Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1
“Young Fundamentalists” are generally not fond of rules, especially in ministry settings. Exactly why this is the case is an interesting study in itself. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that many of them grew up in rules-heavy Christian schools in an era full of glowing idealism about what these highly-disciplined, conscientiously spiritual educational environments would produce. The inflated hopes of those days were sure to result in disappointment. And maybe the current rules angst is the result of a generalized disgust with the whole concept and all that seems connected to it. In defense of those who feel this way, it is only too easy to find examples of rules excesses and absurdities.
Whatever the reasons, young Fundamentalists are often eager to cast “man-made rules” in a negative light and to argue from Scripture that these rules are dangerous at best, and downright hostile to Christian growth at worst.
My aim here is to offer a “young Fundamentalist” perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to Scripture and wisdom.
Points of agreement
I count myself among those who believe any Christian ministry that seeks to grow believers must aim to develop principled and discerning servants of God. Young people (or old ones, for that matter) who merely conform to a slate of rules in order to avoid punishments have not arrived at “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13 NKJV), no matter how wise and comprehensive that slate of rules might be.
In fact, seeking to instill understanding of the reasons for rules is not aiming high enough either. Since we’re commanded to love the Lord our God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30), we’re not truly living the life unless we obey in body, intellect and affections. We are not fully obedient until we do the right thing driven by both faith and love.
But should we conclude that “man-made rules” do not contribute at all to walking in a manner worthy of our calling? Is it accurate to say that rules contribute nothing to sanctification? Should we even believe that they are—as some suggest—inherently dangerous and often hostile to growth in grace?
Argument from the nature of sin
Sin interrupts fellowship with God, dulls spiritual senses, weakens resolve, perverts affections, damages body and mind, poisons relationships and forms enslaving habits. I’m taking it for granted that I don’t need to prove that here. We’ve all seen it in our sins if we’ve been paying attention, and finding examples in Scripture is almost as easy as opening the Book at random and reading.
Given that sin does so much harm, may we not conclude that it is always better to do right than to do wrong? To put it another way, isn’t a believer who avoids a sin because of a rule-and-penalty better off than a believer who sins?
Perhaps some confusion on this point is due to binary thinking about the relationship between the inner man—the heart and mind—and outward behavior. Is it true that a believer either obeys with faith and love or sins? What if he obeys without faith and love or—as is more often the case, obeys with incomplete faith (and understanding) and less than pure love? Is this “sin”? Even if it is, is it no better than the sin the rule is intended to prevent?
I believe the dynamic between inner man and outward conduct is far from binary (all or nothing) and looks more like this:
- Best: do right out of faith and love
- Good: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)
- Bad: do right with some evil motive
- Worst: do wrong
Many gradations are possible between these levels, and it’s debatable whether “doing right with some evil motive” is doing “right” at all, but this scale illustrates the complexity of the possibilities.
To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.
So has the teen in scenario A been helped along in his journey toward Christlikeness? Absolutely. Would it have been better if he did the right thing out of faith and love without a rule? Definitely.
But this is where an important point comes into focus: the truth is, he can act out of faith and love without or with the rule. If he has the necessary faith and love, the rule is useless (1 Tim. 1:9) but harmless. If he lacks the necessary faith and love, the rule is a lifesaver, and those responsible for his care have done him a great service.
The argument from the nature of sin, then, is this: sin is so damaging that reducing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers. Not sinning is always better than sinning, even when understanding is lacking and love is not the primary motivation.
Argument from the nature of holiness
Just as sin is inherently damaging and habit-forming, every act of obedience is inherently helpful and habit-forming (1 Tim. 4:8). 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.
And let’s not undervalue good habits. Habits are simply choices we make repeatedly until they become so much a part of us they no are longer made consciously. Growth in sanctification consists largely of old habits losing out to new ones (this includes habits of intellect and affections as well as habits of body). This is the Lord’s work in us, but our obedience is required and that obedience is frequently the tool He uses to produce yet more obedience (Phil. 2:12-13).
Admittedly, it is possible to obey a rule—even in the sense of “a generalized application of Scripture” (see below)—and not obey God in the fullest sense. That is, pleasing God could be furthest thing from the complier’s mind. He is not obeying fully because his affections are not God-ward in the act. But even though he is not obeying at the subjective level, he still obeying at the objective level and making a better choice. By doing so, he is getting a taste of clean living whether he wants one or not. I believe these “tastes” are always habit forming to some degree in the life of a regenerate, Spirit-indwelt person.
