A friend of mine just posted an interesting list of definitions by John Piper on a variety of topics. He linked to the online sermon or article from which the definition was taken, and gave a summary of the definition.
One of those definitions was legalism. Let me give Piper’s definition here.
(1) Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor. . . .(2): The erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church; This is where unbiblical exclusivism arises.
I think this is an excellent definition, but of course not everyone will be happy with it. Someone commented on the original post about this definition, taking issue with it. As I typed an answer to it, I thought maybe my answer could serve as a post here. His basic objection was to the first part of Piper’s answer. Why shouldn’t people treat biblical standards of conduct as personal regulations? Why is it that such actions are construed as legalism or as “earning favor with God”?
Here then is my answer, minus a few introductory statements:
Chris…. you bring up some valid points. But look at Piper’s definition a little more closely: “Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor.” Piper has many personal rules of conduct that he keeps out of a desire to please God. He does so from love for God, not a sense of rigorous duty. What’s important I think is “by our own power” . For years I was in a system that taught us to “just do it” . If we were really serious about God we would keep these rules and regulations, most of which went way beyond what was spelled out in Scripture. It was hard to toe the line, and we were encouraged to have character and resolve. Yes we were told to depend on the spirit, but the emphasis was on personal effort.
In keeping those rules we felt that we were truly obeying God. And when we saw others who didn’t keep those same rules, part of us, deep inside, thought we were better than them. We felt we were in a sense earning status with God. Our group was more serious about God then other groups. Why? Because we did this, and that. The emphasis was on us. And we didn’t truly have a perspective of God’s grace and a genuine love for all the brothers and sisters we have in Christ.
This is what Piper is arguing against. And while I often bristled against the term “legalism” too. After I came out of the system and thought more objectively, I realized that legalism really did fit. The focus was externals. Not that those aren’t important, but the very nature of the environment we were in promoted the idea of making sure we look good to others by keeping the community’s rules. Since we judged each other on externals so much, and since externals were harped on in the pulpit so often, it became natural to think this way. We were all, to one degree or another, earning favor and status with God. Yes the Gospel was preached but it was presented as a thing to accept mentally and assent to once, and after that you pay God back, in a sense, by keeping His rules. It was not really presented as something you can live by.
What is missing is that in our own strength we are sure to fall. The rules are hard. And when that was acknowledged we were encouraged to vow to do better, to clench our teeth and determine not to give up, to go forward and recommit ourselves to God during the public invitation. To seek accountability and force ourselves to do it. Often manipulative, human-oriented schemes were used to try to belittle those who didn’t persevere. It was a method to try to encourage them to keep on keeping on. In all of this a focus on Christ was lost. The Gospel is all about the fact we can’t keep God’s rules. We need help. And we have a glorious Savior. From the love He’s given me, and in light of the glorious grace of God giving me what I do not deserve, I can have a Spirit-wrought desire to please Him. With that motivation, the rules of what I do or don’t do, are not burdensome. They don’t even really matter. What matters is my love for Jesus and desire to please Him. If I fall, I know I have an advocate, and I am saddened since I displease Him. And I’m again amazed that He picks me up and helps me keep going.
I hope you can see how this “legalism” can be harmful. It can take our focus off of Christ and onto ourselves. And the 2nd kind of legalism points us to our neighbors. We assess whether they are qualified for me to even consider them part of our church. This is doubly harmful because the standards we’re measuring them by are not even entirely Biblical. They are more often a particular application of a Biblical principle.
I hope this helps explain where we are coming from. Terms like this are inflammatory I know. There’s not much we can do about that. But if you see where our objection is to this kind of thing, maybe it helps you understand why we label it “legalism” and why we are against it.
I’d encourage you to check out C.J. Mahaney’s book The Cross-Centered Life, it has an excellent chapter on legalism.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
To follow up, the commenter had a gracious response, and I in no way mean to imply that he doesn’t have a valid point. Feel free to go to the original post and read our full exchange.
Deliverance from double mindedness comes to mind as i read this…..If the Blood of Jesus is truly enough…and we believe it to be….we can do nothing less than love each other; encourage each other; pray for each other; as we are changed day by day by the power of the Holy Spirit, who will never leave us or forsake us on this journey called life. Along the way true love would call us to uphold the Light of the Word as a lamp for our feet and the feet of those who walk with us.
Thank you Bob…your light shines brightly and points the way to wisdom.
Amen, Nancy. Thanks.
