What is the purpose of establishing rules you don't enforce?

Ing Bee

Son of Encouragement
Supporter
Mar 21, 2018
229
156
East Bay
✟78,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My belief is that a community only functions to the extent that people conform to the general expectations of the community.

So, what is the value of establishing rules, if you don't enforce the rules when they are violated?

I work in a professing Christian facility that I see rules established but not enforced all the time. So, I am wondering, am I simply wrong and rules are only set up, for the gullible ones of us who believe we are to follow rules, with the expectation by rule-makers that most of us will conform and therefore the overall community will function the way they want anyway?

Hi Johnny-
The life of Christ in his people changes the conditions for human behavior. Over and again in the New Testament, the New life is first described and THEN teaching on how to live in Christian community (and in public) is give (e.g Ephesians 1 vs. Ephesians 3,4).

Part of this order comes from the model of leaders in the church. Paul specifically points out in Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy. There is an expectation that as we mature in our life in the Spirit we grow in our reflection of Christ and our ability to help others mature (Ephesians 4:13, Hebrews 6:1). So, the first issue is, do the elders and other mature Christians in the church actively model maturity, love, service, modesty, humility, etc. Do they articulate and explain the "rule" of faith in the various ministry and worship contexts?

In addition to this (what I will call the "Culture of Christian Love"), church communities have to navigate practical considerations and rules (based on physical property utilized by the church e.g. building, church vans, etc.) as well as missional considerations (e.g. "Do we allow hoodies in church to accommodate visitors who might be investigating Christ?").

I'm not sure how your church polity functions, but any "rule" that does not serve its purpose, or that is not inline with God's kingdom purposes, or which can't be enforced effectively should be revisited. If the rule is creating divisions, causing pride or lack of love, preventing ministry, etc. I would suggest bringing this situation to the church elders.

If the "rules" are rooted in biblical principles and gospel objectives, they need to be communicated to the congregation at large (often regularly "This is why we do x here at YOURCHURCHNAME".), communicated to staff and leadership (at every level) and personally addressed in love by the leadership to individuals if necessary. The Culture of Christian Love embodied in a particular congregation is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE ("they will know you are MY disciples by your agape for one another" - John 13:35). Therefore a clear understanding of "why we do what we do" is crucial for the church family and future members.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You have made great points, Sketcher. Few, if any, enforcers are read into the understanding of why a rule was made, whether we are talking about police or houseparents in a big community of kids. Certainly, supervisors of those enforcers--in either case--get to dictate how they use their resources and which rules should be enforced and which shouldn't be enforced.
I would also say that the supervisors need to educate their enforcers on why the rules they need to enforce are in place. And they should take responsibility for harder enforcement decisions than their enforcers are capable of, and clearly communicate that such circumstances should be reported to them.

But, it is still another thing to tell the enforcers you want it enforced, but have some enforcers choose on their own to not enforce it, and not do anything about it. And, it is that latter statement that I have difficulty understanding the value of. If I tell you I want something done and you don't do it, how can I count on you doing anything I ask you to do? And, once you are choosing to do what you want and not choosing to do what you don't want, you aren't really under my authority anymore, are you?
I would consider this a problem, that's flat-out negligence.
 
Upvote 0

LightLoveHope

Jesus leads us to life
Oct 6, 2018
1,473
458
London
✟79,581.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
My belief is that a community only functions to the extent that people conform to the general expectations of the community.

So, what is the value of establishing rules, if you don't enforce the rules when they are violated?

I work in a professing Christian facility that I see rules established but not enforced all the time. So, I am wondering, am I simply wrong and rules are only set up, for the gullible ones of us who believe we are to follow rules, with the expectation by rule-makers that most of us will conform and therefore the overall community will function the way they want anyway?

Rules are written down for the identification of failure, breaking a rule, conflict resolution, laying down how things can be resolved.
1. The rule is broken
2. Relationship action, what it should be
3. Acceptance or rejection of the rule breaker.

In all communities personality conflicts arise.
To distinguish this from actual problems rules are established to identify a real community problem.
The community can then, once the problem is established, decide the action to be taken.

