Legalism And Its Antidotes

Recently we’ve been discussing the sticky issue of legalism. It’s hard to define, and its easy to use the term as a perjorative against those you think are wrong. The term is still important, however, because it describes a sin which is deadly. A sin which in many Christian circles is able to walk incognito, wearing a mask of holiness. If anything deserves to be studied, legalism does.

I came across an excellent article on legalism by Dominic Smart hosted at beginningwithmoses.org. I want to provide an excerpt where he discusses what Legalism is, and then encourage you all to go read the entire article.

Legalism isn’t a matter of having rules, structures, limits or instructions in our congregations or individual lives. While they can be overdone, and often are by people of a certain temperament, they are necessary for godly order in any fellowship: God has given many to us in the Scriptures. The opposite of legalism isn’t lawlessness (antinomianism, as some like to call it), which is nothing more than anarchic pride. Nobody is delivered into that. Christian freedom isn’t freedom to do whatever you want: down here none of us is safe to be let loose with such a freedom; up there – well, we’ll be different then!

Legalism is primarily a God-ward thing. It’s a way of making and keeping yourself acceptable to God. From this flows the legalism that is directed towards one another It’s a way of scoring sanctity points in our fellowships, and exerting what one postmodernist called a “truth regime” – it’s about pride, power and control. It simultaneously glorifies man and “unsecures” man. Thus its true opposites are grace and faith.

Yet it is so plausible. The need for order, structures and boundaries feeds our quest for control. Our very ability to keep some rules feeds our pride and gives us the impression that our relationship with God is somehow founded upon this ability. But in the same day, our inability to keep others feeds our despair, which in turn generates more rules and a more strenuous effort to keep them. Since laws and rules can be helpful, legalism seems to be on to a winner.

It often arises out of a good motive: to be holy. We don’t want sin to rule over us, we don’t want to grieve God or to stray from his path. And it is a narrow path compared to the one that leads to destruction. So in order to avoid big sins we add rules to God’s word – hedging sinful territory around with codes that are intended to keep us from it. It is the well-intentioned, keen and committed who are most prone to it. The half-hearted Christian couldn’t really care enough to veer towards legalism (though he or she makes up for it with many other errors). It was the scribes, following good Ezra, who developed “the traditions of men” which people preferred to the word of God: a preference that Jesus blasted in Mark 7.

But all this focuses the mind on self. It takes the mind and heart away from Christ, the Proper Man. It takes our faith away from His sufficiency and misplaces it upon ours. We live to achieve his approval; we forget that we are already alive and accepted in Christ. Ever so plausibly, we are sold a different gospel: one that isn’t really a gospel at all. And the desire not to sin in some big way can be little more than a mask to hide our lack of faith in Jesus, “who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption” . (1Cor 1:30). Holiness is not a matter of living on eggshells with a God who is reserving judgement on us and might turn us away at any moment.

It really is a deadly false thing, this warped alternative, this lie, this all-pervasive and hideous distortion of Christian living…

Dominic goes on to give 8 reasons why legalism is deadly, and he follows those up with eight antidotes to legalism. The article is a bit lengthy but it will be worth your time to read it.

Why Do We Say "Legalism"

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

10 Steps to Legalism

With title pictures like these, you can be sure Seth McBee‘s series on becoming a legalist will entertain you. I hope he also educates and informs, even if he uses a bit of hyperbole and sarcasm to make his point.

Here are the links to his series so far:

“The Grace and Truth Paradox” by Randy Alcorn

On my recent vacation, I read an excellent book by Randy Alcorn, The Grace and Truth Paradox. It is based on John’s statement in John 1:14 that Jesus was “full of grace and truth”. Some churches (and Christians) today emphasize grace over truth while others do just the opposite. Christ did neither. He was full of grace and truth.The book is small (92 pages). It is part of Multnomah’s “Small Books, Big Change” series. Yet it has a big message. It is very easy to read, yet some of its principles are potentially life-changing, and merit thoughtful contemplation. To that end, I will finish out this “review” by providing some quotes from the book itself, and let Randy do the talking.

A grace-starved, truth-starved world needs Jesus, full of grace and truth. (p. 14)

Some churches today embrace truth but need a heavy dose of grace. Other churches talk about grace but cry out for a heavy dose of truth. (p.15)

Truth-oriented Christians love studying Scripture and theology. But sometimes they’re quick to judge and slow to forgive. They’re strong on truth, weak on grace.

Grace-oriented Christians love forgiveness and freedom. But sometimes they neglect Bible study and see moral standards as “legalism.” They’re strong on grace, weak on truth.

Countless mistakes in marriage, parenting, ministry, and other relationships are failures to balance grace and truth. Sometimes we neglect both. Often we choose one over the other. (p. 17)

Why should we have to choose between conservatism’s emphasis on truth and liberalism’s emphasis on grace? Why can’t we oppose injustice to minorities and to the unborn? Why can’t we oppose greedy ruination of the environment and anti-industry New Age environmentalism? Why can’t we affirm the biblical right to the ownership of property and emphasize God’s call to voluntarily share wealth with the needy? Why can’t we uphold God’s condemnation of sexual immorality, including homosexual practices, and reach out in love and compassion to those trapped in destructive lifestyles and dying from AIDS?