The argument from the nature of holiness, then, is this: obedience is so helpful that increasing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers even when their faith is incomplete and love is not their primary motivation.
Summary
I’ve argued here that rules in ministry settings (especially schools) are not as dangerous or hostile to growing in grace as many suppose. I’ve done so on the basis of the nature of sin and the nature of obedience. But the case is far from complete. It barely scratches the surface.
In Part 2, I’ll offer an additional argument—this time, from the nature of rules themselves, then address a series of objections, including these:
- If what you’re saying about rules is true, shouldn’t we make as many as possible? (We know that leads to disaster!)
- Doesn’t Jesus’ handling of the Pharisees show that rule-making is inherently hazardous?
- Doesn’t Colossians directly forbid rule making (Col. 2:20-23)?
- Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 13:3 teach that doing good without love is worthless?
(Part 2)
- 75 views
Let’s say the school principal, who is a closet Pacman addict, hears the student cussing and being profane. He should contact the parents and pastor for a sit down and see what they think is best. Punishment or restitution should be mutually agreed upon.So what if the parents insist that the child didn’t do anything wrong? And they don’t think any punishment or restitution is necessary?
The student is still involved in with the school if he is in a ‘conversation’ with the teacher about school- ditto if he were on the phone or using a telegraph.So then you agree that a school’s legitimate interest does not end at the school property. You agree that a school has a legitimate disciplinary interest in student’s conduct off campus.
If they believe that their child has been treated unfairly, then a pow-wow with the teacher would be in order, but I think the child should make some sort of restitution for being disrespectful.But why? The school has no authority, according to you, on what goes on off campus. So where is the biblical support for restitution in a matter in which the school has no authority?
If the purpose of a school is to make disciples (and here we go again assuming kids in Christian schools are actually saved) then we need to take the time to assist families in discipling their children, and not just have a list of hard and fast rules that kick people to the curb every time they make a mistake, act immaturely, or give in to temptation.I doubt anyone here disagrees with this. I certainly don’t.
I must admit though, your first response on a pregnant teen attending class boggles my mind. You and Anne both. Maybe it’s a girl thing. I don’t get that. Maybe that’s a Larry thing.
[Larry]Of course the school should try to help the parents. And the way it is carried out may be different in different schools, some better some worse. But the fact is that the school has a legitimate interest in what goes on outside the school.U R welcome! now show me a school that would actually handle things that way! maybe that’s more the point.
:)
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.
[Larry] How is that not what we are talking about here, with respect to school. In a school setting, a parent surrenders somethings to be a part of the educational process … things like the right to leave the house at 8:30 because the kids actually have to be at school at 8:30, or the right to take four week vacations in February,These affect the purpose and function of the school
or the right to certain kinds of entertainment that may not be wrong, but are forbidden by the school.How does going to a movie affect the purpose or function of a school, and what kinds of entertainment are we talking about?
Again- if parents send their kids to a school that has off-campus rules, then they must abide by them. What I’m asking is why don’t schools consider if they should have these kinds of rules? What is their Biblical support for an extra-Biblical standard that is more the sphere of parents than a school?
But there is no Biblical support for a school to create off-campus rules on areas that are not clearly laid out in Scripture.So does this mean that the school is sinning by doing such? We do things all the time that are not mandated in Scripture. A school should just be honest about it- they have no Biblical mandate to govern the private lives of the students that attend.
Can the school create “off-campus rules” (like not standing across the street and yelling at teachers and holding up signs about the teachers) while still being in the bounds of Scripture?It isn’t an off-campus incident if they are engaged in interaction that directly affects school property or employees. ‘Off-campus’ is not about property lines. If a student is cussing a teacher on the telephone, in an email, or in skywriting, they are communicating with a school employee.
[Aaron Blumer] About school authority. I’ve been a bit puzzled at some of the discussion on that point. As far as I can tell from Scripture, believers are free to bring themselves into situations where they voluntarily place themselves under some authority. To me, a school is one of those. Scripture specifically vests authority in homes, churches and civil governments. The rest are voluntary societies of one sort or another. So a school only has the authority parents give it when they sign up and agree to whatever terms they agree to.Sure, a school can have rules about wearing blue on Thursdays, and if parents want to sign up or not, they have that freedom.