Any community will be changed and destroyed if its basic rules are overthrown and ignored, because there are always groups who will attempt to do this over time. To defend itself from this rules are set up, which in effect maintain the status quo.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Johnny-
The life of Christ in his people changes the conditions for human behavior. Over and again in the New Testament, the New life is first described and THEN teaching on how to live in Christian community (and in public) is give (e.g Ephesians 1 vs. Ephesians 3,4).

Part of this order comes from the model of leaders in the church. Paul specifically points out in Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy. There is an expectation that as we mature in our life in the Spirit we grow in our reflection of Christ and our ability to help others mature (Ephesians 4:13, Hebrews 6:1). So, the first issue is, do the elders and other mature Christians in the church actively model maturity, love, service, modesty, humility, etc. Do they articulate and explain the "rule" of faith in the various ministry and worship contexts?

In addition to this (what I will call the "Culture of Christian Love"), church communities have to navigate practical considerations and rules (based on physical property utilized by the church e.g. building, church vans, etc.) as well as missional considerations (e.g. "Do we allow hoodies in church to accommodate visitors who might be investigating Christ?").

I'm not sure how your church polity functions, but any "rule" that does not serve its purpose, or that is not inline with God's kingdom purposes, or which can't be enforced effectively should be revisited. If the rule is creating divisions, causing pride or lack of love, preventing ministry, etc. I would suggest bringing this situation to the church elders.

If the "rules" are rooted in biblical principles and gospel objectives, they need to be communicated to the congregation at large (often regularly "This is why we do x here at YOURCHURCHNAME".), communicated to staff and leadership (at every level) and personally addressed in love by the leadership to individuals if necessary. The Culture of Christian Love embodied in a particular congregation is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE ("they will know you are MY disciples by your agape for one another" - John 13:35). Therefore a clear understanding of "why we do what we do" is crucial for the church family and future members.

I agree with what you said. But, it doesn't address how to deal with an issue where the elders establish a rule they claim needs to be enforced, but they aren't supervising the enforcement of that rule they claim is important and therefore the elders themselves make it null and void, in essence, and I'm still not sure what it makes those of us who do enforce their rules, except compliant and disliked.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Rules are written down for the identification of failure, breaking a rule, conflict resolution, laying down how things can be resolved.
1. The rule is broken
2. Relationship action, what it should be
3. Acceptance or rejection of the rule breaker.

In all communities personality conflicts arise.
To distinguish this from actual problems rules are established to identify a real community problem.
The community can then, once the problem is established, decide the action to be taken.

Any community will be changed and destroyed if its basic rules are overthrown and ignored, because there are always groups who will attempt to do this over time. To defend itself from this rules are set up, which in effect maintain the status quo.

I agree with you and couldn't have said it better. The challenge is the rules that exist, because of personality preferences of the very people who claim the rule is important, have the authority to make the rule, and yet don't supervise the rule being enforced.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would also say that the supervisors need to educate their enforcers on why the rules they need to enforce are in place. And they should take responsibility for harder enforcement decisions than their enforcers are capable of, and clearly communicate that such circumstances should be reported to them.


I would consider this a problem, that's flat-out negligence.

I think you understand my world now (lol). I agree that supervisors should be explaining why they have the rules they have. I also believe that if supervisors actually enforced the rule concerning "failure to enforce the rules" that they established--even on occasion--they would achieve different community results. And, if they had to "be the bad guy" toward their subordinates over things that they didn't think really mattered, maybe they could empathize and get rid of the stupid rules that didn't really need to be enforced rather than leaving the obedient compliant folk to support the rules while others didn't.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank God, I no longer have to deal with that stuff. People don't much like those who play by the rules and especially do the work. You'll be harassed to no end. Sure isn't much fun.

What do you do now?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,138
20,184
US
✟1,441,583.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with what you said. But, it doesn't address how to deal with an issue where the elders establish a rule they claim needs to be enforced, but they aren't supervising the enforcement of that rule they claim is important and therefore the elders themselves make it null and void, in essence, and I'm still not sure what it makes those of us who do enforce their rules, except compliant and disliked.

So now we're inching closer to what you're really talking about, which isn't nearly as universal a question as originally proposed, but specific to a situation you have in mind.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So now we're inching closer to what you're really talking about, which isn't nearly as universal a question as originally proposed, but specific to a situation you have in mind.