We cannot do these things if we are first and foremost either liberals or conservatives. We can do these things only if we are first and foremost followers of Christ, who is full of grace and truth. (p. 80-81)

If we minimize grace, the world sees no hope for salvation. If we minimize truth, the world sees no need for salvation. To show the world Jesus, we must offer unabridged grace and truth, emphasizing both, apologizing for neither. The Colossian church “understood God’s grace in all its truth” (Colossians 1:6)

Truth is quick to post warning signs and guardrails at the top of the cliff. Yet it fails to empower people to drive safely–and neglects to help them when they crash.

Grace is quick to post ambulances and paramedics at the bottom of the cliff. But without truth, it fails to post warning signs and build guardrails. In so doing, it encourages the very self-destruction it attempts to heal. (p. 87-88)

Grace and truth are both necessary. Neither is sufficient….We who are truth-oriented need to go out of our way to affirm grace. We who are grace-oriented need to go out of our way to affirm truth. “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” No one did either like Jesus. Truth hates sin. Grace loves sinners. Those full of grace and truth do both. (p. 88)

In Jesus, “mercy and truth have met together” (Psalm 85:10, NKJV). Grace and truth met face to face on the Cross. (p. 92)

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Waterbrook Multnomah.

A Musical Antidote to Legalistic Thinking

Legalism is a dangerous problem. As an IFB, I always thought of legalism as strictly a works-based-justification approach to salvation. The only legalists I knew were Roman Catholics, eastern religionists, and some cultists.

But since I came away from IFB/IFBx circles, I have come to understand legalism as applying to sanctification not merely justification. I was a legalist, in many respects. Why? Because I felt my standing with God, on a day to day (sanctification) basis, depended upon my performance. I could be definitely not right with God, and more right with Him, than at other times. Often, the solution to struggling against sin was provided as merely gritting one’s teeth, and working harder. Character was the means to accomplishing my moralistic goals. How could I not see this as so contradictory to the gospel of salvation by grace?

IFB/IFBx churches stressed the importance of duty. But they did not address the question of human inability and depravity, so much. We all could do it, and if we didn’t we weren’t filled with the Spirit enough. Blame and guilt was applied as a means to motivate us to do right. Worship was wonderful when I was performing well, and horrible when I was not. Sometimes going through the motions was all I felt I could do.

Now, granted, this kind of thinking is not singular to IFB churches–any church is susceptible to it. And it has a grain of truth. We are called to live holy lives. Absolutely! But we are not to depend on ourselves or glory in our accomplishments. We are to boast only in the cross! (See this post along these lines.) Since knowledge affects our experiential walk so much (as the NT epistles constantly stress), misunderstanding the relation of our spiritual and Christian duties and the accomplishment of Christ on the cross can severely impact our personal enjoyment of Christ and His love and consequently hinder our walk with Christ. Without clear teaching that Christ is our only means of righteousness (ultimate and practical/daily), duty and resolve become first in our life, and delight and dependence are minimized. This is a danger still for me, and I think it is for all of us. But we must remind ourselves that our favor with God is solely due to Christ’s glorious work being accepted by God as sufficient for us and Christ’s constant and successful intercession for us. Anything good we do is only on account of God’s grace working in us (1 Cor. 15:10, Phil. 2:13).

Well, I was spurred on to thinking about these things again when I heard the following song on the radio this morning. It has blessed me and challenged me time and again. I put forth the lyrics here with the hope they will challenge you to see the glorious and awe-inspiring truth of God’s grace for us in Christ.

 

What If

By Jadon Lavik

What if I climbed that mountain? What if I swam to that shore?
What if every battle was victorious, then would You love me more?
Would You love me more?

What if I were everyone’s first choice? What if I went farther than before?
What if I stood high above the rest, then would You love me more?
Would You love me more?

You say I belong to You apart from the things I do.
You say I belong to You, I’m in awe of why You do,
Why You do, why You do. I’m in awe of You, ooh.

What if I ignored the hand that fed me? What if I forgot to confess?
What if I stumbled down that mountain, then would You love me less?
Lord, would You love me less?

What if I were everyone’s last choice? What if I mixed in with the rest?
What if I failed what I passed before, then would You love me less?
Lord, would You, would You love me less? Oh no, oh no, oh no.

You say I belong to You apart from the things I do.
You say I belong to You I’m in awe of why You do,
You do, You do, You do.

What have I done to deserve your Son sent to die for me?
What can I give? I want to live, give me eyes to see.
In a world that keeps changin’ there’s one thing that I know is true.
Your love is stayin’ there’s nothing else I’ll hold onto.

You say I belong to You apart from the things I do.
You say I belong to You I’m in awe of why You do,
Why You do.

You say I belong to You apart from the things I do.
You say I belong to You I’m in awe of why You do.
I’m in awe of You, I’m in awe of You.

The way You love me, the way You do.
The way You do, the way You love me, You love me, You love me.
The way You do, the way You do, the way You love me.
The way You love, You love, You love.

Lavikmusic ASCAP

 

You can listen to a song sample here, from the author Jadon Lavik’s website.