“Be not addicted.” It was some of the most important counsel given by the founder of the Community of Christ. Over time however, the descendants of the movement laid down additional rules and regulations. Instead of “be not addicted”, some things took on a “you shall do this” or “you shall not do that”. One of the “shall nots” required ordained ministers to abstain from alcohol and tobacco.
Over time, other “shall nots” occurred in the life of the church. For instance, a dancing prohibition kept life rather dull at the church university for decades. Apparently the donor of land for the main campus considered dancing a vice or some form of problem behavior. Who knows specifically why, but in gifting the land for the main campus in the 1800s, the donor stipulated there was never – ever – to be any dancing on the property. My guess is that the person thought dancing led to a host of other evils. Christians also suspected that other activities turned people to the dark side including card playing, going to movies, gambling, watching TV, wearing certain clothing and the list goes on.
In terms of dancing, the leadership of the university finally saw the light one day. Why? Well, significant numbers of students during the 1960s left campus on weekends to go dancing. Unfortunately some car accidents happened. Ultimately the incidents persuaded leadership to allow dancing on campus. So in 1968, with the help of “The Morticians” band, the university held its first dance on school property. Guess what? There’s been dancing ever since! And it certainly appears that no one’s been the worse off. The world didn’t fly apart nor did droves of students head to hell in hand baskets – at least that we know of.
We humans have penchant for codifying and regulating almost anything we lay our hands on. Put another way, it’s hard for us to live by a guiding principle and so we reduce that principle to a list of rules and regulations, i.e. things you “shall do” and “shall not do”. Legalism of that sort loses sight of what’s truly important. With it, we close off to new possibilities or enlightenment that science or other resources can offer. And then quite easily, we become other people’s judges and issue rulings over their worth as servants and children of God. For persons with needs to control others, it’s a role they relish. They love to go after people with their moral machetes and cut a swath of righteousness as wide as possible.
Well it seems that some things never change. Many centuries ago teachers and students of the law -- known as scribes -- lit out after Jesus. Rather aggressively they pursue him with their moral machetes. They question him. They put him to the test. For he and his followers fail to play by the existing rules. So they seek to entrap him and force him to religious court. Now you should know that scribes could have been almost any male in Jesus time. They could have been priests but more often than not they were business people, artists, even brick layers. They were individuals who completed rigorous training often consuming years between the ages of 14 to 40. Upon completion of their training, these individuals could become rabbis and many did. They were a highly esteemed class of laypersons much like well-trained lay leader-ministers today.
In this particular Bible story from Mark, we find the scribes arguing with Jesus who they consider a popular but young upstart. After all, he’s only in his early thirties. Yet, Jesus turns the world of scribal legalism inside out and upside down. So they are out to get him for rocking the boat. Joining the conversation briefly is a scribe however from another school of thought, i.e. the school of a famous rabbi (Hillel) who advocates guiding principles rather than legalism. The scribe from that school exhibits no interest in the legal gymnastics of the scribes trying to trap Jesus in some error. No, the scribe of the guiding principle simply asks one question, “Which commandment is first of all.” To which Jesus replies that one must love God with all one’s heart, mind, mind and soul. Jesus then adds the second commandment which that one must love one’s neighbor like one’s self. Jesus ends his remarks saying there are no greater commandments than these.
I can’t speak for you, but for me, those two commandments cover a whole lot of living. And it seemed that way as well for the scribe oriented to guiding principles. For in his response to Jesus, he said that the commandments Jesus cited were indeed more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices or basically anything else anyone did to absolve themselves of sin through rules, regulations, and codes of the religious law. Impressed with the man’s wisdom and view of life, Jesus tells the scribe, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.”
In today’s culture and society, I think that people of faith would be taken far more seriously if we moved to a space and place of advocating guiding principles. If we did this rather than trying to codify personal conduct related to issues we may not completely understand -- or for which we have closed ourselves off to new understanding -- there might be a greater respect for us.
For instance, medical science knows that consuming alcohol in moderation does not constitute addiction. Plenty of scientific evidence suggests it may even be healthful. At the other end of the spectrum, if you are someone who struggles with the disease of alcoholism, you know that your well-being literally depends on abstinence and recovery from alcoholism. You also know that the well-being of your relationships with others depends on that abstinence and recovery. And this dynamic is true whether your addiction or compulsion is your job, pornography, over-eating, sex, drugs, coffee, shopping, cutting on yourself, your cell phone, internet role-playing, or even excessive exercising. So “be not addicted” as a guiding principle makes a great deal of sense rather than trying to codify rules and regulations for each new addiction and compulsion we discover. And my guess is that a church trying to institutionalize rules and regulations for every addiction will in time find that it has few followers. So rather than obsessively target one or two things, it makes greater sense to live by a guiding principle and then trust people to manage the rest on their own.
Another means however that religious authorities use to invoke people’s abstinence or regulate personal conduct is through the notion that followers should never do anything that weakens or disillusions someone’s faith. I’m certainly sensitive and appreciative of that argument. I would certainly hope that no one sits down and drinks a beer in front of someone into their second day or second week or second month of recovery. Such a thing would be the height of insensitivity. It would be enabling and possibly contributing to a relapse. In short, it’s sinful.
But there’s another side to this argument as well, which is that anyone who’s well along into their recovery knows one simple truth. You can’t control for every situation you may encounter. Ultimately a person must take responsibility for one’s disease, even if that means at a banquet of faith leaders you drink a soda rather than wine that’s offered. It’s up to you and your recovery not to fall to pieces and guzzle down whatever sauce you get your hands on.
Also on this notion of not disillusioning someone’s faith is something few people of faith consider. So let’s talk about an official stand invoking total abstinence from something in order to ensure there’s never – ever -- a risk of addiction. More than once when trying to interest people in the church, I have found persons growing disillusioned with the church because of its stand on something. I have met with responses of, “Sorry Brad, I didn’t know you church believed that way about gays.” Or I might hear something else like, “I didn’t know that your church demonizes having a glass of wine. I don’t have time for a church like that.” So what’s to be said about contributing to that form of disillusionment?
Again, I think a simple guiding principle like “be not addicted” would have been helpful to those individuals. When you stop and think about it, complete abstinence from an addiction or compulsion may not be possible. Does one say to the workaholic, “Sorry, you simply cannot go to work anymore.” Does one say to the shopaholic, “Sorry, you can’t ever go into a store again?” Does one say to the sexaholic, “Sorry you can never have sex again?” or to the foodaholic, “Sorry no more meals for you?” Of course not!
Now we do need to accommodate the fact that for some traditions, cultures, and countries certain things are taboo. For me, I believe it is crucial to respect where people are at on various issues. Use of alcohol, for instance, is simply forbidden in Islam and in many places in Africa and India. At that same time however, there are nations and cultures where alcohol in moderation is an everyday part of life. This is true in many European countries. In those places, it’s appropriate to respect the fabric of their lives too.
So add your thoughts to the discussion. Does the approach of a guiding principle make sense to you? Or should faith communities codify rules and regulations for everything?