Jack Schaap is not the first high profile pastor or church leader to fall into sin. I remember blogging about the fall of Ted Haggard, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, back in 2006. Roman Catholics have their fair share of priest-turned-pedophiles, and no church group has the luxury of having leaders with perfect hearts that aren’t susceptible to sin.
Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB), however, are particularly liable to fall into this sin, it would seem. And I would say there are several pitfalls that especially plague IFBs. Many don’t see these pitfalls and end up getting used and abused by the system. And so I find the need to speak out and warn people, lovingly of what I consider to be errors in their way of thinking.
These pitfalls can be wide enough to catch people of a variety of stripes, but apply most directly to “old-fashioned” fundamental Baptists. There is a large group of IFB churches that are more or less similar in their susceptibility to the issues I want to discuss. I hope this conversation can focus on the Bible and on what it teaches about these pitfalls. And I do pray that some are helped by this.
The first pitfall I want do discuss is, legalism.
John Piper has defined legalism, as follows:
(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. [Source]
I think this is an excellent definition, but of course not everyone will be happy with it. Some are offended or confused by the use of the term “legalism” by people who critique fundamentalism. I want to elaborate on this further, using something I wrote a while ago. I can’t say everyone has a legalistic mentality in a given church–I speak for myself. But certain environments facilitate this mindset.
So why do I use the term “legalism?” 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 doesn’t own a TV, he doesn’t go to movies very often, he doesn’t drink, etc.). He does so, however, 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 church 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 than 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. For more on the Biblical basis for this, see my series on the Gospel’s work in believers.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get those Piper definitions of legalism?
Yes, sorry about that. I was posting from my iPod and forgot to add the link for the source of the quote.
It is from your post several years ago, Jamsco. Click here, everyone, to see that post and the source of the quotes.
I have updated my post with the link, too.
Thanks, Bob.
I wasn’t actually sure that you got it from my post. In case people are interested, a little bit later I posted a more complete list of Piper quotes here.
…which originated from the “Desiring God” web site…
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/flesh-tank-and-peashooter-regulations
The following line really struck a chord with me:
“And when we saw others who didn’t keep those same rules, part of us, deep inside, thought we were better than them.”
Yes! I also think it is a bit of jealousy. I think we can become such slaves to our man-pleasing traditions that it makes us jealous of anyone who is free from this yoke. I felt that way very often as a child growing up.
Yes, Andrew. We can become slaves and jealous. And ultimately this is a heart thing. I think there are some who are in these same kind of churches who thankfully don’t have legalism in their heart. I just think that certain environments can facilitate legalistic thinking more than others.
This all sounds very convenient by Piper and yourself – he can keep some traditional Christian biblical applications himself but give liberty for his members to live carnally. That way everyone is happy in his church – he doesn’t offend the traditionalists and he keeps on board the quasi-emergent antinomians.
The problem is an inherent contradiction in the whole framework. If Piper has rules that you call “personal rules of conduct that he keeps out of a desire to please God (he doesn’t own a TV, he doesn’t go to movies very often, he doesn’t drink, etc.)” then they must be based on some revealed biblical principle. If he is able to discern these applications and live by them, then surely they are binding universally and therefore not some subjective little quirk. I assume Piper maintains these standards because he does believe he is obeying God and honouring God. Surely, that should apply to all the members of Bethlehem Baptist.
What you need to focus your article on is not the rules. If they are biblical they are biblical. The point that we fall down is discerning the power to live these rules.
Applying biblical principles to the changing situations of life requires wisdom. It’s so much easier to let someone else do the thinking for us. It’s easier to just erect a fence and not have to think about discerning spiritually how to apply truth to your particular situation. I encourage you to read Piper’s article linked above, too.
PSFerguson,
While I think a misunderstanding of Piper’s point may have an outworking that keeps antinomians too comfortable, it is not logically sound to say that because Piper has a particular practice it is universally applicable. Piper is a pastor and it does not follow that every Christian should be a pastor.
There are crystal clear requirements in scripture and then there are many more principles to be conscientiously implemented. The implementation in one life has no necessary implication for those around him.
While I have never thought that my salvation rested in my obedience, I have been under the impression that I could add to Christ’s propitiation by my obedience. That is to say that I have been under the impression that my obedience could make God happier with me than He already is happy with me because of Christ’s work. This is a stark description of my impression, but is the essence of what it works out to be.
