I really appreciated this article. It’s all too easy to apply Jesus’ words against certain of the religious leaders of His day in slapdash fashion to those who we think are “too legalistic” or “too rigid” about this or that point. But someone who insists on using administrative clout to achieve this or that result is hardly being less “legalistic” than someone who insists that the rule should only be changed when its purpose has been properly understood, and the consequences accounted for; and someone who thinks that what stands in the way of the work of God is “the rules” is probably not understanding either “the rules” or the work of God very well.
None of which excuses us when we insist that people conform to standards that privilege our strengths and conceal our sins–whitewashed sepulchers that we all may be!
Activists are impatient with rules. They have plans and they want results! If their plan of action is stymied by existing law, their first instinct is to cast the law aside– especially if they cannot see why the law is necessary. But if they do not understand the purpose of the law, that does not mean that the law has no purpose. Quite possibly the legislator understood something that the activist has not yet grasped. It’s even possible that the law was written after the failure of a plan like the one the activist now has in mind.
Obviously there are times when a law should be amended, or abolished, or even defied. But before setting the law aside, one should understand why it was written, and what are the likely consequences of changing it. Church law, developed and refined over the centuries, represents a storehouse of wisdom about human nature and human frailty. The canons are there for a reason. Should some canons be changed? No doubt. But they should not be ignored.
(source: In defense of the ‘doctors of the law’)