Rules Rule?

Structures, traditions and institutions are all examples of rules. Most of the church today appear to be very happy with rules, they appear to create a certain level of health in the church. You can even measure the results of programmes and see how well these structures perform – just the same as a well run business.

However, Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was, in some way or another, an emergence of a new era of life in which the opportunity to have a renewed spirit that could drive a holy life. This was a step change away from the law, which could not bring life, but only death.

This was a move away from the inflexible law to flexible love, as demonstrated by Christ on, probably, many a Sabbath.

Laws, rules, routines, traditions and structures cannot provide the most optimised lives. A great example is the speed limit: Within a 30mph limit there are places where it would be unbelievable lunacy to travel through a give way junction, corner or a roundabout at 30mph, in other places, where there are no risks of the presence of unexpected other road users it seems to be an unnecessary task to do 30mph (please bear in mind that I am in no way promoting the breaking of the speed limit – we should obey the laws of the land unless God specifically calls us otherwise!). Similarly how can meeting on a Sunday at 10:30am week in, week out be an optimal solution? Why should a hymn sandwich reliably provide an intimate experience of God’s love? (or whatever it is supposed to provide)

What is great about rules is that they can embody hundreds or thousands of years of wisdom – that’s a whole lot more wisdom than your average Joe Bloggs. Because of this, society seems to flourish in the presence of a well developed system of law and social etiquette. To prove this general truth we note that in societies where law and order have broken down you tend to see a lot of injustice, poverty, violence etc.

Now, what scares the church about the idea of life without rules? Well, the same things as society really: injustice, exploitation, abuse, hurt, etc. You just have to see the evidence of antinomianism to ‘prove’ that laws and rules are an absolute necessity for the church.

…But hang on a minute, why does a lack of rules mean that we are going to descend into anarchic mayhem? What kind of tragic Christians descend into the pit of iniquity just because they lack a rule book? Aren’t Christians supposed to have love? Isn’t love supposed to be stronger than law? Aren’t we supposed to be able to resist the temptations that we are faced with? What kind of Christian believes that God inside isn’t enough to be a better person? Isn’t the community of the church going to moderate our beliefs and behaviours by mechanisms of accountability, discipling resulting from Holy Spirit lead lives?

Or am I missing something?…

12 thoughts on “Rules Rule?

  1. Good thoughts – I think in the same direction as I have written.

    What I think is that we have to make a difference between “traditions” and “Tradition”. I don’t say that you don’t do that – but I just wanna put that into the discussion. Because if we see the Tradition as something handed over to us then we have responsibility to treat that with respect. I do not argue that we Tradition not could be evaluated – of course could Tradition go a wrong direction – but we should treat it with a great deal of respect. Sometimes we need a “midcourse correction”. The Tradition helps us to understand our faith in a more true way. (I now it sounds a little bit catholic…)

  2. Are you using ‘Tradition’ to imply the continuation of our core beliefs? That would sound like a good thing. We can contrast that with the activity traditions. It would be great if you could do a post on what you are saying here to clarify things in more depth.

  3. Yes, I’m using it with regard to the core of belief. I read of a american pastor with a central function in the emerging church network who said (or someone said that he said…) that we first don’t need new methods but a new message. He said that with the trinity in mind. Then I get a little bit shaky. Of course shouldn’t we use the same words as they did when the doctrine of trinity was formulated. I mean like “hypostasis” etc. but the essence of the trinity are we as christians obligated to hand over. That is what I mean with Tradition – the forms and activity I really hope we could find some new ones to get the Gospel a little bit more visible in our time.

    So the traditions of acitivity let them die – but the Tradition let us hand them over with the meaning and content with integrity.

    I hope I got a little bit more understood. I believe we think in the same way. It is just with the little story above I as a theologian wants some clarifications about tradition.

    Peace!

  4. Naturally we should only accept and pass on ‘Traditions’ that we accept by faith. If we do not have an insight from God in a ‘Tradition’, given to us as faith, then to pass it on is merely to pass on a belief system. The only firm way to know truth is to have a hold on that truth by faith, otherwise it is just an intellectual belief which can be proved or disproved on a philosophical whim.

  5. “Or am I missing something?…”

    Well, you appear to be missing the Ten Commandments and Christ’s reiteration and interpretation of these rules. As well as about ten million other rules in the “rulebook” that Christians tend to look at now and then.

    As for which ‘kinds of tragic Christians’ tend to descend into iniquity when they ignore this rulebook – I’d go with “most of them.”

  6. Hi John,

    I’m not ignoring them I’m merely saying that they are no longer what they were and that we shouldn’t look to follow them when instead we can have the law ‘written on our hearts’ and do what is right from that. I’m saying that obeying the Ten Commandments won’t achieve what the Holy Spirit is in our lives to do.

    Yes, I recognise that much of the church is living by rule of words rather than rule of Spirit. Yes, there are many ‘Christians’ who, when they throw out the rulebook do descend into terrible behaviour patterns, but perhaps that is simply a reflection of the state of their heart? Better to be honest and recognise where you’re at than to put on a veil of dishonest (‘good’) behaviour.

    Jesus certainly didn’t need the Ten Commandments, or any other written law, to guide his life – in fact, with regard to the Sabbath, he found that he had to disobey the letter of the law in order to fulfil the heart of the law.

  7. Yes Jesus certainly did need the Ten Commandments, and the rest of the ‘rules’ from the Scriptures, to guide his life. His life was the fulfilment of those Scriptures! He studied them and knew them. He preached them to others. He interpreted them. His actions reflected them.