I believe that the right view of my obedience is to see it as a fruit of Christ’s work and a living out of Christ’s righteousness which has been imputed to me. When I put value into my obedience in a way that makes it a source rather than a result, I detract from Christ’s work. For of him, and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory for ever.
the Future of Fundamentalism does no rely on any one person’s success of failure. The Fundamentals of the faith do not change, nor do faithful men change their doctrine to accomodate favour. God still REQUIRES of all Christians 1Pet.3 [15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: ( the REFORMED devils must assume that only the elect will ask them how to be saved). Fundamentalist stand for personal soul wining and winning the lost in all levels of society. We dispise tha satanic doctrine of the devils in sheeps clothing who promote the idea that some are predestined for hells fires. These tools of satan always consider themselves as part of the elect and their eli…te group alone will be saved. John Piper et al and the men who use Calvin’s reformed false doctrines are men being used of the devil to attack soul winining and with a perverted mind are trying to use the greivious sin by one man to promote their devilish and lacivious doctrines. Prov.11 [30] The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise. Daniel 12 [3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 2Tim.4 [17] Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
Keep the faith
Sam,
You are misunderstanding what the position known as Calvinism teaches. Some of the best pastors, evangelists and missionaries were Calvinists. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson — I could go on and on.
The Bible itself teaches predestination. How do you interpret Acts 13:48 or 1 Peter 2:8-9? Rather than argue all this out here, I encourage you to read my explanation of the five points of Calvinism with an open mind. Try to actually understand what Calvinists teach rather than condemn them from afar. Charles Spurgeon once said, the following about Calvinism:
It would do you good to stop and consider what it really is that such a great and evangelistic preacher like Charles Spurgeon himself believed. You don’t know John Piper, if you think he is not evangelistic, either, by the way.
Brother Sam –
I certainly appreciate your love and zeal (Gal 4:18) for the fundamental doctrines of the faith! I would encourage you, brother, not to confuse the fundamental doctrines of the faith with the fundamentalist Baptist movement.
It is very regretful and sad to me personally that good brothers who have disagreed with our positions have so mis-characterized and maligned what we believe. There are some men, sadly these are usually Baptists, who have put forward beliefs somewhat close to what you associate with Calvinists; but in the whole, this does not in any way characterize the beliefs of those who believe in free and Sovereign grace.
I’d like to kindly ask you brother, in all good Christian charity and love, to consider what our Baptist forefather stood for (and suffered greatly for).
As an aside, Christian historians believe that John Calvin may have sent as many as 10,000 missionaries into Catholic lands to suffer and die for the gospel sake. Calvin himself was an evangelist in France before he fled to Geneva and began training others to go and bear witness.
Sam de Rose has given us a perfect example of the depraved, twisted, and cultic mindset of fundamentalists.
And, Sam, it is IFB legalism and child abuse which are satanic.
The IFB movement is full of rapists and pedophiles and child abusers and there needs to be a crackdown on them.
http://www.jeriwho.net
Thank you for this article. I’m hoping you can help guide my thinking in a few ways in which I struggle. First, doesn’t it repeatedly say in Scripture that we are blessed when we obey God? (“Blessed is the man who walks not . . .”) What does that essentially mean? It stands to reason that if I am living in obedience at any one time, at that moment I am walking in His blessing more—am I not? (The thinking is, God will not bless me if I am living in carnality. This was drummed into me during my youth—the importance of living in such a way that God will bless my life.) If I am facing the choice of lusting or not lusting, God is more pleased (due to blessing He may bestow) when I refuse to lust, right? (We know He is grieved when we sin and may chasten us; therefore, it stands to reason that He would not be as grieved, would in fact be pleased, if we choose not to sin.) Are you saying it doesn’t matter whether I lust or not—God is happy regardless because of what Christ did on the cross. This is where I have struggled in my thinking. I know I am positionally justified for all of time due to Christ’s work on the cross. But when it comes to sanctification and the daily “working out” my salvation, that’s where I get a bit confused in the realm of doing deeds and how God sees me in the context of Christian behavior.
