Rules are meant to be broken, or so the popular expression goes. There’s something about that phrase which strikes a chord of assent within ourselves. There’s also another chord which repels strongly and begs for rules to be followed. As a result, we swing between judgements as to wether or not a rule should be followed or broken depending on circumstance. We confuse this swing with perspective because we have failed to implement a principle concerning rules. And we fail to implement principles because we fail to understand the intent of the rules.
From software processes to religion, politics to social behaviour, there are rules. Divined or ordered, these rules become established within a context and serve as an education for acceptable behaviour. From the start of implementation, two extreme camps set up early to hold the rules in dynamic tension. The legalists and the liberalists. Those who obey, to the letter, and those who don’t.
In the those who don’t obey category, some break rules because there’s another rule which justifies their position. Others break the rules through ignorance and others through a conscious anti-social drive. In the those who do obey rules category, there are also interesting differences.
Some will cross their t’s and dot their i’s so carefully, they end up missing the purpose of the rule itself. The rule itself becomes the end. The reason for the rule’s existence forgotten and not as important as actually keeping the rule. Others will keep the rules steadfastly in the hope that the end will be achieved through the means. The motives for any one position [and this brief list is by no means assuming it’s complete] are numerable and can even be the same motive for different positions. So what are the essentials of the rule?
Before the rule, there was a condition. In order to [usually] discourage the growth of that condition, a rule is established to improve that condition. When that rule starts to be applied outside of that condition, or is contrasted with another rule, more rules are entrenched to further clarify an increasingly complex set of conditions.
So, if we get back to the essence and reason for the rule in the first place, a decision to “break” or follow the rule becomes simpler. It can also take more courage [either way] since it could fly in the face of a traditional interpretation; however wrong that interpretation may be. But challenging rules and breaking them are 2 very different actions that may actually manifest with the same result.
Now that the essence of the rule is defined, a decision needs to be made regarding its worthiness in keeping. But that’s a moral decision based on belief systems and is impacted by who exactly the rule-giver is; and that’s another discussion…
2 replies on “Rules”
interesting. someone asked me once which of the ten commandments would i break and why- what immeditately came to my mind was a scene in Corrie Tenbooms book, about the Nazi’s breaking into a home and arresting all the Jews hiding there- they then turned on a Blonde beautiful girl and hesitantly ask her, if she too was Jewish- she could have lied and said, “No I am not Jewish†…and LIVED…. But being a Believer in Christ and a Jewess she replied that yes she was Jewish. She died. Of course nothing but respect should stand and applaud her- i could not have done it, but there is this crazy thought in my head that to have “broken” the rule of “do not lie” would have preserved a life– which is the reason for the law, the reason for the Messiah- to give life. it is for this reason that the ambulances run around like crazy on sabbat, and why Jesus Himself Healed and Ministered to those in need on the sabbath..because there is something greater-Life. Life in my opinion seems more important than a lie- so i don’t know if this is a “bend” in the rules, or a heirachy of rules- i wish neither, but i guess it is indeed a complex issue.
rules being bent or rules being heirarchical.. mmm…. we had an interesting discussion about merciful law breaking and it sometimes appears as if Jesus “broke” the law- yet He didn’t because He is the Perfect sacrifice. The only thing He broke was our understanding of the Law as given by the law-giver Himself- which He understands more perfectly than we do… so who are we to defend God’s motives? yet Jesus can and does by fulfilling the Law which is summed up Loving God and Loving your neighbour. sooo… i guess does yr “lie” constitute a violation of the summation of the Law and whatever you choose in that moment is what holds you accountable to God. speculation on which and why can be counter productive cos the arguments can wax either way. hold fast to God and put His Kingdom first and be faithful to Him.. the rest sorts itself out.. doesn’t it?