When you have a church-school situation, it’s more complicated… and another reason I don’t like the church-school arrangement. Schools are better off independent whenever possible, IMO.
That said, if a school has rules that reach into the home or reach off school property, they are free to do that… and parents who do not want that arrangement are free to not sign up.
Edit: where it gets out of line is when you sign up under one set of terms and the school reinvents them mid-stream… that is, if you enrolled with a “on school property only” approach and they start making new rules governing life off school property half way through the semester, there is really a bad-faith situation going on on the part of the school. Depending on what sort of formalities were involved in enrolling, it might even be breach of contract. (But I’m no lawyer)
But here I thought we were talking about Christian schools that are supposed to operate according to Biblical principles… IOW have some Biblical foundation for the rules and how they are applied. I’m questioning the wisdom of having extra-Biblical rules that reach off-campus, and I’m NOT saying they can’t or are in sin if they do. Just that I don’t think it is wise.
[Larry]Committing fornication is not the unpardonable sin, and if the girl is repentant, then she absolutely should be able to attend school. And how about the boy that fathered the child? Does he get to attend school just because his belly doesn’t grow to monumental proportions? Or shouldn’t he also be required to exhibit repentance? I would think that all these Christian kids would get a valuable lesson in how to treat a fallen brother or sister.If the purpose of a school is to make disciples (and here we go again assuming kids in Christian schools are actually saved) then we need to take the time to assist families in discipling their children, and not just have a list of hard and fast rules that kick people to the curb every time they make a mistake, act immaturely, or give in to temptation.I doubt anyone here disagrees with this. I certainly don’t.
I must admit though, your first response on a pregnant teen attending class boggles my mind. You and Anne both. Maybe it’s a girl thing. I don’t get that. Maybe that’s a Larry thing.
Oh wait- this is how we treat our fallen brethren- out of sight, out of mind. And something to whisper about in the bathroom. ;)
I think a school can work with a church and with parents to disciple children, but I do not think that schools should be considered a main authority in a child’s life. Parents and church comes first, period- and a school should adjust its reaction to off-campus misbehavior according to what the parents and pastor think is best.
Plus- you are still choosing behaviors that are obviously sinful, like fornication and profanity. No one has answered how one would define or regulate ‘worldly entertainment’ in a student’s life.
[Larry] I must admit though, your first response on a pregnant teen attending class boggles my mind. You and Anne both. Maybe it’s a girl thing. I don’t get that. Maybe that’s a Larry thing.that makes me smile. maybe it is a girl thing? or a-woman-that’s-been-pregnant thing? Maybe we know that seeing a preg friend up close does a lot to wipe away the romanticism of motherhood really fast :) Talk about seeng consequences before your eyes. things like cheerleading and college plans … what would you talk about with your girlfriends? they get to see up close the reality of single motherhood at an unready age. And as a long-time pro-life worker, it just doesn’t bug me. i think it can actually be a healthy thing, learning how to reach out to a real girl in that situation and watching her make decisions and hearing what she has to think through now.
and thank you susan about the boy issue, too. that’s just as serious.
[Larry]Well, it really isn’t an all or nothing situation here. And those “who appear to be on the side that schools can’t make rules that extend outside the school property and outside the school mission” really wouldn’t make a hard and fast rule about exactly where the schools rules can and cannot apply. That would be expecting the school to completely abide by a different kind of authority than its own, I guess? I think those on this side would be apt to want to discuss such rules and their implications with the school and whether the school serves the parents or not, which is really what this is all about. Of course, if you have an established school with an established flavor, then you can’t really discuss the existence of current rules with new parents; but I think one should have some real, frank discussions with them about those current rules before enrolling their children.I don’t think you have made a case at all for schools to extend rules in to the home or make rules that parents ought to be making.Several days ago I asked some questions that no one that I have seen has attempted to answer. You appear to be on the side that schools can’t make rules that extend outside the school property and outside the school mission, so to speak. So let me again ask these questions, and ask you to give a response to these situations.
So what about a pregnant 11th grader? Should she be allowed to continue to come to class?