I don't think it is as specific as you might hypothesize though. I think if any community is going to establish rules and tell the enforcers to enforce them, then that community that established the rules needs to be able to expect the enforcers are enforcing them.

If everyone is violating the rule, then maybe the reason for the rule wasn't effectively communicated or the rule needs to cease to be a rule.

I think that transcends any specific situation, though, yes--in fact-- you got me!

We have some really silly rules where I work, but we sit in meetings all the time and are told that we are to enforce these really silly rules and it is not within our domain of choices to decide whether or not to enforce the rules. So, as someone under authority, who is told that I am to enforce the rules, I do. Others, under that same authority, don't with no consequences. Sometimes, even the authority who tells us to enforce the rules, doesn't enforce his own rules.

What would you do in that situation? Stop following what the authority says and start following what the authority does? Or continue to follow what the authority says and doesn't even do himself?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,138
20,184
US
✟1,441,583.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think it is as specific as you might hypothesize though. I think if any community is going to establish rules and tell the enforcers to enforce them, then that community that established the rules needs to be able to expect the enforcers are enforcing them.

If everyone is violating the rule, then maybe the reason for the rule wasn't effectively communicated or the rule needs to cease to be a rule.

I think that transcends any specific situation, though, yes--in fact-- you got me!

We have some really silly rules where I work, but we sit in meetings all the time and are told that we are to enforce these really silly rules and it is not within our domain of choices to decide whether or not to enforce the rules. So, as someone under authority, who is told that I am to enforce the rules, I do. Others, under that same authority, don't with no consequences. Sometimes, even the authority who tells us to enforce the rules, doesn't enforce his own rules.

What would you do in that situation? Stop following what the authority says and start following what the authority does? Or continue to follow what the authority says and doesn't even do himself?

Sketcher's post #4:

Depends on the institution, and the rules. There are some things that you cannot let go, anywhere. Other things, it's more of a gray area, the rules are for the purpose of stopping egregious abuse and they have to be worded strictly in order to provide the right pretext for action when egregious abuse happens.
 
Upvote 0

Ing Bee

Son of Encouragement
Supporter
Mar 21, 2018
229
156
East Bay
✟78,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with what you said. But, it doesn't address how to deal with an issue where the elders establish a rule they claim needs to be enforced, but they aren't supervising the enforcement of that rule they claim is important and therefore the elders themselves make it null and void, in essence, and I'm still not sure what it makes those of us who do enforce their rules, except compliant and disliked.

Have you and others been appointed by the elders with the task of "enforcement"? If so, you need to have the authority to fulfill that task (e.g. public recognition in front of the congregation). Responsibility without authority is ineffective and destructive to church unity and love.

If you have been tasked with the role but not the authority, ask the elders for public recognition (think the proto-deacons in Acts 6:1-4) in order to accomplish the task. In the absence of that kind of recognition and public explanation about the purpose of the "rule", it is good and right to respectfully demure from being the executor ("I am happy to serve in this capacity, but I cannot be successful if the congregation is unaware of my role and the utility of (the rule in question.)")

If you have not been given the task, there is no reason for you to be enforcing the rule. It is loving to be frank with the elders in this matter.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Rules are to establish norms that a cultural setting has agreed upon and established thru consent, compromise and constant use that ultimately defines reality to them. Yet I have seen one’s reality barked to another to charge that one to enforce that rule where the reality is much different than the desired effect of the rule. Reality is truth so truth must be applied to the situation attempted to be controlled.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
as I posted earlier, some places do "play favorites"

if you're unhappy, maybe start looking for another job?

I don't believe what I was speaking about is about playing favorites, nor about being unhappy. In fact, I don't think I even accused anyone of playing favorites or announced myself as "unhappy." I wanted to get perspectives to compare to mine on "what is the value of rules you don't enforce".

To your point, I think almost all places, in this world, play favorites (if not all), and we could probably argue that God has His favorites as well. But, what I was speaking about was (1) either having rules you enforce or don't having the rule if it isn't important enough to enforce, (2) does community work if you make rules you don't enforce?

