What Constitutes a Good Rule?
There is one lawgiver and judge. No man can make an act inherently immoral. A rule could be made against wearing blue socks, but such a rule cannot make the act itself morally wrong. A rule about stealing blue socks is quite a different thing, since the act itself is wrong. Think of this as a venn diagram. Circle A is the law of God and circle B is the current rule under consideration. The rule is bad to whatever extent circle B hangs outside circle A. This is one of the things that made prohibition such a bad law. While the problem of rampant drunkenness was clearly inside both circles, the law of prohibition made a rule against what was not inherently immoral.
Aquinas engages this idea, citing natural law:
Every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law. Hence it is that in the De Libero Arbitrio Augustine says: “That law which is not just, seems to be no law at all…” In so far as it partakes of right reason it is called law; but in so far as it deviates from reason it is called an unjust law. In such case it does not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, on account of which a man should even yield his right…
Inasmuch as the church ought to be a good guide to the people, to teach them to conform themselves to the law of God, it must be inherently moral or logically procedural to a moral principle.
Jesus did not advocate or practice adherence to all rules. He often deliberately and pointedly disobeyed the pharisee’s rules about the sabbath.
What this excludes is fiat law. Rules that are rules “because I said so”.
Here is a rule of thumb: Might a godly person violate this rule if they were unaware of it? If the answer is yes, it’s probably a bad rule.
Law Should Arise From What Is Already Done
The architect Christopher Alexander recommended leaving buildings without paths for a time, until people wore their own paths in the grass from walking them regularly. Paths created along these routes take uncountable factors into consideration, inherently conforming to human inclination. Planned rectilinear paths, while arguably more orderly, create a subtle tension with human nature.
Similarly, when the Normans conquered and began to unify the disparate regions of England, the king sent traveling justices to hear local disputes. In each area, these royal judges consulted local magistrates and community leaders about customary practices for resolving particular cases. Their decisions were recorded and sent back to the royal courts, where recurring patterns were recognized and reinforced as common law. Like the paths, these laws were not imposed from above, but emerged from existing practice.
The consideration of what is commonly done must extend beyond the immediate context to a range of time and location. To pick on prohibition again, people have been consuming alcohol since the events in Genesis, and it is done both by members of the most isolated tribes and the leaders of the global superpowers. To ban such a thing, however well intentioned, was arrogant and reckless. It failed to take into account that this is the common practice of mankind – closely tied to human nature.
To legislate against a common practice, even a bad one, usually has bad consequences. Most relevant for this discussion is the fact that it tends to stir up disrespect for law and anger and disdain for law makers and enforcers. This happens because aspects of human nature have not been accounted for. A blunt instrument has been used on a delicate problem.
Rules Should Be Followable
Policies and rules ought to be written with the expectation that they are to be followed and not with such vague language that it is virtually impossible to be completely certain that one is adhering to the policy completely. I remember a line from the Andy Griffith Show that I heard as a kid: “But now if you went strictly by the book, why I don’t reckon we’d have anything in this country but 180 million jailbirds.” I was horrified by this as a kid and I continue to be horrified by it now – the idea that laws are written so that people are practically inescapably in violation and they remain free from punishment merely by the present benevolence of the authorities. Good rules ought to allow for acquittal as easily as for guilt.
Related to this, policies must be simple, short, and understandable. They should be written to be understood by the people who are supposed to follow them. Church documents are not something for outsiders. They help ordinary church people know what to do and are usually most relevant during times of conflict.