Rules are easy. As long as you deal with absolutes. In matters of law... there's to much grey area. Not so easy.
Here's some interesting thoughts from Sphere of Hip-Hop in an article by Sintax the Terrific:
"Man can't know whether or not he is moral without the definition of what constitutes 'bad' and 'good' behavior, as provided in 'law.'... Christ, during His lifetime, explained dramatically, that the law is far more nuanced than we tend to perceive it. For example, laboring on the Sabbath. Christ made it clear that such a prohibition was nonsensical in application when it had the effect of denying assistance to a neighbor in need..."
The idea is that it is far to easy to look at the law and follow it strictly as to avoid the grey area, meanwhile we defeat the whole purpose of the law itself by failing to understand why the law even exists.
Sintax continues: "God's law is as much about conviction as it is about behavior... the rigors of 'Law' expose man's need for God because they are unattainable."
If the "law" is impossible to follow, how can I say that rules are easy? Sintax explains:
"Adherence to the strict letter of a rule, which dictates one behavior for all circumstance, is substantially easier than relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Godly wisdom to make a particularized application of a rule in varied situations... It is less difficult to refrain from drinking alcohol altogether than to drink sometimes but be accountable for assessing when you have consumed in excess or, even more subtle, when your drinking has negatively impacted another person.... It is less difficult to prohibit the purchase of guns than to teach people not to kill. It is less difficult to criminalize abortion than to teach people how to cherish life or to avoid unwanted pregnancy altogether."
Ooh, he mentioned the "A" word. Aside from my opinion that Roe vs. Wade was a horrible legal decision (a completely different conversation and one I'm probably not the most qualified to argue) and the moral differences between the pro-life and pro-choice philosophies, Sintax makes a statement I find intriguing. It's a thought I've never pondered - one worth consideration for those who oppose abortion.
"I have yearned for a reversal of Roe v. Wade/Casey v. Planned Parenthood, almost to the exclusion of all variety of other virtuous causes. I want a New Law to govern the issue. I want to require people not to have abortions. Unfortunately, I have been comparatively less interested in helping people choose not to have abortions or avoid having to choose in the first instance. It's simply been easier to hope for a ban of the activity altogether. I think my new dream is for Roe to remain. For the legal barriers to abortion to fall completely. For the doors of the clinics to be flung as wide as the hinge of law would allow. And, yet for the operating table to remain empty. And, for the clinics to stand quiet."
What would be easier? Outlaw abortion all together or let the law stand and devote our attention to teaching the value of life. What would be easier? To tell a woman that she can't have an abortion, or convince her why she shouldn't.
I think subconsciously, I have always understood this concept. During my classes, I teach all of the rules and regulations of our company and our business. I show all of the black and white of our products, services, and pricing. But once my classes graduate and start talking to customers, all of those rules turn to grey. I can't tell my students what to do except to use common sense and discretion.
What are we as Christians to do when life gives us grey? Search for Godly wisdom.
You can read Sintax the Terrific's article in its entirety @ New Law.