relationDips: rules of engagement (culinary)

Anarchists feel that rules are like prison bars, so do rebellious teenagers. There is something of the rebel in all of us: it's human nature. However, most of us learn to accept rules and acknowledge that, paradoxically, although they do impose restrictions, they also provide freedom.

For example, I feel safe and free when I drive because of the road rules, and my faith that the majority of my fellow motorists know the rules and obey them. We all bend these rules to some extent, but generally we acquiesce to the order they impose.

Relationships require rules. They may seldom be called rules, and are often spoken negotiated agreements rather than codified laws, but they are invariably established within all relationships. Sometimes, they just happen as in one person's reaction to the other's breach of an unspoken rule which results in an apology and a promise to "never do that again". At other times, they are more purposefully constructed. A person entering a second marriage will want to discuss the issues which contributed to the demise of their first marriage in an effort to make sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

My wife and I discussed big issues like money, sex and parenting before we married. It was the second time around for both of us and we each wanted to ensure that we understood the other's expectations. An early obstacle for us was religion. I'm a protestant Christian and she is a Roman Catholic Christian. Despite our mutual faith in Christ, we had to deal with the matter of church rules versus the teaching of the Bible. We agreed to be tolerant, and not to force each other. We agreed to disagree about somethings. For example, the Catholic rule which prevents my devoted wife from ever taking communion because she is a divorcee. I strongly disagree with this church rule, but I respect my wife's right to accept it. This has become a "rule" in our relationship which we both understand and adhere to, and within which we are free and feel safe. She knows I will not go on about it, nor criticize her or force her to do something about it.

Another catholic church rule which is not Biblical is abstaining from meat on Fridays. I understand this is a mark of respect for Christ who was crucified on a Friday. However, my understanding of the Bible is that we are free to eat whatever we want to, whenever we want to. Peter's vision is instructive, but Paul adds some words about food in relation to respecting other people which also need to be taken into consideration.

In the continued search for more common ground, I decided to not eat meat on Fridays. It makes very little difference to me. Even though I eat meat almost everyday, I considered it an inconsequential sacrifice. My wife was overjoyed at this simple gesture. It is now something we do together to demonstrate our mutual faith in Christ, and to show respect to our Saviour and to each other. By doing this, I am being respectful rather than just talking about being respectful.

I eat well and regularly. My example has influenced her to not skip meals. I used to eat sandwiches and drink Coke everyday. Under her gentle influence, I have reduced my Coke consumption by half and dropped one of my lunch time sandwiches for a hot meal. Some of these changes were negotiated and others have just happened as result of the time we have spent together, positively impacting on each other's lives.

My wife once told me that she didn't like rules. At the time, I challenged her about this, but have since accepted it is not true, not as a blanket statement anyway. I don't go on about it. This is another example of one of our rules, but we don't need to be explicit about its existence. A good set of rules should just operate in the background, underpinning the relationship.

To finish I return to Paul's words:

Romans 14:3 "The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not everything must not judge the one who does, for God accepts both."

I  think this is an excellent culinary rule for healthy relationships, and by extension an admirable goal for relationships in general. What say you?

Celebrate the Small Things: Rules

Despite my aversion to Chinese take-away food, I placed an order with Happy Garden, and fifteen minutes after my call, I strolled down the road to collect my dinner. It is a short, and typically uneventful journey, which I have made on numerous occasions.

As I left home, I heard my second least favourite suburban sound: a leaf blower. (Why can't people just use a broom?) When I turned the corner, I saw the offending contraption being wielded by a neighbour. He was operating on the same side of the road on which I was walking. Blowing leaves and twigs from his driveway and the section of footpath which stretched across in front of his property. I came closer, he saw me, but continued his two-stroke puffing. On the assumption that he would cease his labour momentarily to allow me to pass, I continued. I even caught his eye, and nodded in the laconic masculine way we Aussie blokes acknowledge strangers.

When he didn't stop, I deviated off the footpath on to the road and

received a faceful of dust. Blinking furiously to clear the offending detritus, I was unaware of the man's dog running towards me. I only realized it was there when it jumped on me and began humping my leg. I turned to the owner who turned away, and when the dog was finished, it too, left me alone, and both returned to the private space behind the automatic gate which was closing.

I reckon this man broke a number of social rules; the worst of which was not apologizing. Thankful for the fact that none of the stuff he blew in my face damaged my eyes, and neither did his overly friendly dog do me any harm, I simply reflected on the fact the world is a better place when people are considerate of other people.