Second, it is true that if we emphasize external rules we can fall into the trap of thinking we are better than others who do not keep those rules. I’m not sure that’s a problem of the rules or those who set up those rules. It’s a problem of our sinful hearts (just as the heart, in the absence of rules, can flirt with license). So I’m not sure it’s a problem of fundamentalism, per se, but of the human heart when guidelines are in place.
Third, is there a problem with having institutional (church) rules for the sake of harmony that go beyond clear biblical mandates? For example, some churches I went to as a child forbade Sunday school teachers from going to the theater to avoid causing offense. Now we know Scripture says nothing about going to the theater, per se, but this was a guideline in place to avoid causing others to stumble (who may be weak in that area—think idol’s meat), etc. Many Christian colleges have such rules in place as well. Are you saying it’s legalistic to expect these higher standards of faculty and staff or church leadership? Thank you for your thoughts.
Adam,
I don’t claim to have it all figured out. I’m growing in my understanding of the Word too. I’ll try to speak to your points, but JE has some great points as well in his post.
1) Blessings for obedience.
First off, all of our obedience is sub-par. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. Our obedience is intermixed with selfish motives, impure thoughts, lack of a whole-hearted desire to give God glory. Secondly, all blessings come to us from the cross of Christ — ultimately. Only because of our being “in Christ” are we in a position to receive any blessings.
Another angle of looking at this comes from seeing how Paul repeatedly grounds his imperatives (the commands for Christian behavior) in the indicatives (his teaching about what the Christian is in Christ). Paul does this repeatedly. Eph. 1-3 ground Eph. 4-6, Rom. 1-11 ground Rom. 12-16. Titus 2:11-14 ground Titus 2:1-10. Many more examples could be offered. This has profound implications. Our obedience and its resultant blessings, flow from our status in Christ and because of His cross-work on our behalf.
The only way we can truly be righteous and obedient and thus be blessed, is by allowing the Spirit to work that which is pleasing in God’s sight – within us. God working in us. Christ in us, the hope of glory. So it isn’t a legalism whereby we are trying to perform in order to grow. It is that we grow in grace and knowledge of Jesus, we learn more and more how the Gospel impacts and affects our status, and then from that we naturally grow in obedience and holiness. Yes we must obey Scripture, but God has changed our hearts so we want to obey somewhere deep inside of us. And when we don’t obey as we want to, we rest in Christ’s finished work on our behalf.
2) Emphasizing rules / thinking better of ourselves than others being more than a fundamentalism problem
I would agree that it is bigger than just a fundamentalism problem, but fundamentalism is known for rules and has certain strictures that promote it. With an emphasis on external rules so much, it is natural to foster a rules-based performance for sanctification (see my next post in this series on performance-based sanctification).
3) Institutional rules
I would agree that some kind of playbook and operating rules are needed in a church. But distinguishing between having rules and our rules being equal to Scripture is important. In Give Them Grace: Dazzling Your Kids with the Love of Jesus (by Elyse Fitzpatrick and Jessica Thompson), the authors emphasize that the kinds of rules we make for our kids need to be differentiated. There is just behavioral type rules and family rules, but these need to be differentiated from spirituality. They are normal, secular things that everyone has. Spiritual living type teaching is different than teaching someone how to be potty trained or have good manners at the table. While repeated disobedience of house rules points to a spiritual problem, the answer to every child’s question of “why” doesn’t have to be Eph. 6:1 and “shut up”.
This goes for the church and institutions too, I would think. We need house rules, and those will be guided by our Scriptural understanding. But they aren’t equal to Scripture. And doing church like we do, doesn’t make us better than a church which doesn’t have a hemline rule for their church pianists, for instance.
Legalism is a matter of the heart, and we have to guard against it. The way we do church, the way we run institutions, the way we talk about rules — all of this factors into making environments that facilitate legalism.
Hopefully this helps, somewhat. Thanks for some great questions and interaction.
~Bob
RE:
“Are you saying it doesn’t matter whether I lust or not—God is happy regardless because of what Christ did on the cross. This is where I have struggled in my thinking. I know I am positionally justified for all of time due to Christ’s work on the cross. But when it comes to sanctification and the daily “working out” my salvation, that’s where I get a bit confused in the realm of doing deeds and how God sees me in the context of Christian behavior.”
I wish to share a testimony concerning the aforementioned question. I was walking the streets one day in prayer, but my mind attempted to shift my spirit out of conscious communication with God by interrupting with theological questions. I began to notice that my mind was resisting. I began to recite all of the commandments that I thought were personally critical. Yet, I couldn’t remember a few of them, and they seemed out of touch from me in that moment. Like when you know something, but can’t seem to access it. In frustration, I prayed:
“God, could you please help me. Give me something, imprint something on my mind, so that I don’t forget all of your commands.” He answered my question by completely avoiding it. He said: “It’s not what you do, it’s why you do it. It’s not what you don’t do, it’s why you don’t do it. – It’s not about you, it’s about you surrendering, to let me transform your heart in perfect alignment with my own.”
To answer your question another way, we are not graded upon performance, we are graded upon effort. God sees our hearts, He knows our hearts. In addition, if we had any power to overcome sin on our own, without partnering with Him, then there would have been no reason for Jesus Christ. The word Christ means anointing. When the Bible says phrases like: “in Christ”, it means to be under the anointing of Jesus – his mantle. This is a supernatural empowerment that changes and aligns what we want, to what God wants (in addition to many other things). God’s perfect Will is that we would sincerely love and serve Him with pure hearts. He calls us His bride – every man truly wants a woman who knows him, and loves him for who he is. In terms of lust, this is an evil spirit. God wants us to move solely in His Spirit, and when you seek, ask, and petition God through prayer and a sincere heart for empowerment to perform His perfect Will, He will always give you the desires of your heart. Our sanctification is not a formula, nor are we in control; for God is the author and finisher of our faith.
Behavior is always a function of our heart. “For as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”
Adam,
Your struggle with these truths is one that I share and what I’ll write here reflects my current thinking which is a work in progress.
What does it essentially mean to be blessed for obedience?
Jer 9:23-24
Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.
As physically temporal, carnal, personal, spiritual beings we are tempted to betray our personal and spiritual aspects by viewing blessings in a temporal, carnal way. If we view God and knowledge of his character as the blessing, then we are closer to realizing what it means to be blessed. Consider 2Peter 1:1-8. The list of desirable characteristics is book-ended with the knowledge of Christ. According to 2Cor 4:4-6, the Gospel is the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. I have been guilty of reducing this knowledge of God, which is a task large and substantive enough to be worthy of our eternal pursuit and occupation, to making a profession of faith or the status of being “saved.” Let us not fall into this error.
Is God obligated by my actions or is he dispassionate regarding my actions?
Your question is not state quite this starkly, but my experience and observations include the idea that God is obligated to us because of our obedience. This phrasing also show a false dichotomy that is implied in the question. We don’t often state it plainly, but our sense of God’s obligation appears in our reaction to hardship if we wonder what we did wrong to deserve a bad day, or even worse calamity. When we question God’s right to bring hardship into our experience on the basis of our behavior, we are excusing our weakness, sinfulness and unfaithfulness and ignoring his holiness and transcendent glory. He is worthy of far more than we can give him and we don’t even give him all of what we can, but then consider him obligated to treat us in a way we consider good.
I do think god is pleased when we are obedient, but the basis for his pleasure is Christ’s work. All of history centers around the redemptive work of Christ. The arc of redemptive history and of each individual life shows that salvation is God’s work; able to save the worst sinner and rightly rejecting the best man has to offer on his own. When this work is victoriously manifest in a life, it is testimony to God’s good work and shows him for who he is. “May the Lamb that was slain receive the full reward of his suffering!”
What is the problem with rules?
Rules are implementations of principles. Rules not found in scripture may still be necessary, but are distinct from scripture. In any case, rules cannot make a heart, they can only help protect the heart. Our need is one of the heart and not a need of statute. Consider the illustration offered by the concrete barriers along a highway bridge. The best way to get across the bridge is to guide your vehicle in your lane from one end to the other. It is not satisfactory to claim a successful crossing just because one could not break out of the barriers and ended up on the other side despite his assaults on the barriers. We need hearts fully set after God, not hearts testing the limits. At their best, rules only show the condition of the heart. Confidence in rules is the problem exhibited by “fundamentalism” not the rules themselves. This confidence leads to the next question.
Is there a problem with rules beyond scripture?
If our confidence is in rules then more rules are better, but anything beyond scripture will have inherent weakness. I do think that it is necessary to have institutional rules. As a father I must direct my family in specific implementation of Biblical truth and some of what I direct will be beyond scripture. At this point I believe that it is critical that I differentiate, in my mind and my teaching, between the scriptural statements and my implementation. When these two ideas are conflated we are at least perilously close to “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” which Jesus heartily condemned (Matthew 15:9).
Leaders should be held to higher standards, but those high standards should not be preached in any way that would lead to confusing them with scripture.
I hope this is edifying. I am helped by the exercise.
Semper reformanda,
JE
Well said, JE.
Here are more thoughts. I may be off base in some places. If I am, please point out where so I can grow in my thinking. I appreciate it.
JE, thanks for your reply?
Are you sure “blessing” in Scripture is limited to viewing God and knowing His character? Scripture is replete with promises that if we do X, God will bless us (and sometimes the blessing is tangible). Also look at Israel and the umpteen promises made whenever God’s people feared and obeyed Him (and look at the reverse if they didn’t). Granted, we are not Israel, and that’s a conversation for another time. But doesn’t this example, particularly throughout the Old Testament, show us a clear principle about God? If we obey, He will bless. And often this blessing is prosperity, long life, riches, etc. I agree that this all comes ultimately from what Christ did for us, but there are blessings that come after salvation. One could argue that was for another dispensation, but again, even in the New Testament, we continually see promises of blessing (call it extrinsic motivation) when we obey. This would include the many rewards described for those believers who win souls and persevere to the end. My point is, it seems to me that the preponderance of Scripture upholds the idea that God indeed rewards obedience—the keep of His rules—to Him. Call it blessing or profit or whatever you like. So how does that fit into our discussion? From what I can tell, God indeed blesses obedience. He blesses the obedient life.
I’m not sure I’d say God is “obligated” as much as truthful when He makes a promise. He’s not going to say something in Scripture and then do something else—we can surely count on that. But we are in no place to manipulate God. And in this context, we don’t need to. He makes a promise, we believe it.
Of course, salvation is all God’s work. I’m referring to sanctification and the good deeds, the following of rules, we do as believers.
I’ve noticed lately a real hatred of rules, and I think this is a misguided overreaction—a swinging of the pendulum in a scary direction. Let me explain. Have you noticed that the Bible is FULL of rules? So I would question any general frowning on biblically based rules because the Bible is full of rules that come directly from God, so they must be good. After all, they come from Him. And Proverbs continually talks about loving God’s statutes. Maybe the problem isn’t rules but our carnal attitude toward them. I agree that rules cannot make a heart; yet we are still commanded to obey a lot of rules. “Be holy as I am holy.” Of course, as was pointed out in the article, it’s impossible to keep all of them in our own strength. They essentially drive us to God for help. Then, of course, God empowers us to live obediently for Him. Rules of course are intrinsic to obedience. Without them, what would we be obeying?
I understand what you mean between the difference between God’s rules and the rules man creates from principles. But that’s a sticky path as well. For example, we see nothing in Scripture about looking at pornography on the Internet, but most of us would agree, based on principles, that we must guard our eyes from evil and keep our minds pure. This is nonnegotiable. So are we legalistic when we make a man-made rule not to look at pornography on the Internet based only on a biblical principle? Are we not elevating a man-made rule as if it came from God? Yet we do this all the time. We have to because in many cases we have only a principle to work from, yet life is full of specific problems. The same is true of modesty on women. When does the skirt length become too short or a blouse neckline go too low? Somewhere it does, but we don’t know where. So we have to establish a guideline based on a principle that at THIS POINT the skirt is immodest. Now I know some folks who would say that’s legalistic, but are they right? God gave us a guideline about modesty for a reason. We have to bring that principle down to life and apply it practically. Is that being legalistic? I don’t think so because God forbids immodesty. So at some point He expects us to forbid it (which requires a rule).
Do you see where I’m coming from? A lot of folks today are saying, “Be careful. You can’t make a rule that goes beyond Scripture. That’s legalism.” Yet we often HAVE to make rules based only on Scriptural principles. Otherwise half the women in our churches would be wearing skirts that are too short or pants that are too tight. Do you see what I mean?
I think the issue of skirts, of course, takes us to another area of motivation that goes in hand in hand with rules. And that’s the admonishment not to cause a weaker brother to stumble. So I think a lot of rules that we develop are made selflessly to help the weak brother from falling. But I’m probably getting off track.
Sorry this is so long. I may be rambling off point. I appreciate your patience with me because I have long struggled with these issues in my mind. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and encouragement.
Adam,
I think this gets to some of the issue. You said:
“Do you see where I’m coming from? A lot of folks today are saying, ‘Be careful. You can’t make a rule that goes beyond Scripture. That’s legalism.’ Yet we often HAVE to make rules based only on Scriptural principles. Otherwise half the women in our churches would be wearing skirts that are too short or pants that are too tight. Do you see what I mean?”
I think right here you are putting too much stock in rules. Do you really mean that if you don’t have rules about dress in your church or school/college, that you will necessarily have half the women wearing immodest clothing? How does having a rule make this not happen? And if it is the rule that makes it not happen, what is the value of it not happening. Are hearts desiring to break the rule but held in check by it? Does not Scripture even teach that rules can inflame the desire to sin – Rom. 7? Also, Paul declares that the laws in the Old Testament lead to condemnation and were a ministration of death (2 Cor. 3).
How does a rule look different for a regenerated person than a non-regenerated one?
I’ve been in churches where there are no dress rules, but there is a general trend toward modest apparel and as ladies disciple ladies, the apparel becomes modest. There are no rules but the hearts are right.
I think that some fundamentalists invest too much in rules. When it comes down to it, people will disagree on personal applications of Scripture. There isn’t a one-size fits all standard for every issue. So we let God be God and interact in a fallen world to the best of our ability and encourage one another to live godly lives. We won’t all look the same and conclude the same, but we can have the same heart and the same motivating principles.
Some trust in rules, and rules can make things easy. No thinking or discernment required.
Now, I’m overstating things here a bit. But so are you in your comments above. For the record, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be extra-Scriptural rules – personally, corporately or whatever. I’m just saying an emphasis on rules can promote legalistic thinking. Having a rule doesn’t make one a legalist. But adding to Scripture and zealously defending, and policing our rules — doesn’t this sit us with the Pharisees and at odds with Christ?
Hey, Bob
When I referred to the guideline for modesty, I was referring to an organizational rule in a church to keep things above reproach so as not to be a stumbling block to others. (This whole concept of not being an offense to others is thinking that is so often overlooked these days.) I should have been clearer. Let’s say you have a female soloist in your church who is a new believer. Let’s say she gets up one Sunday morning to sing and is revealing far too much in her dress. Clearly this dress could attract the eyes of your men and possibly encourage wrong thoughts. Not to mention the poor testimony this presents to members and those who visit.
Some churches do have dress guidelines for anyone who goes on the platform; that’s what I was referring to. You didn’t appear to take issue with some organizational guidelines, so I was appealing to your understanding of the value of that. For example, I know the pastor at one church who had to have a talk with one of his pianists because she would show up to play the piano and show cleavage. What a poor testimony for the church! Yes, this “talk” is always an important discipleship time, though a bit awkward. (And as you mentioned, there is great value when women are able to mentor women in this area.)
For those who are still growing and may not fully understand the biblical thinking behind the potential problem, I’d have to say that a rule in this department is a great idea. All they need to understand is that for the sake of modesty, this is what the church expects. The guideline may awaken discernment in the heart, helping the person to see, Oh hey, this isn’t just about me. It’s about others and not being a stumbling block to them. So absolutely a guideline like this can help the women serving on the platform to be more aware of the danger of being immodest, so long as the guideline is presented with a biblical explanation. Then the heart is engaged, and the woman is not left thinking that “I must obey this rule.” In no way am I encouraging emphasis of rules for the sake of rules alone.
Does that guideline, if coupled with biblical teachings, breed legalism? How so? Again, I would venture that if legalism occurs, this is not the rule’s problem or the problem of the church leadership. It’s the problem of the human heart that wants to abuse this and think the worst of others who don’t toe the line.
What this rule does is protect the testimony of the church and it protects the men in your church from seeing more than they should see (which may encourage lustful thoughts). And the woman is benefited by realizing that how she appears on the platform is a testimony to her Lord and to the church. Sometimes, yes, guidelines can awaken sensibilities that may not have formerly been there.
You may say this is definite legalism. How so?
In this instance, yes, I would have to say that apart from individual counseling, this girl who played the piano (in my illustration) probably would have continued wearing immodest clothing. She sincerely didn’t realize the problem she created by the way she dressed. Which brings me to my next point. While institutional guidelines can have their place, what’s better is if biblical standards are taught from the pulpit.
No, I wasn’t referring to any female member who walks in the church door. No, I’m not advocating a a dress code for all female members—that they can wear THIS but not THIS. Not at all. What I am stressing, however, is the need for pastors everywhere to get up in the pulpit and teach about biblical standards, including modesty. What I suspect is that so many folks are so paranoid about being labeled legalists that the pendulum has swung the opposite direction. Nobody talks about biblical standards any more, so new believers aren’t getting any guidance about what the Bible teaches about certain areas of life and how what they do affects others.
I think a rule, if it is presented with godly principles (I remember the rule book at BJU), can have value. Yes, it can give guidance where some in ignorance may not realize the biblical problem of doing such and such. They may not realize that if they wear certain clothes, they are tempting those around them to lust. Most certainly. So in this regard, rules can have value, so long as they are taught with biblical principles so others can see the value of them. It’s the same with household guidelines, which you agreed have their value. If biblical reasoning behind rules is taught, I believe hearts CAN BE right. Frankly, I’ve seen biblical guidelines taught along with rules in pretty much every fundamental church I’ve attended. So I don’t think most of them are guilty of teaching and emphasizing rules to the point of being legalistic.
So rules are bad, you say, but yet they are good. But then they are bad. Which is it? God, the giver of rules, has given us lots and lots of rules. Perhaps the heart is simply wicked and wants to rebel against all the God-given guidelines we find in the Bible. The fact is, it’s in there. Lots and lots of guidelines, and we’re to preach all of it and obey all of it. And with God’s help, and the help of the Holy Spirit, we’re supposed to shun sin and seek to please God and keep all of His statutes. No, we cannot do this in our own strength; that’s why God gives us His Word and the Holy Spirit. We will fail, but God forgives and we need to get back up and keep striving to please Him.
I do believe that the emphasis needs to be on the heart and doing right out of love for God. Yet I don’t think it’s an either/or. We can have guidelines AND teach the biblical support for them AND encourage the heart to live in a way that’s pleasing to God. I’n not at all encouraging an emphasis on rules for the sake of rules alone. Does this help you understand where I’m coming from?
Did you see my guideline about the Internet? Is it legalistic or Pharisaical to confront someone about sin if the person is viewing wrong material on the Internet? What about those who say we can’t have rules beyond what the Bible explicitly teaches?
Let me try to bring this back in, Adam. I am not against rules per se. I am against using them as a primary measure of one’s spirituality (your own or others). As you said, some may not know that dressing in such a way is a problem for others. So does this mean those people without that knowledge, dressing that way, that they are bad people? They are of lower worth than I because I make sure my wife and girls don’t dress like that? This kind of thinking is what I’m against. The comparison thinking which is sometimes made worse by the presence of many extra-Scriptural rules. I’m also against using rules and a focus on externals to somehow measure up and become spiritual. Our standing is in Christ and we need to work hard against thinking our actions and works can aid our position in Christ.
Balance is needed, and we don’t need to throw out the baby and the bathwater – I understand that. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something to speak out against.
Thanks,
Bob
Adam,
I am sure that blessing in scripture is not limited to viewing God and knowing his character, but I am sure that there is no blessing without these characteristics. This is the sort of understanding that I see communicated in Job 38-42, Psalms 73 and 44, 2Cor. 4 and Rom. 8:35-39: when circumstances are very bad, God is still good and sufficient in himself.
I agree with the understanding that God is truthful and not obligated. Looking back at my post I see that that part at least was poorly worded. What I experience and observe is the Christain’s tendency to think God is obligated by obedince. What I was trying to point at was the impression one can get that, because one thinks he has been obedient, God should make his life pleasant; as oppoosed to obeying and trusting God to keep him from being ashamed.
I am no enemy of rules, I just believe they are empty on their own and so must be used carefully. God’s rules accurately delineate the priciples. Too often our rules miss the mark and so must be continuously reevaluated. Considering your illustration using Internet pornography, I think the weakness is defining the limit externally. The heart of the man who lusts after the pianist is aligning with the same lie as the heart of the man viewing Internet pornography. In Matthew 5:28, Jesus did not define how or where a man might be looking on a woman to lust after her in his heart. His rule is timeless. Jesus’ commandment rightly is not directed toward a specific manifestation because that is only a symptom. Men would and did lust without the Internet but there would be no pornography on the Internet if men did not lust. The man made rule to not look at Internet pornography can tend to distract from the issue and provide comfort for the man in the pew who is “only” lusting after the pianist.
Modesty is a similarly weakened concept. Modesty by definition does not have to do directly with exposed flesh. Modesty deals with attacting undue attention to one’s self. The preaching of hemlines as modesty removes the concept of self focus from the issue. True modesy cannot be defined by rules, so rule keeping should not be equated with modesty. I do think modesty can be illustrated by rules, but illustrations are not authoritative. The irony in the end is that the rules designed to protect modesty, can end up weakening the concept of modesty; it is a bodyguard turned warden.
You ask whether a “guideline, if coupled with biblical teachings, breed legalism? How so?” In this: if the implementation is coupled with and not distinguished from the priciple then it is being equated with the principle and so on par with Scripture. The failure is shown when one has reason to move from one implementation to another, meeting with another local church, where the same coupling is made beteen biblical principle with a different implementation without distinction from scripture. Without clearly distinguishing between implementation and priciple we undermine the principle.
The confronting of the person viewing Internet pornography, if the lust of the heart were not confronted, yes, is legalistic. Would that ever happen? All the time. On pleny of other issues I have seen the transgression of the standard addressed without the heart and principle being addressed. Addressing the standard becomes a shortcut to spirituality. The result is conformity to a culture, a sense of achievement for keeping the right rules, the guard is on duty but nothing is being kept.
On the other hand, confrontation of the man overtaken in a fault is a duty of the church. You affirm that apart from individual counseling the pianist would probably continued wearing immodest clothing. I would generally expect so, and do see it as a duty of the church to disciple her to see herself rightly and present herself accordingly. The confrontation should accurately address the biblical principle for there to be any life giving result.
This begins to feel a little argumentative, please don’t take it that way. Also, let me say that I expect we would agree in implementation generally. I am quite conservative, but my desire is to have no confidence in that conservatism and to encourage others similarly.
JE
On a post at Sharper Iron, commenting on the second post in this series, I shared the following as an additional clarification:
You can qualify words to death sometimes, and I think that is what can happen here. Sure we do have to obey and Scripture does give us rules, but is our sanctification something we measure by our visible external progress against an extra-Scriptural rule code? Are we measuring up to someone else than God? Is it performance-only-sanctification, or performance-plus?
God works in us – and He does accomplish work in us. Yes. But we can overly focus on the works and the list and the rules and our performance – leading to pride or despair, as my post points out.
Thanks for bringing the balance out, I’m not trying to veer away from all rules. I just think that a rules-heavy atmosphere (which is what we have in many IFB churches) can tend toward a legalistic-friendly atmosphere. Two people in the same environment can come out differently, however. One legalistic and comparing everyone else to how well they are keeping the community rule book, and another can be obeying from the heart and helped by or educated by the same rule book. It is a matter of the heart, and knowing Scripture sure helps. But the environment itself can make a difference, I contend.
It is off topic. I’m not convinced about him. There may be problems, but it isn’t legalism. He has some excellent resources against legalism. This is my blog. Follow the commenting policy.
The definition of legalism is the teaching that specific works are required to be saved.
The Bible clearly teaches on the danger and spiritual wickedness of the idea that works can save. That’s why Christ was death on the Pharisees. That was the problem in Acts 15. That’s what Galatians was all about. The Bible speaks clearly and is pointed – anyone propagating that works can save is a spiritual wicked person who should be cut off. The Bible teaches that any legalist is unsaved and an enemy of the faith.
Most Christians do not realize this. They have a vague idea of legalism that it’s folks with high standards or churches where they won’t play rock music. This plays right into the hands of evangelicals. Now their opponents to the right can be labelled as enemies of the faith. Now when their people read Galatians, rather than thinking of folks with a false Gospel, they think of folks with high standards.
Your definition here is not helping to clear away that confusion.