There are two kinds of legalism. Both of them are flesh. The right wing legalist racks up merit points through multiplying practices. The left wing legalist reduces the practices to a number he can keep. I believe the latter legalism is much more prevalent in our culture, where we have turned the grace of God into lasciviousness. Grace is a get-out-of-jail-free card to slap down on fleshly lust. The Pharisees asked Jesus what the greatest of the laws was so that they could get it down to a manageable number. Today the way it works with left-wing legalists is that they feel guilty for not keeping biblical principles that they can’t keep because they are living in the flesh (like a right wing legalist), so they just reduce them to a number they can keep in the flesh. Either way it’s flesh. They wouldn’t be burdened by keeping biblical principles if they did it out of love (1 John 5:3), i.e., walking in the Spirit and manifesting fruit of the Spirit.
Love doesn’t reduce what it can do for God. It wants to do more and more for God. It wants to stay further away from sin to please Him. Paul said that we can’t reduce the Christian life to what is just wrong and right. It may be lawful, but it may not be expedient. It may be lawful but it might not edify. A church and the pastor can set rules to guide the liberties of a church. Paul commanded, Be ye followers (imitators) of me.
“Legalism” is a word essentially and mainly thrown at people to the right of them as a nasty pejorative. When I read Piper’s definition, that isn’t attached to any kind of historic or dictionary meaning. He is slapping on what he wants the word to mean and then using it as a way to make people that are to the right of him feel guilty for applying Biblical principles.
His number two doesn’t even relate with his number one. Both parts couldn’t be defining the same thing. Number one is correct. Number two is ambiguous. He writes: “beyond the teaching of Scripture.” What is “beyond the teaching of Scripture?” “Don’t smoke a crack pipe” is beyond the teaching of Scripture if we are limited by the specific words of Scripture. The left wing church member is empowered by Piper’s ironically non-scriptural definition to refuse to follow biblical principle because he doesn’t like it. In so doing, he actually becomes factious, which is a violation of Scripture. To be a scriptural church, according to the part two of the definition, the church is required to avoid being legalistic to cow-tow to the lowest common denominator of the church.
Then when you write your comment to “Chris,” “This is doubly harmful because the standards we’re measuring them by are not even entirely Biblical. They are more often a particular application of a Biblical principle.” You load this statement with qualifiers, “entirely, “more often,” and “particular.” This issue is easier than you make it. The Bible doesn’t lend itself toward profane, worldly, and lascivious living. Church standards, which every church has, can be lived out of love for God as long as they are not UNscriptural. If they are OK to do, then they should be done. It’s like laws set by our government, God’s ministers for good. We may not like to wear our seat belt or obey the speed limit, but we can do it because it isn’t UNscriptural.
Kent says John Piper’s second definition of a legalist is ambiguous, and he’s right because it describes a phenomenon among legalists that is itself inherently ambiguous.
Separatism is at the heart of modern fundamentalism and Bob painted a good picture of the psychology of how this separatistic spirit gets directed toward brethren who don’t perform as expected.
To claim the right to set a bunch of house rules in the name of “applying biblical principles” and imitating the pastor is indicative of such legalism. If one doesn’t perform as expected, he’s silently marginalized. This marginalization happens unintentionally, and those who do the marginalizing rationalize it in pious ways, so they don’t see it, although it’s perfectly clear to impartial third parties and often the poor, marginalized believer who didn’t perform for whatever reason.
The definition is ambiguous because the phenomenon is ambiguous. It’s the kind of thing legalists tend to deny happens until it happens to them.
Very, very well put, Bob.
I myself was trained in the worst school of fundamentalist legalism known to Christianity, which is Ruckmanism. Since then, God has graciously guided me away from this extremism and into a slightly more “balanced” wing of separatist fundamentalism. However, in learning more of God and His grace, I’ve come to acknowledge that even this is full of legalism as well. If it was purely my choice, I would leave separatist fundamentalism altogether, but that’s a little harder said than done when you’re a missionary who’s support comes from separatist fundamentalist churches. In fact, I can assure you that most of these churches would stop their support if they knew of my desire to leave, because of course, they are separatists. That’s what separatists do.
I have no grudge against fundamentalism because I truly believe that most fundamentalist pastors and church members alike have a true desire to please God, but they are just so hopelessly confused and deceived as to how to do so.
What you said, Bob, about the mini-communities of legalism is so true. Keep up the good observations and constructive criticism.
The Anonymous Missionary
JD,
I think you know that lasciviousness is the rule of the day in this country. The biggest evangelical church in our area, one that just had a Ray Comfort speak on a Sun. AM (to give you the flavor), took in one of our disciplined members. What rule was she not following that resulted in church discipline? She invited a man, not her husband, into her bed, living in open adultery. While still living in adultery, she came to the evangelical church and they asked if she would like to get involved. She told them she was under discipline at our church for adultery. They said, “That’s OK!” This kind of thing is much more prevalent than the sinister “rules people” you’re talking about.