Most, if not all, people put in charge are very political people--which is how they got put in charge--and once you have a political person in charge, they cannot divorce themselves of what traits got them there. So, favoritism is rampid and ubiquitous. You won't escape it in this world. So, why run tell people to run from it? The same traits that made them the "unfavored" in one worldly place will make them the unfavored in another worldly place. Rather, find a way to thrive in that environment without compromising what you believe is right. It can be done with God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Rules are to establish norms that a cultural setting has agreed upon and established thru consent, compromise and constant use that ultimately defines reality to them. Yet I have seen one’s reality barked to another to charge that one to enforce that rule where the reality is much different than the desired effect of the rule. Reality is truth so truth must be applied to the situation attempted to be controlled.

I'm not completely sure I understand what you are saying. But, I think I see parallels from what you are saying to the state of the Jewish religion when Jesus arrived.

Others have also talked about making sure everyone knows the intent of the rules, which will help keep everyone on the same page in enforcement or getting rid of a rule that doesn't really reflect the best interests of the community any more. I am all about that. If we aren't going to enforce something, I think we should get rid of it. If it is something we think should be followed, then we need to enforce it.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Have you and others been appointed by the elders with the task of "enforcement"? If so, you need to have the authority to fulfill that task (e.g. public recognition in front of the congregation). Responsibility without authority is ineffective and destructive to church unity and love.

If you have been tasked with the role but not the authority, ask the elders for public recognition (think the proto-deacons in Acts 6:1-4) in order to accomplish the task. In the absence of that kind of recognition and public explanation about the purpose of the "rule", it is good and right to respectfully demure from being the executor ("I am happy to serve in this capacity, but I cannot be successful if the congregation is unaware of my role and the utility of (the rule in question.)")

If you have not been given the task, there is no reason for you to be enforcing the rule. It is loving to be frank with the elders in this matter.

I agree with everything you have said. In my case, I am one of many who has been tasked without our smaller communities to enforce rules designated by those in charge of the larger community. In keeping with your idea of "church", I would say that each of the enforcers is the pastor over a community and the bishop and his staff make the rules. The pastors are not involved or consulted in making the rules. But, the "local pastors" are responsible for the enforcement of those rules within their "church". There are many times where the whole community comes together. It is those times where uniform enforcement of the rules is imperative (from my perspective), because it is difficult for some pastors to tell their flocks that they have to conform to a rule the bishop's crew insists on, when other pastors aren't enforcing those same rules and the flock sees the iniquity of the situation. The flock asks often "why do we have to do it when they aren't doing it?" My answer is always: "Because I'm not their pastor and I'm following the rules we were all given. I can't control if their pastor ignores the rules we were all given. That's outside of my jurisdiction." I did bring it up to the one who makes the rules and frankly asked: "I don't want to enforce something if we aren't enforcing it, but you said...." He reiterated that we are enforcing it and then told me to tell someone who is one of his assistants (and therefore outranks me) that he wasn't doing what the bishop told him to do. That doesn't work, or go over well, if you know what I mean. He already knew what he wasn't doing by choice. It is really the bishop's job to oversee and enforce the pastors doing what he tells them to do, not mine. But, my question still remains: Why make a rule (which he makes) and not enforce it? Where is the value to the community? It seems like it will only breed animosity among sheep and pastors. Some thinking others are too obedient and others thinking that those who aren't obedient aren't doing their jobs they were hired to do. And, the sheep suffering from a mixed set of standards that depends on who is your pastor, since the bishop doesn't enforce the rules he sets.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,138
20,184
US
✟1,441,583.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe what I was speaking about is about playing favorites, nor about being unhappy. In fact, I don't think I even accused anyone of playing favorites or announced myself as "unhappy." I wanted to get perspectives to compare to mine on "what is the value of rules you don't enforce".

To your point, I think almost all places, in this world, play favorites (if not all), and we could probably argue that God has His favorites as well. But, what I was speaking about was (1) either having rules you enforce or don't having the rule if it isn't important enough to enforce, (2) does community work if you make rules you don't enforce?