Don't Tell me What to do

The flight attendant made the announcement as the plane touched down at the airport and began its taxi to the terminal. "Please remain in your seats with your safety belts fastened until the plane comes to a complete stop," she said. As soon as she had finished speaking, half a dozen people unclicked their seatbelts, stood up and began to gather their belongings from the overhead storage compartments.

The lifeguard blew his whistle three times, pointing and gesturing to a group of people, children and adults, who were swimming outside the flags at the beach. Because they ignored him, he was forced to move closer to the water and repeat his warnings. Shortly after, this group finally heeded the lifeguard and left the water. At the same time, another smaller group entered the ocean and began swimming outside the flags.

People still get booked for speeding, not wearing seatbelts and drink driving. These rules are designed for our protection, but some people apparently don't want to be protected. Some people think that only they know what is best for them. "Don't tell me what to do, " they say. "Don't tell me what's best for me. I'll be the judge of that."

God's "rules" are for our protection and benefit but most of us think that we know better than God. Pride is a huge obstacle to salvation, and rebellion is seated deep in the hearts of us all.

More Rules Please

Plainly, I am unable to function as a productive member of a peaceful society without rules. If I didn't have the framework of legislation within which to operate I would be a menace to the community and to myself. I don't have the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong. I don't have the skills to exercise common sense nor do I have the power to make good choices, without rules. I need to be told how to behave because I don't know. I'm a hopeless case, a basket case. But I am not the only one. You are guilty as well. Don't cry innocent. Innocence is only found in babies whose parents quickly dilute it, not because they are abusive or even negligent but because that is the way of the world. We are all guilty and hopeless and lost. Ouch!

If we are not all as I say we are, then why do we need rules? What is the purpose of the law? Why do we need laws against murder? Against theft? This is not the place for a discussion of crime and punishment, nor is there any scope for a full discussion of human nature. Gazillions of word have been written and spoken on these subjects by people who are experts, unlike me. My point is that we do need rules and regulations for all sorts of activities. I want a law that says people should not drink and drive because that behavior is dangerous and should be discouraged by all available means including heavy legislated penalties. I want a law that says my property is not to be taken by another person without my permission. I want a law that discourages an otherwise sane man from violently attacking me because I glanced at his wife for two seconds too long. Some laws are good, and generally rules are also good but...

You could feel the but coming for a while couldn't you? But do I need a law that threatens me with a $3000 fine if I don't tell the Environment Department that I disposed of my pet frogs? If the answer is yes, then I also want the following:

A law that forces people with garages to park their cars in them overnight. I'd also like a law which prohibits the leaving of dirty socks on the floor. What about one that bans opera music? How about some legislation to compel politicians to answer questions directly? I could go on forever but I want to suggest one final law that is essential, critical even; a minimum of one in every one hundred people should be forced, under threat of punishment (although deprivation is surely punishment enough), to read the Cairns Experience - and buy Devolution: the novel.

What laws would you like to see enacted for the benefit of mankind, or just yourself? Comment below.

Honour Among Thieves

What was truly frightening about the Godfather, and the many gangster films which followed it, was the fact the mafia did not believe society's laws applied to them. Using extortion, intimidation, and extreme violence they said, 'we will do what we want to do.'

They were not a lawless group of people however. They merely adhered to their own laws and their own standards. They had their own morality regardless of its legality. The argument goes, just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. A whole book could be written on the immoral acts of history which were legal. Of course the judgement on what was immoral would be the author's point of view. Does that mean, therefore, that morals are only a matter of opinion? Who sets the standard?

All the social problems and crimes which occur in our world result from different standards; standards which do not measure up to the ultimate standard of goodness.

How many arguments, how many actions have been perpetrated by people believing their behaviour was okay or justified in the circumstances? In one family swearing and drunkenness is acceptable, in another it is not. Punching a man is okay if he throws the first punch. Working for cash to avoid tax is acceptable to many while others feel it is dishonest. These are examples of relative morality and relative morality is a conflict causing plague in society and in the world.

Surely the basis for society's morals must be an absolute standard. Surely it must be God's revelation of his Character and His will for us which is in the Bible. Even those who feel certain laws don't apply to them, like the mafia will be judged in the end by their Maker. Who can decide what is truly good apart from one who is perfect?