Does Following Jesus Equal Following Rules?

One of the most important questions a Christian could ask is 'what does it mean to follow Christ?' As the object of our faith, it is essential we work out what it means to devote our lives to him. Recently, I attended a church meeting where the sermon offered the view that following Jesus is not the same as adhering to a set of rules as is commonly thought, but is primarily focused on encouraging a relationship with God. However, I think this argument has created a false dichotomy, for it attempts to portray following Jesus as either consisting of rules and regulations or a loving bond of fellowship. I will argue the two are heavily intertwined in bringing the believer to God, with both being synonymous in the enterprise of union with Christ.

The sermon was advertised as advancing the following position:

'This one will see us tackle one of the BIGGEST myths about faith in God - that following Jesus is the same as following a bunch of stupid rules.'

According to the preacher, following Jesus is about having a relationship of love and devotion with him. This happens through a 'life of grace', which God has offered to us by sacrificing Jesus on the cross to pay for our sins. This in turn allows us to embrace a loving relationship with him. But to love someone means you do things for them because you want to do them. We as Christians are expected to 'change our lives' because we want to follow the Lord's commands. For as Jesus himself says, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching'. (John 14:23) This relationship will be founded on the two greatest commandments, summarised as loving God and your fellow man. This results in a 'changed life', where one follows God's commands not out of fear but out of love. Therefore, following Jesus isn't just about obeying commands, but is primarily a relationship with the divine. The argument of the sermon that a relationship with God is key to following Christ, not the rules and regulations you find in the Bible.

I agree that fundamentally that the essence of Christianity is not an assent to a set of propositions nor a set of moral codes, but is a full commitment and devotion, with one's heart and soul virtually consumed by a deep reverence and love of God. As the Jewish philosopher Maimonides wrote:

'What is proper love of God? It is the love of the Lord with a great and very strong love so that one's soul shall be tied to the love of the Lord, and one should be continually enraptured by it, like a lovesick individual.'

The question we need to ask is by what means do we achieve this state of mind? Belief in God may be obtained by compelling arguments and credible evidence, but love of God cannot be planted in the heart by the methodological rules of knowledge acquisition. One cannot force themselves to bare certain sentiments? So how can we build a relationship of love with God?

The sagacious Hillel hinted at the answer who, as the famous story goes, was approached by someone demanding to be taught the whole Law while standing on one foot. Hillel agreed and told the man in one sentence, 'Whatever is hateful to you do not do it to your fellow human.' Hillel's fascinating precis of the Law raises many issues. One of them is in Leviticus 19:18, 'You all love your fellow human as yourself.' Why did he change the wording of the scriptures? Hillel realised that one cannot be commanded to have certain sentiments; I could be ordered to act or refrain from doing something, but I cannot be ordered to love someone I happen to dislike. Therefore, to love God and thus build a relationship with him, we have to begin with the behaviour that is always associated with such a sentiment, which is embodied in the eternal rules and regulations of the Old and New Testaments. For desirable behaviour is assumed to generate desirable feelings.

The twelfth-century poet-philosopher Judah Halevi was quite explicit on this point, 'Man can reach God only by doing His commands.' (Cuzari 2:46). Good thoughts, intentions and even prayers can be too fleeting and insubstantial on their own, whereas physical acts are concrete; when one has trained oneself to act in accordance with the rules and regulations of Christianity and actual behaviour closely resembles of those who truly possess love of God, then one has provided proper grounds on which fervent fellowship with Jesus may grow. This theory may be compared with what is called today 'Behaviour Modification'. This therapy induces feelings through adopting certain patterns of behaviour. On the more extreme end of this view it is not merely possible but essential to try to fulfil the relevant rules and regulations set out by Jesus to achieve a genuine relationship with God. Thus, to argue that following Jesus is either attempting to uphold rules or having a  relationship is a false dichotomy, for to create sentiments of love and exaltation for Jesus, one must try to exhibit the behaviour associated with such emotions to allow them to flourish, encapsulated in the laws set out by God. Therefore, whilst the main principle of the sermon that to follow Christ is to engage in a relationship with him is correct, to separate this from the ethical and moral system of commands, orders and rules of the bible is to undermine the formers enterprise, and thus endangering a relationship with God.

I think in essence the preacher at hand and I agree on a lot. She affirmed the position that we should follow Jesus by loving him and loving our neighbours. Moreover, she would also accept that to love God requires a devotion and trust in his word, which entails acting in a way that pleases him. However, to claim that following Jesus is having a relationship with God and not following 'a bunch of stupid rules' misses the point entirely: the former requires the latter to flourish. The two are intertwined, they harmonise together. This alone would explain why God bothered to inspire books such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus: if the two greatest commands told by Jesus are all there is to following him, we would not need such texts to inform us of eternal rules and regulations which we can follow to help us build a platform where love and similar sentiments can grow. Having a relationship with Christ is embodied in the commands and teachings of the bible.

To conclude, this article is not a contumacious jibe at a sermon out of pride, jealousy or any other vice. Rather, I have written this article because I strongly believe a clarification of the truth, which must be a primary factor in any discussion, was required after that sermon, despite the risk of undermining the positive effects it may have had. The attempts to present the view that following Jesus is following rules and regulations as at odds with the idea that being a Christian is foremost a relationship with God is false. Rather, the commands we are given allow us to perform behaviour which provides a foundation for which the sentiments required for a meaningful relationship can be built. Thus, to follow Jesus is to both have a relationship with God and follow rules and regulations, for the two are integral parts of the same enterprise.

Bibliography
Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Teshuvah
Shabbat 31b
A Central Theistic Argument George Schlesinger