What about a high school student who goes to a local arcade and is loudly cussing and being profane with the parents knowledge. Can the school do anything?
What about a student who crosses the property line and then turns around and starts yelling at a teacher using profanity because the teacher “treated him unfairly.” What if the parents agree?
What the school does or doesn’t do about a pregnant 11th grader as far as her participation at school is their business. They could make her wear a big red ‘A’. Personally, I might think the damage is done and that she needs some support and restoration, but that is just me. If you think she needs separating off from other students that’s your business. My feeling on rules is that you needn’t list every possible venue and activity at which she may get pregnant and forbid them to families of students. You may have missed a few and she may well have gotten pregnant on school grounds, who knows.
The second and third examples are about general deportment. And the school property line is a bit of an artificial watershed for that. If students are to generally respect teachers and other students, it doesn’t matter where they are. I see no issues with that from anyone. I don’t know what parent would be so inconsistent or belligerent that they would encourage their child not to cuss at a teacher at school out of some feeling that they are merely going along with school rules as some form of bartering for their child’s education, but be totally fine with the child cussing out the same person somewhere else. Doesn’t make any sense. If the school puts some kind of general sanction on that kind of behavior and the kid gets detention or misses some sports events, great.
I don’t see rules against abusing someone verbally or getting someone pregnant as a problem for anyone to accept. If the verbal abuse is against a staff member, you certainly have a case (other instances might involve hearsay and neighbors with a grudge who desire to see fireworks, so tread carefully). The only rules people have been cautioning against are those like forbidding the family from the arcade in question, and governing the way the parents watch their children at home or elsewhere and deciding where they can go and with whom and how often.
Some types of rules sure do seem to me unwise for a school to make. And there may be some rules that some people feel fall into a grey area, such as hand-holding outside of school property and school activities. I, for one, would hope that a teacher would explain inappropriate behavior and how to make good choices and how to be respectful of others. The more that a child is taught correctly and exposed to the right way to act and live, the better. Whether there needs to be a written rule about every possible instance of inappropriate behavior in every possible venue according to the most sensitive person one can find and how to curtail family life and child-raising by the parent just to be doubly sure, is certainly another story. If there is a written checklist of when, where and how infractions of every degree occur, it sure seems like the focus is on the rule than on positively making good choices and doing what’s right (yes, I can hear it now — going to a Prom is never right, no matter what choices you make while there).
Law suits have been mentioned, and I guess that can be a prevalent problem in the US. I personally can’t relate. But I would think that if a school is making an excessive number of intrusive rules in an effort to cover itself when it disciplines, then that sure seems like a sad way to approach rule-making from the start. It could even be self-fulfilling: the more specific rules that a school makes for every little thing, then the more it needs to uphold these rules in order to feel it hasn’t compromised. The more it upholds the rules, the more its focus is not on the true sanctification and growth of the kids. If a school sounds like it is just waiting to pounce because it is just waiting for a kid to mess up (and this impression is largely evident in their attitude to rules), then I would definitely think twice about sending my child there. So, yeah, I think rules can be dangerous. I think rule-making is dangerous and is not to be done lightly (as with an attitude like “always better to be safe than sorry”; or, “let’s afford students more opportunities for obedience”). But that is not to say by any means that there should be no or very few rules. In fact, I really don’t see why the rule in the Bible about moderation is so hard for people to get hold of and apply.
“Sometimes authorities overlap”
I submit this is in fact, quite untrue. Where one authority ends the other begins and where one begins the other ends. It is only when people are unable to determine where they begin and end that they imagine there is an overlapping.
If it is true as you say that authorities are not overlapping, then the one that is trying to fit itself in between and over and against the ones legitimately outlined had better do some re-evaluation. We had better determine which “authority’s” authority ends where.
That kind of leads me onto another thought that has been popping up: about the “always better to do right” kind of thought. I don’t know where that question started, so I guess I better go back and look. But it keeps popping up in places as though it is a justification for heavy or specific rule-making//heavy-school-authority, and as though it is an indictment of an approach that would de-emphasize rules. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe I am missing something.
One is finding oneself being pressed to answer things like, “well, it is better to do right, isn’t it, no matter the motive”, etc. But at the moment I am wondering, “yeees, and the point is…?”