    You appear to be espousing the notion that when one’s heart meets certain standards, one can escape the shackles of the Bible’s rules. Who is the arbiter of when someone’s heart – for the love of God, a muscle – qualifies for this ascension beyond the rest of man, both now and throughout history?

    This confusion about “hearts” is a metaphor too far, and causes people to get into this state where they refuse the importance of the brain. Nothing is written on your heart – if it were, you’d die. And yes, this is semantics, but it appears to be entirely necessary now that the metaphorical heart has been raised above the literal brain in this grand scheme.

    “many ‘Christians'”. Throw in the inverted commas, keep them at arms’ length. Yes, I’m sure you won’t want to mean that, but this deliberate dismissal of those dreadful sorts whose cardial muscle isn’t up to standard concerns me. I don’t think you’ll find a person among those who merit your commas who doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with their lack of a need to read those rules, because they’ve got the truth in their hearts. Who is the arbiter of which ones have their hearts accurately tattooed?

    The paradox of your argument seems inescapable. We ascend the need for rules when we have the baby Jesus in our heart, but we can only contract this life-threatening disorder once we’ve read those rules that we don’t need.

    Or are you suggesting that if one is ‘doing’ the Holy Spirit properly, all those rules inscribe themselves, without ever having been heard or read ever before, and cannot help but be followed? That our feelings transcend the need for thought, interpretation, analysis and comprehension, of input from an external source other than our own unfailing private hotline to God? That being a Christian is to know everything, to have moved beyond that which the Bible can offer someone so enlightened?

  8. Well, at least we know where we disagree. I don’t believe that Jesus needed to know a set of written rules. He studied them, but not so that he would know his Father better.

    I believe that over reliance on our own judgement is one of the things that we have to repent of. Once we recognise our own foolishness, that we cannot know much, but that God knows all and wishes to guide us then we can accept that we should rely on the Spirit. This means putting God above the Bible.

    If we read the first three chapter of 1 Cor then we see how foolish we really are! Yes, I definitely put ‘heart’ above brain. I have a friend who is in his seventies and has learning difficulties – now, is he at a disadvantage to you because his brain isn’t so big as yours? No, of course not.

    Putting your brain above your heart (and your spirit) is the ultimate in modernism. The ultimate in saying that God and life can be understood with our tiny limited minds.

    Most of the references in the Bible to ‘heart’ are not about the muscle. I’m simply using the same definition of heart as the Bible.

    I use quotes around ‘Christians’ because I’m not here to judge people whom I don’t know. Simple as that.

    It seems to me that you don’t believe that people can get to know God without the Bible. We can get to know God and have him guide us in many different ways: The Bible, fellowship, His creation, love being shown to us, etc, etc. Many people have known God without knowing of the Bible. That’s how big our God is!

  9. My point is, everything you credit to the ‘heart’ occurs in, and is understood by, your brain. I’m not suggesting that the brain transcends God. I’m not suggesting that the brain is capable of being all-knowing. I am, however, suggesting that the brain is a more useful means of being real when discussing this subject.

    The metaphorical heart excuses one of so much. It doesn’t exist, so it’s ideal for giving all the properties we wish we had. When we recognise that those emotional, spiritual aspects are interpreted by our brain, we’re brought back down to earth as to how “tiny” we are. It takes away the grandiose. It removes our right to make ludicrous claims. We are left only with the truth. But instead of that, the response is to imply that any honest recognition of the role of our brain is to intellectualise an argument. But this is deliberate obfuscation. Our feelings of irrational fear, confusion, sleepiness, cravings, delight, agony, elation – they all occur in the brain. This does not make them intellectual, or beyond the grasp of someone with limited intelligence. And it certainly doesn’t relegate them to some fictional organ.

    Your friend with learning difficulties does not understand God with his heart. He understands God with his brain. The rest of his, and anyone else’s body, is meat. This semantic argument is so crucial, because it prevents this latter-stage modernist argument of “my heart tells me so it’s true”, diverting responsibility from the cognative mind.

    This is not modernism in any sense! Let alone the “ultimate”. This is realism, and the rebuttal of the latter stages of modernism – those post-Enlightnement dogmas that tell us that we are the holders of such mystical truths, and what matters is what’s in our imaginary metaphorical hearts. This analogy may have been useful 2000 years ago. Understood in its context, it remains useful. Now, with this effortless eisigesis, it merely serves to excuse.

    It reduces Christianity down to “it just is, ok?” when we have a perfectly coherent and interpretable text.

    Which leaves the question, why did Jesus study the Scriptures if not to know them? And why did he preach them to others? And why did he quote them constantly? And why did he tell people to obey them?

  10. That’s your take on it. I disagree.

    I would love to know how come you think that the Bible is a “perfectly coherent and interpretable text”! Let’s face facts if six billion people read the Bible there would be six billion different interpretations. You and I are an example of this.

    Here is a little bit from 1 Cor 2:
    11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
    16″For who has known the mind of the Lord
    that he may instruct him?�[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

  11. So you’re not going to address a single question I ask, but instead tell me that you disagree? You disagree with the questions’ existence?

    As for that quote, I’d like to highlight the words, “knows”, “understand”, “speak”, “expressing”, “accept”, “discerned”, and most of all, “judgments”.

  12. OK. Your questions were:
    Which leaves the question, why did Jesus study the Scriptures if not to know them?
    I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head there.

    And why did he preach them to others?
    Because there is truth in the Scriptures.

    And why did he quote them constantly?
    As above.

    And why did he tell people to obey them?
    Ultimately he gave one commandment: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”. He did not tell them to obey all the rules in the scriptures – thankfully!! That would have been a nightmare!

    Your highlighted words seem to not include ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’. These should be considered alongside your highlighted words to give a balanced reading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *