Rules and Regs: the Good, the Bad, the Community
Are there any situations in which other people or institutions (e.g., schools, governments, youth groups) have a right to tell YOU what to do (with YOUR body or YOUR actions)?
Hmm…. Many different situations arise where an individual is faced with a choice to either follow the “mandates” of an institution or not to follow them and to suffer the consequences. Take Wheaton College, for example…. Students and faculty that are a part of that college have signed a pledge stating that they will not drink or smoke. In any case, the institution, Wheaton College, is setting a boundary that students and faculty members can choose to uphold or choose to break. They have the choice to become part of the college, and abide by the rules, or they have the choice to go elsewhere. In this case, the institution is, in essence, telling students and faculty what to do with their choices about drinking and smoking; the college is “regulating” what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
Consider another question: When do the rights of the individual have to conform to the mandates of the institution? More specifically for us, could church authority go too far in exerting its “power” over the members of its body? Can the leadership of your church (or mine) expect its members to follow every “rule” that is configured? (And what did Jesus say about the legalists and lawmakers anyway.) But without even going into that argument, don't individual lay people have “rights” too, right? Whose rights take priority? George Bernard Shaw raises a great question,
Quite obviously the answer to that question has to be no. Both of the people on the train will not be completely appeased by either of the choices that could be made. However, a choice will be made. Therefore, the question remains: who has the right rights: leadership or its members?
I don’t think there are right and wrong rights, but I do feel like certain rights take precedence. Let me explain…. I feel that the church has the right to tell a person what to do with his/her body as long as biblical precepts are followed. As long as the guidelines given by the institution are biblical (or at least not contrary to the Bible), and as long as the members of the institution have the ability to decide whether or not they want to be part of the institution (biblical rules and all), then, in my opinion, the institution has the right to “tell them what to do”. Ultimately, this is a goofy issue because even the institution cannot force its members to follow the rules. The institution, whether it be a church, or college, or youth group, or whatever would just have the responsibility to follow through on the consequences of not adhering to the guidelines of the community.
In dealing with a community, we have to ask: will my actions hurt anyone else? In community, we have to consider those around us when we make our decisions; we have to consider whether or not we value our congregation and its members. If we do, then we will be careful to follow the guidelines so as not to offend anyone, and yet there is a freedom to live life and allow the Spirit to lead isn't there? So what does the balance look like? I guess I think some regulative forces are okay because in the end we do have a choice of which youth group to attend and which colleges to enroll in. So, if the institution in question has declared a certain boundary on a certain issue regarding what we can or cannot do (with or bodies or in general), then I do feel we have the responsibility to conform to the boundary or to find a different community that better fits our liking.
So, what about you? Where do you fall in all of this? I think it's funny that I'm writing all about the benefits of some regulatory practices when it comes to community because I've frequently been on the stifled side of that. It seem like I have often been the guy that has been reprimanded for making decisions according to the Spirit of God regarding with whom or where I've felt free to hang out. I do really want to believe, though, that the people that were making my life hell in some of those instances were really trying to preserve a safe and godly community. But then I have to ask if that really is their job.... I mean, don't the members of the body have the opportunity to listen to the Spirit as He speaks to them? I really don't know what I think on this. So what do you think? How do you feel abou the regulations that are placed on you as a member of your "institution"? What are some of the “mandates”, “rules”, or “guidelines” that are difficult for you to accept and what do you do about it? …and finally, the question everyone wants answered: “Is it worth it?” Thanks for listening. Bless you!
Hmm…. Many different situations arise where an individual is faced with a choice to either follow the “mandates” of an institution or not to follow them and to suffer the consequences. Take Wheaton College, for example…. Students and faculty that are a part of that college have signed a pledge stating that they will not drink or smoke. In any case, the institution, Wheaton College, is setting a boundary that students and faculty members can choose to uphold or choose to break. They have the choice to become part of the college, and abide by the rules, or they have the choice to go elsewhere. In this case, the institution is, in essence, telling students and faculty what to do with their choices about drinking and smoking; the college is “regulating” what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
Consider another question: When do the rights of the individual have to conform to the mandates of the institution? More specifically for us, could church authority go too far in exerting its “power” over the members of its body? Can the leadership of your church (or mine) expect its members to follow every “rule” that is configured? (And what did Jesus say about the legalists and lawmakers anyway.) But without even going into that argument, don't individual lay people have “rights” too, right? Whose rights take priority? George Bernard Shaw raises a great question,
"Do a smoker and non-smoker have the same rights on
the same railway car?"
Quite obviously the answer to that question has to be no. Both of the people on the train will not be completely appeased by either of the choices that could be made. However, a choice will be made. Therefore, the question remains: who has the right rights: leadership or its members?
I don’t think there are right and wrong rights, but I do feel like certain rights take precedence. Let me explain…. I feel that the church has the right to tell a person what to do with his/her body as long as biblical precepts are followed. As long as the guidelines given by the institution are biblical (or at least not contrary to the Bible), and as long as the members of the institution have the ability to decide whether or not they want to be part of the institution (biblical rules and all), then, in my opinion, the institution has the right to “tell them what to do”. Ultimately, this is a goofy issue because even the institution cannot force its members to follow the rules. The institution, whether it be a church, or college, or youth group, or whatever would just have the responsibility to follow through on the consequences of not adhering to the guidelines of the community.
In dealing with a community, we have to ask: will my actions hurt anyone else? In community, we have to consider those around us when we make our decisions; we have to consider whether or not we value our congregation and its members. If we do, then we will be careful to follow the guidelines so as not to offend anyone, and yet there is a freedom to live life and allow the Spirit to lead isn't there? So what does the balance look like? I guess I think some regulative forces are okay because in the end we do have a choice of which youth group to attend and which colleges to enroll in. So, if the institution in question has declared a certain boundary on a certain issue regarding what we can or cannot do (with or bodies or in general), then I do feel we have the responsibility to conform to the boundary or to find a different community that better fits our liking.
So, what about you? Where do you fall in all of this? I think it's funny that I'm writing all about the benefits of some regulatory practices when it comes to community because I've frequently been on the stifled side of that. It seem like I have often been the guy that has been reprimanded for making decisions according to the Spirit of God regarding with whom or where I've felt free to hang out. I do really want to believe, though, that the people that were making my life hell in some of those instances were really trying to preserve a safe and godly community. But then I have to ask if that really is their job.... I mean, don't the members of the body have the opportunity to listen to the Spirit as He speaks to them? I really don't know what I think on this. So what do you think? How do you feel abou the regulations that are placed on you as a member of your "institution"? What are some of the “mandates”, “rules”, or “guidelines” that are difficult for you to accept and what do you do about it? …and finally, the question everyone wants answered: “Is it worth it?” Thanks for listening. Bless you!
posted by BJ at 8:14 PM
8 Comments:
BJ,
You always come up with the most interesting topics.
Here is a common rule/reg issue that comes up where I work very often. I work for a Christian organization that has MANY rules & regs, and, for the most part, I see that they all have a biblical backing and agree and understand why they are in place.
One that sparks controversy is THE DRESS CODE. Among other things, the dress codes states that women are not to wear short skirts, low cut tops or tight clothing.
To me the reason for this rule is logical and seems obvious. BUT not all women are senstive to the issue and (even Christian women) say things like "well, he shouldn't be looking at my body in the first place, I should be able to dress how I want."
Having been in the HR Dept for 9 years, I had to sit in on several of these meetings. Some women would complain that men in the office were looking at them, other times men would come to us and confess they were struggling not to look at a certain person and ask us to enforce the dress code.
In the case of the men, my boss would take care of it..usually the woman would respond by modifying her dress. BUT there are always a few that felt it was unfair (even though you have to sign the dress code in compliance upon being hired).
My boss would explain to the woman "yes, some men do act inappropriately by looking at women lustfully - but most men in our office are trying very hard NOT to do that. When women in short skirts/low cut tops are working as their assistants or co-workers it makes them it much more difficult to "not look" at something that is right there in front of them. God made men visual, that's just a fact of life). As sisters in Christ, we need to be supportive to our brothers rather than hinder their efforts not to look."
So there you have it...I have no idea if this is "on topic" but I thought of it immediately when I saw your post.
Rights only exist when they exist for everyone. Dr. Balint Vazsonyi wrote about this in his book, America's 30 Years War. Smokers rights, for example, or women's rights don't actually exist (in the way the Constitution defines a right) because they don't exist for all individuals.
Just found your blog. Looks great-I'll be back. SW burbs? Where about? I live in Plainfield.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
Oh, I agree completely with the local church body has the right to make rules about the conduct of its members. The example my pastor always uses is this. When a member of the church is out in the community, their actions represent the church to the community. Let me use an example that I know of that really happened (thankfully it was not someone from our church).
A lady had come in to pick up her dry cleaning. The dry cleaner had done something wrong (I don't remember what), and this lady went off on the clerk. Finally, the manager had to come out and deal with it. The funny thing was she recognized the lady as a prominent member of a large local church. She proceeded to tell her she knew where she went to church at and if this is how members of this church acted, she would certainty never go there.
This one person’s action may very well have caused someone to never attend their church again. How sad, but how true. If a church says that to be a member you need to follow the Ten Commandments, or that you should not smoke, drink or gamble, the church has that right. It is not designed to limit behavior as much as it is a standard the church wants to be held accountable to.
I also agree with Well Woman about dress code. The Bible does say to dress modestly, but the reason is not to limit your freedom. The reason is love. If the women of the church truly love their brothers in Christ, dress in a way as to not cause them temptation. If a woman is wearing a low-cut blouse or a short skirt, I’m going to tell you as a man I am going to be tempted, and I get enough of that from the world, I don’t need it in church also. Most women don’t understand just how much their dress can affect men. If they did, and if they knew that Christian men struggle with this just like any other men do, and if they truly desire to be an encouragement to their brothers, then help us out ladies. Please consider the struggles us guys have and don’t add to them when you can help it.
Darryn Glass
http://www.darrynglass.com
Hi there, BJ!
You may find my answer interesting in light of the big debate we have going on over at my blog (wind scraps), but I do agree that the church has not only the right, but the responsibility to step in from time to time. Some rules are for leadership, some for the body as a whole.
For instance, anyone in leadership is expected to follow a higher standard because others are looking to them for guidance. We had a woman come recently who expressed interest in singing on our worship team. I told her that we have a policy of asking new people to be part of the body for a minimum of six months before they enter into ministry. That gives the body time to get to know the person. After we talked about that, she mentioned that she sings every week in karaoke bars and in the local casino bar. Obviously, this is going to be a problem. Though I didn't say anything to her at the time, if she asks again, we will let her know that she can't do both -- she can't frequent bars but also help lead worship.
We do expect our people to dress modestly, in a way that won't stumble others. I can't say this issue has ever come up with the men -- it's always women. :) I remember hearing about a Calvary Chapel (my church) in Southern California where a woman came in in a shirt that was practically see-through. One of the ushers brought her a jacket and kindly asked that she put it on. That would have been damaging to the body to permit not only the distraction but the stumbling block to persist.
It's all about love. To let the karaoke woman continue her hobby while leading worship would be to justify the bar scene to someone struggling with alcoholism. "It must be okay if that worship gal gets to go." To permit a woman to flaunt her body during church is to lead brothers into lust. That's not loving.
The whole point of Romans 14 is this: You have liberty. But your liberty must always give way to love.
Good topic, BJ. :)
Very interesting post, BJ... as usual! My take may be somewhat estranged from the others I've read, but here it goes...