So far, all I can assume is that it is trying to imply something about the keeping of the school rules in and of themselves. That if you are indeed under the authority of your school, then simply keeping the rules is being counted as “doing the right thing” each and every time (which in one way I suppose it is, but I think it is being stretched). Hence the repeated sentiments about how acts of obedience themselves (presumably no matter how trivial the act of obedience or the rule it is displaying) furthers the walk and is always helpful in sanctification. How this works when the rule is framed in the negative, universally forbidding something not denied to Christians, I am not sure. To me it all sounds like an argument to say, let’s make even more rules to afford more opportunities for obedience that Grace may abound. Please correct me, I hope I am wrong.
First, it is clear that some here are willing to be very elastic on a school’s “sphere of authority.” What started out as essentially “no rules addressing life off of school grounds” has changed. Obviously, it is wholly unworkable to say that a school can have or should have no rules beyond the school grounds, and that is becoming apparent. Susan says, “It isn’t an off-campus incident if they are engaged in interaction that directly affects school property or employees. ‘Off-campus’ is not about property lines. If a student is cussing a teacher on the telephone, in an email, or in skywriting, they are communicating with a school employee.” You see, “off campus” just got really big. What she is saying is that it is okay for a school to police the phone conversations of students even when they are using their own telephones during their own hours. So she is willing to make exceptions to her rule. (I agree with her though it seems pretty inconsistent with her earlier position.) My only point is that this is self-evident. So I don’t understand why are people here arguing against it.
Second, spheres of authority – when a parent places a child in a school, they are exercising their sphere of authority over a child and agreeing to have the child live by the expectations of the school. So there is no conflicting sphere. If a parent does not want to live under the rules of the school, they can exercise their authority over the student and withdraw. Most schools probably have a written clause to this effect. I think the spheres of authority argument is way overdone and wrongly appealed to. A parent’s authority is not absolute. Furthermore, the parent doesn’t have the authority to place their child in a school when the school says they can’t. The school, in that case, is the authority about who comes or doesn’t come. Why doesn’t a school have the right to make whatever rules it wants that it thinks will help turn out its product more effectively? Everyone here would say, “They do have that right.” So again, I don’t understand why people are arguing against it.
Third, the idea of ministering to someone. When I brought up the three examples, a common theme has been that we need to minister to the party involved. But it seems to have gone unnoticed that ministry is possible outside the school. By telling a pregnant teenager (and the father) that they cannot remain in the school, we are not telling her that we will not minister to her. Anne recommends essentially making her an example (though perhaps Anne would object to that characterization): Let the other girls see how much it affects cheerleading and college. I think that is not a good thing. I think kids are growing up fast enough without that. Susan talks about the father (who should also be held accountable). She says that if they manifest repentance that they should be back in school. But repentance doesn’t remove the consequences. We must still minister to people in this situation. But having them in the classroom is not necessary, and IMO, is probably not a good thing.
The bottom line is that the school has a legitimate interest in protecting testimony and product, both on and off the school grounds. And there is nothing wrong with that. I just sense a “rules phobia” that doesn’t have a substantial basis apart from fear, and what I think is a misplaced fear. I don’t want to misrepresent anyone, and I could be wrong, but it just seems weird to me.
Makes me glad I don’t have a school and don’t have much to do with one.
One is finding oneself being pressed to answer things like, “well, it is better to do right, isn’t it, no matter the motive”, etc. But at the moment I am wondering, “yeees, and the point is…?”Since I think I am the one you are quoting, I will respond. The point is simply that it is always better to do right. Some have demured on that or sent mixed signals.
So far, all I can assume is that it is trying to imply something about the keeping of the school rules in and of themselves.My statement had nothign to do with school rules. It had to do with doing right.
Hence the repeated sentiments about how acts of obedience themselves (presumably no matter how trivial the act of obedience or the rule it is displaying) furthers the walk and is always helpful in sanctification.I never saw anyone say this even once, much less repeatedly. Do you have some links for us that will show us where anyone said that acts obedience are always helpful in sanctification?
How this works when the rule is framed in the negative, universally forbidding something not denied to Christians, I am not sure. To me it all sounds like an argument to say, let’s make even more rules to afford more opportunities for obedience that Grace may abound. Please correct me, I hope I am wrong.I can’t imagine where you got this idea from. It doesn’t sound like anything I have read here.
