.

Interestingly, “the problem of legalism” is mentioned among the errors of the Pharisees but it is practically dismissed in light of “deeper and more serious problems.” So I take it this legalism is more like our modern connotation, and the strict definition is not in view. I am not sure, but this could be a handy way to diminish cries of legalism toward some contemporary rule-makers.

I am not altogether seeing how this:
Fourth, we are all called to apply Scripture in ways that extend beyond what is directly revealed. Hebrews 5:13-14 calls us to develop discernment regarding the use of Scripture. Why would we need these skills unless God expects us to go beyond what He has directly commanded or prohibited and apply principles to other choices we face?

As we do that, we declare things to be right or wrong. We form rules. Since Romans 13:14 commands us not to set ourselves up for failure, a certain amount of fence making is also commanded. So “man-made rules” are essential—not only those we impose on ourselves by application, but also those imposed by leaders who watch for our souls (Heb. 13:17).

To summarize, the argument from the nature of rules is that the motivations and results of rule-making match the error of the Pharisees—and fall under Jesus’ condemnation—only when certain other errors are made. Rules themselves are not the problem and are, in fact, integral to biblical living.
…reconciles with the bit just before it:
And even with these rules in place believers are free to think matters through and arrive at their own beliefs. Today’s rule makers are Pharisee-like when they equate their rules with God’s revelation, but they are not committing this offense by simply saying “these are the rules” and leaving it at that.
I am worried that “we declare things to be right or wrong. We form rules” is uncomfortably close to “equating their rules with God’s revelation.”