Most, if not all, people put in charge are very political people--which is how they got put in charge--and once you have a political person in charge, they cannot divorce themselves of what traits got them there. So, favoritism is rampid and ubiquitous. You won't escape it in this world. So, why run tell people to run from it? The same traits that made them the "unfavored" in one worldly place will make them the unfavored in another worldly place. Rather, find a way to thrive in that environment without compromising what you believe is right. It can be done with God.

I think your point of view is cynical and untrue. I've been put in charge and that wasn't true of me, and it hasn't been true of the great majority of persons who have been put in charge over me.

Unless you call it "favoritism" when the people who do their jobs gladly and excellently get promoted and those who don't do their jobs gladly and well don't get promoted.

One of my management mentors had taught me, "You have to distinguish between a screw-up and a good troop who just screws up."

And also, "You don't use your rank to push people down, you use your rank to pull people up."

Here is an example of what you'd probably call "not enforcing the rules" and "favoritism."

In one former job when I was on active duty, I had a young woman, a staff sergeant, working for me who had three exquisitely beautiful daughters and a sorry, layabout husband.

She was a top-notch troop, conscientious, ingenious, always learning, always doing a bit more than asked, smart as a whip, ready to come in any time necessary, never watched the clock.

However, her husband had the habit on weekends of taking the car on Saturday and not coming back home until some time Monday. That left her scrambling on some mornings and not always getting to work right on time. But as I said, she never watched the clock at 4:30, and left late a lot more often than she came late.

So, yeah, I failed to enforce the rule of the 0700 start time and generally "didn't take official notice" when she got in a bit late on those mornings, although it was a subject of our periodic one-on-one counseling sessions. She admitted she had married a "bad boy" because seemed exciting and fun, and that had turned out to be a mistake, because he wasn't adapting as a "military spouse" at all.

One of those mornings was the morning she was scheduled to take her promotion exam. She got there late and, of course, the door was locked. The test proctor called me to let me know. I told him that it was my fault, I'd given her bad information and asked him for a reschedule.

He was livid and threatened to tell my supervisor. I told him, "Whatever you have to do. It's on me. Just let her have a reschedule."

So, was that favoritism? If you say so.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think your point of view is cynical and untrue. I've been put in charge and that wasn't true of me, and it hasn't been true of the great majority of persons who have been put in charge over me

Unless you call it "favoritism" when the people who do their jobs gladly and excellently get promoted and those who don't do their jobs gladly and well don't get promoted.

One of my management mentors had taught me, "You have to distinguish between a screw-up and a good troop who just screws up."

And also, "You don't use your rank to push people down, you use your rank to pull people up."

Here is an example of what you'd probably call "not enforcing the rules" and "favoritism."

In one former job when I was on active duty, I had a young woman, a staff sergeant, working for me who had three exquisitely beautiful daughters and a sorry, layabout husband.

She was a top-notch troop, conscientious, ingenious, always learning, always doing a bit more than asked, smart as a whip, ready to come in any time necessary, never watched the clock.

However, her husband had the habit on weekends of taking the car on Saturday and not coming back home until some time Monday. That left her scrambling on some mornings and not always getting to work right on time. But as I said, she never watched the clock at 4:30, and left late a lot more often than she came late.

So, yeah, I failed to enforce the rule of the 0700 start time and generally "didn't take official notice" when she got in a bit late on those mornings, although it was a subject of our periodic one-on-one counseling sessions. She admitted she had married a "bad boy" because seemed exciting and fun, and that had turned out to be a mistake, because he wasn't adapting as a "military spouse" at all.

One of those mornings was the morning she was scheduled to take her promotion exam. She got there late and, of course, the door was locked. The test proctor called me to let me know. I told him that it was my fault, I'd given her bad information and asked him for a reschedule.

He was livid and threatened to tell my supervisor. I told him, "Whatever you have to do. It's on me. Just let her have a reschedule."

So, was that favoritism? If you say so.

Your have an opinion. It's wrong. But, you clearly didn't really want a response from me. So, I won't waste any more time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,138
20,184
US
✟1,441,583.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your have an opinion. It's wrong. But, you clearly didn't really want a response from me. So, I won't waste any more time.

Well, you could describe how your experiences as a manager of people have been different and how that's worked out better for you.
 
Upvote 0