My point is this: Rules are necessary and useful. They are not unbiblical in and of themselves. They can help to form character in Christlikeness. They are not, however, magic. The heart must also be addressed. But addressing the heart is no substitute for rules.
[Larry] First, it is clear that some here are willing to be very elastic on a school’s “sphere of authority.” What started out as essentially “no rules addressing life off of school grounds” has changed. Obviously, it is wholly unworkable to say that a school can have or should have no rules beyond the school grounds, and that is becoming apparent. Susan says, “It isn’t an off-campus incident if they are engaged in interaction that directly affects school property or employees. ‘Off-campus’ is not about property lines. If a student is cussing a teacher on the telephone, in an email, or in skywriting, they are communicating with a school employee.” You see, “off campus” just got really big. What she is saying is that it is okay for a school to police the phone conversations of students even when they are using their own telephones during their own hours. So she is willing to make exceptions to her rule. (I agree with her though it seems pretty inconsistent with her earlier position.) My only point is that this is self-evident. So I don’t understand why are people here arguing against it.Larry, you are misrepresenting my position. I’ve said repeatedly that school rules that apply to its purpose and function are good and necessary, so any interaction between student and teacher would fall under this, regardless of their geographic location. But the school should not attempt to govern where they family goes, who they fellowship with, and how they amuse themselves when it has no direct bearing on the school. I can’t make it any clearer than that, I’m sorry.
[Larry] Third, the idea of ministering to someone. When I brought up the three examples, a common theme has been that we need to minister to the party involved. But it seems to have gone unnoticed that ministry is possible outside the school. By telling a pregnant teenager (and the father) that they cannot remain in the school, we are not telling her that we will not minister to her. Anne recommends essentially making her an example (though perhaps Anne would object to that characterization): Let the other girls see how much it affects cheerleading and college. I think that is not a good thing. I think kids are growing up fast enough without that. Susan talks about the father (who should also be held accountable). She says that if they manifest repentance that they should be back in school. But repentance doesn’t remove the consequences. We must still minister to people in this situation. But having them in the classroom is not necessary, and IMO, is probably not a good thing.On what Biblical basis would someone be ostracized after repentance? Would one apply this idea of removal from school for any offense repented of other than fornication that resulted in pregnancy? Do all violations of school rules result in permanent expulsion, or just those that are visible to the naked eye or ones we find personally repugnant?
The bottom line is that the school has a legitimate interest in protecting testimony and product, both on and off the school grounds. And there is nothing wrong with that. I just sense a “rules phobia” that doesn’t have a substantial basis apart from fear, and what I think is a misplaced fear. I don’t want to misrepresent anyone, and I could be wrong, but it just seems weird to me.
There isn’t a ‘rules phobia’ going on as far as I’m concerned. I grew up in a Fundamentalism obsessed with rules, and kept them all. Yippee Skipppee ooh aah. I saw all the Christian celebrities who were held up as The Anointed Ones and used their ‘authority’ to keep people under their thumbs, and any questioning of their own inconsistencies and false teachings was met with insinuations such as “If you were really right with God you wouldn’t have any questions” which doesn’t really answer the question, does it?
Authority has just as much responsibility to be Biblical as those who are asked to submit to it. When authority can’t answer the questions straight up with Scriptural support, then I’ll shake the dust off my bunny slippers and find authority that doesn’t just have convictions, but has the courage and humility to be as accountable as those whom they wish to govern.
[Alex Guggenheim] I have read this statement a few times (not just in this discussion but in past discussions):I see authorities as overlapping in the sense that they affect each other. I’m personally accountable to God alone, but I’m also under the authority of my husband… then at church, we’re both under the authority of church leadership. We’re always under the authority of our gov’t- federal, state, and local- while on American soil…but we also measure those with God’s Word and are not obligated to obey gov’t when it crosses the line into behaviors forbidden by God.
“Sometimes authorities overlap”
I submit this is in fact, quite untrue. Where one authority ends the other begins and where one begins the other ends. It is only when people are unable to determine where they begin and end that they imagine there is an overlapping.
So maybe it isn’t the best term to use in your opinion, but that’s how I see it. However, I’m looking through my bifocals and not a microscope. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-cool02.gif
Discussion