Certain rules I believe are entirely appropriate as an application of “flee fornication.” Paul made that point himself in 1 Corinthians 6-10. There is a huge discussion going on between “Pulpit Live” and “Gog and Mablog” right now over the use of smutty language and scatalogical speech in sermons. Nathan Busenitz wrote a lengthy article exposing hypocrisy of John Piper on the speech issue. (“I’m just the messenger, so don’t shoot me for reporting”).
Based on Piper’s “beyond Scripture,” we can’t even make a decision about filthy speech. We shouldn’t use “filthy speech,” but how can we make any application with this regards since it doesn’t specifically tell us what filthy speech is. This is where the “beyond Scripture” ambiguity breaks down. Things in culture do mean something and application must be made. Your postmodern approach to this leads to the emergent type of practices.
You didn’t answer my comment. I believe there are left-wing legalists that are more prevalent. I gave a Scriptural basis for it. In areas of liberty, Paul said “imitate me,” an imperative in Scripture. You attack that as legalism. People’s leadership, it’s true, will be hurt by being a stumbling block in meat-offered-unto-idols issues. They cause the problem though. It isn’t a church marginalizing them.
I’ve been away from the discussion. I’m not really surprised by the dissent here, I appreciate those who’ve said what I said resonated with them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course.
I think it is fine for churches to have rules of conduct and etc. But when they take those rules and judge other believers in other situations by them, or when they marginalize people in their church who don’t abide by all the rules or don’t do such rule-keeping well, this is where they step beyond the line into unBiblical exclusivism. Now of course Scripture has rules, and Paul says to imitate him as he imitates Christ. And there is pastoral and elder authority. I’m not denying that. I’m not saying a church should accept an adulterer into their midst either. If she’s repentant, however that’s another story. I know nothing about this so I can’t say one way or another. I do support church discipline and I think a church should contact the previous church if the member was disciplined out.
Legalism is both descriptive and perjorative. Perhaps another word is needed. But for many, like myself, when we wake up to the legalism we were a part of, we need to call it like it is. Even though we are blaming ourselves for part of it.
I think left-wing legalism could be valid. The legalism in Scripture was right-wing, and there is something about rule keeping which makes one enjoy the stricter and harder line. Especially when one can look down his nose at everyone else in the world.
Whether everyone who holds to such rules does this or not, the environment tends toward this. Unconsciously we view other Christians with different standards as unspiritual, backslidden, and the like. We can’t envision that they could really love God or really be serving him. We harbor ill-will toward them, and we think oursleves better than them. I don’t think we can ever engineer church environments to be entirely free of this kind of thing, but I think most would agree it is more common among the fundamentalistic, conservative wing of evangelicalism.
Kent,
Ditto Bob. Furthermore, I likewise don’t deny the biblical nature of proper imitation of one’s shepherds, it’s when the shepherds and peers expect imitation in areas not prescribed in Scripture that legalism begins to rear its head.
You guys never commented on the “language” issue that I think illustrates this situation perfectly.
We live in an age where nobody wants to feel guilty for anything. There is a loss of outrage over sin. I’m assuming there is wrong legalism all over the place right wing and left wing, but it is mainly left wing. Do we have liberty to have a foul mouth? And then justify it with Scripture?
JD,
You use the word “prescribed” in Scripture. Not everything that is unscriptural is expressly states. For instance, the word “effeminate” requires application, the “attire of a harlot” requires application, “filthy communication” requires application, “contentment” requires application, “be not conformed to this world” requires application, “abstain from fleshly lusts” requires application, “denying worldly lust” requires application, “strange apparel” requires application, and more.
We don’t just fold under uncertainty and assume that everyone with an alternative, personally preferred way to look at the Bible is being abused by legalism.
I’ve met guys who thought they were being abused by legalism and complaining about that, but, meanwhile, they are carrying on an internet affair or looking at internet porn, and their problem with the legalism of authority was really just a cover for their closet sin. Walking after their own lust, they speak evil of dignities.
Hey, Bob. I noticed that the discussion about legalism is going on here, too, and the comments are here are helpful, too. I don’t want to be nit picky, but I just wanted to clarify that my problem was not with Piper’s definition. I thought Piper made it very clear that legalism includes striving by our own power and trying to earn God’s grace. I was trying to say that often people make choices to do or not do something, not because they’re trying to earn God’s grace, but because they see in God’s Word instruction for avoiding sin. At times people see them as legalists rather than sincere Christians who are just walking the walk as they see it in God’s Word. It was actually Piper’s definition that affirmed to me that what I was talking about was really not legalism. It is so hard sometimes on blogs to say everything we mean in such a short space.
Anyway, thanks again for all your helpful clarification and insights.
Pastor Brandenburg,
Although I can’t prove it, I believe the absence of comment on your language example is because no one here is arguing for the use of corrupt speech, any more than they are arguing that liberty should include adultery, freedom from church discipline, smoking crack pipes, internet porn, or an internet affair.
As far as application is concerned, you are right that many things written in the Bible have to be applied. The problem comes in when the church (or a single pastor) believes that they have the right to determine the one true application for any scripture, and demand that everyone live by that application, as well as declaring that those outside that application (even those not members of that particular church) are sinning and outside the will of God. That is simply a denial of “priesthood of the believer” and another version of papal proclamation. I have heard sermons preached where it was said about a particular application that “Now you have heard the truth about this passage — any deviation from that application is sin.” And by this the speaker did not mean sin by disobeying them that have the rule over you or sin by causing strife and dissension in the church — it was obvious that sin directly against scripture and against God was meant. The other was only secondary.
While it is true that there can be particular rules and standards for members of a local church, it should be clear that those do not necessarily apply outside that church, and further it should be made clear where those rules are local application, not a direct scriptural command. I would also argue that like in Acts, a church should be placing “no greater burden” on people than that which is absolutely necessary. We should all be depending on Christ (not a string of regulations) to help us do right. When only the pastor has the right to make an application from what is written in scripture, why should we read it at all? — we can just depend on the pastor to tell us what it means and how we should live.
Thanks guys. I’ve been sick these last 2 days so I didn’t approve Anvil’s comment until now. I found a great article on this subject that I’ll post about soon.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
I believe the church makes the decision, the pillar and ground for the truth. The pastor has, and rightly so, a great influence in this area as I previously discussed. What the church enforces is God’s will. Priesthood is not just a privilege but also a responsibility. The priests couldn’t carry the ark anyway that they wanted or God would kill them. They couldn’t offer up whatever recipe of incense they wanted at the altar of incense.
Overall things are getting looser, less certain, more pagan, godless and worldly today than ever. Part of the reason is a phony legalism charge, resulting in far less discernment, personal demand for one’s rights.
Hi Kent,
I have a great respect for you and your positions. I have no doubt that they come from a deep and certain conviction about what the Scriptures say to you. Actually, we have some friends in common. I have worked with April and Manny Joseph for a few years, love them dearly, and know that they are close friends of yours.
That being said, I hope that God would never allow me to get to the point where I would say that you are “wrong” about your convictons. What I would like to ask you is where do you get your Biblical conviction of one pastor ruling over a local church. You stated that as “the pastor” you have a great influence in the doctrine of the local church. Does your church have a council of elders that, along with you, makes decisions concerning the doctrinal, evangelistical, and methodological decisions in your church. Just wondering. In my limited experience, the “one man” leadership of local churches has contributed to the rise of “legalism” in local fundamental Baptist churches. I think (and I could be wrong) that the NT Scriptures teach a plurality of elder leadership, which not only conforms to Scripture, but also to common sense. It may seem off topic but I think that the “one pastor” system has been the single most contributing factor to Iegalism, IFBx error, and extreme-ism.
Always open for correction,
In Christ…john smith
Hi John,
I actually believe in a few things that would not result in authoritarian type of leadership.
1. Congregational Form of Church Government
2. Multiplicity of Elders
3. Discipleship
4. Expository Preaching
When I said, “the pastor,” I used the generic sense of the singular noun. It wasn’t “the pastor” as in “one,” but “the pastor” as in the office of the pastor. That being said, I do think the emphasis of the NT is one senior leader among that multiplicity.
If I were going to add to my previous comment, I would have added context to the statement I made about the church enforcing God’s will. I believe we come to God’s will through a church, not unilaterally. I believe in priesthood, but one person is not bigger than a whole church. If the church has a standard that a member disagrees with but it is not unscriptural, that is, it is at least non-scriptural, then he just go ahead and keep the standard because we haven’t been given liberty in the NT to be factious or cause unity of the whole church. Christ died for the church. This should be a tiny sacrifice for the church.
We live in an era where one person’s preferences must be imposed on the rest of the church. It’s like having one atheist in an entire public school, so everyone else can’t sing Christmas songs. A church doesn’t operate that way. Individuals fit into the church. I can develop that Scripturally if you need it, but it might be good for you to look for it on your own.
“Cause unity” should be “cause disunity to” above.
Thanks,
I agree. In my church points number one and two would be reversed. Our elders make some decisions that the congregation are not in on. Like if there was a emergence of emergent “theology” in part of the congregation, along with some volunteer leaders, they would meet and decide that that is a road they would not allow the church to go down. But our pastor is given liberty to feed the flock and counsel, but wouldn’t be changing the direction of the church without the council’s approval.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.