Laws, rules and regulations exist to enforce the will of the people they impact. Such is the basis for the creation of government, in one small way. As citizens of a country, state, city, neighborhood, etc., we are expected to follow these laws. As motivation to do so, we are faced with fines, imprisonment or both, if we fail to follow the rules. This is life in the world, as we know it.
However, even within the confines of this world, each of us always have the ultimate option - the choice of whether or not we comply. Our compliance (or noncompliance) is generally based in our personal values and beliefs. As Christians, we are told to obey the government and follow the laws. Romans 13:1-2 teaches, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Reading this, it would be easy to assume that government is always right and should blindly be obeyed. But this isn't necessarily so.
In Acts 5:27-28 we read, "Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'"
Did the apostles do wrong? Not at all. They were obedient to God, which is always right!
Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 6:12, "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything." What I take Paul to be telling us is this - we are allowed free will, which means we can choose to be right or wrong. But we will indeed reap whatever it is we sow.
I believe this is the key to your answer. Whether or not you or I (or anyone else for that matter) claims to have a right is only meaningful to the degree that those around us CHOOSE to recognize our claim. It is not the church's place to make rules at all - it is the church's place to teach God's Word, and in it God's statutes and commandments. As God has intended, it is our choice whether or not we follow them. Of course, if we choose not to, we can indeed be shunned by our church, our community, our society as a whole. But the choice remains securely ours to make.
Where is God leading you? If you feel His leading is taking you in a direction that may be in conflict with the worldly rules we have hanging over us, which way do you go? Rest assured, whichever way you choose, you have the "right" to that choice.
I hope at least some of this made sense! I know what I mean, but sometimes don't express it as well as I wish. Just my two cents worth...
Peace, love and free will...
not1jot
"From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned. I insist that this shall cease. The country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose. And repose can only be found in everlasting principles."
- Charles Sumner
Great questions. Good dialogue. Here's another question to add to yours. You mentioned trusting the Spirit of God and specifically in the idea of one person trusting another person who is a believer that the Spirit of God is leading them in their choices.
Here's my question, just to play the Devil's advocate. What does it look like to trust that the Spirit of God is leading those who are making the mandates? And if the Spirit is leading those who develop the "rules", then were they lead in that direction for you and me as well?
Just more questions to wrestle with, and hopefully in our wrestling we're left with more of the one our souls are longing for.
Good post BJ, peace be with you.
Woah.
bar bar a -- both womend AND men should dress modestly. Woman can be just as attracted to the male physique as men to women. Just because male parts are easier to hide (have you ever tried to hide breasts and still remain reasonably comfortable in something other than a tent?)
This is very similar to the argument that many a Muslim country makes as to why women must wear burkas. Tread carefully.
As to the rules of churches, the first and only "rules" should be to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. Too often, I think, churches are more concerned with good PR and presenting a safe image instead of the real issues. Darryn, why was this prominent woman at the dry cleaner so angry to begin with? Probably something deeper was going on in her life and heart and unfortunately, it was left unchecked. Probably because she felt more concerned with presenting a good image (that she has it all together) so no one knew that anger and bitterness she held in her heart.
Consequently, no one was able to be real with her and help her on her walk to deal with the issues she had/has going on in life.
Our job as Christ's body is not to present a positive image and pretend we have it all together. That's rubbish! Our goal is to bring Glory to God by making His name known. That means being real about our struggles and inequities so that CHRIST and His power can shine through and be made perfect in our weakness.
Yes, members of the body should hold each other accountable for our actions, but not in a superficial manner. When Jesus met with the prostitutes and tax collectors and societal low lifes, do you think His main concern was His reputation?
As far as "you should follow the ten commandments" good luck! I can't do it without Christ.
Submit to one another out of reverenace for Christ. Our attitude should be, "I love Jesus so much that if my not doing X will demonstrate His love to you, then so be it."
Post a Comment
<< Home