Category: Legalism

Quotes to Note 18: C.J. Mahaney on Legalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

The other day, I picked up C.J. Mahaney’s excellent little book Living the Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing. I came across his excellent description of legalism once again and thought I’d share it here for my readers.

When I first read through an earlier version of this book, back in 2005, His thoughts helped me realize the legalistic tendencies I had in my own life. Legalism properly refers to earning God’s grace for justification, but the term can also be used for earning God’s favor in sanctification. And for many in conservative or fundamentalist circles, legalism is a danger to watch out for.

In the book, Mahaney uses an illustration which captures the essence of a performance-based ethic which amounts to Christian legalism. To set the stage for the quote, Mahaney describes a variety show that used to be popular where a man would set various plates spinning on a series of long flexible rods. He’d keep each plate spinning as it would slow down until there were 8 or 10 spinning plates spread precariously all over the stage. Here is the quote now from Mahaney about legalism:

That’s a helpful picture of how legalism can hijack a Christian. The life of a legalist can become just as frenetic as the plate spinner’s performance.

The plates we spin are various spiritual activities–such as bible reading, prayer, or sharing the gospel–that are good and vital in themselves when pursued for the right reasons.

But often without realizing it, we allow a dangerous shift to take place in our mind and heart. We change what God intends as a means of experiencing grace into a means of earning grace. Instead of being a further expression of our confidence in God’s saving work in our life, these spiritual activities become simply more spinning plates to maintain.

When Sunday morning comes, we’ll sing and praise god in church with evident sincerity and zeal when we’ve had a really good week–with not a single plate wobbling.

But on another Sunday, following a week in which several plates crashed, we’re hesitant to approach God and find it difficult to worship freely. We can’t escape the feeling that God disapproves of us. Our confidence is no longer in the gospel; it’s based instead on our own performance, and when that performance slides, so does our peace and joy.

Do you see such signs of legalism in your own life? Do you often find that you’re more aware of your sin than of what Jesus accomplished at the cross? Do you think of God as disappointed with you rather than delighting over you?

Do you lack holy joy? Do you look to your spinning plates for the confidence–indeed, even the right–to approach God?

If you answer yes to any of those questions, you’ve probably begun to live under the tyranny of legalism.

But don’t let this discourage you. God wants to rescue you from the joyless futility of plate spinning through a right understanding of the gospel. (pg. 115-116, bolded emphasis added)

This performance-based, do-it-yourself-Christianity is deadly. It stifles joy, promotes pride, and can cripple spiritually sensitive believers. Be on guard for legalism in your life and in your church.

I know I experienced this (and still tend toward this “practical legalism” even today). What’s your story? Do you think Mahaney says it right here? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

What’s Wrong with Bikinis?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Speaking from a male’s perspective, everything is WRONG with bikinis. They certainly don’t help a man pursue godliness in this present world. Recently, however, Nancy Wilson at the Femina blog has taken up the topic of beach wear and bikinis. She points out that emphasizing what Bible verse condemns bikinis or any other specific item of clothing is not the best perspective. What would be RIGHT about bikinis for a woman to choose to wear one? Consider her thoughts:

Let’s come at it another way. Rather than looking for the absence of evil motives, let’s look for the presence of good ones. The Bible says women should be (to list a few things) sober, discreet, chaste (Titus 2:4-5), meek and quiet (1 Peter 3:4) holy (vs. 5-6), modest, dressing with propriety and moderation (1 Timothy 2:8), characterized by faith, charity, and holiness with self-control (vs. 15). So let’s say a Christian woman is wearing a thong to the beach. She says her conscience is clear and her husband doesn’t mind and she has no impure motives at all. But that is not the same thing as having good, Christ-like motives as she puts on her thong. Is she being discreet, chaste, holy, etc.? Show me how a thong (or a bikini) is a demonstration of propriety and moderation, chastity and self-control….

We want to measure the amount of skin, the hem length, or the neckline in square inches and defend our ground based on our lack of evil motives and the lack of a Bible verse that mentions skinny dipping. But we should be looking somewhere else entirely, and that is to Christ. How does our clothing demonstrate that we belong to Him? How does it display our discretion, holiness, chastity, moderation, self-control, and meekness? When we look at it that way, we are getting closer to the truth.

And one last point. Christian women are to adorn themselves (1 Peter 3) in a manner that impresses God. But dressing to be attractive is not at all the same as dressing to attract. [read the whole post]

Nancy has two recent posts on the topic: Beach Treats and More on Beach Wear. As much as I hope women help us guys out in the fight for pure thoughts, Nancy’s thoughts on how immodest clothing affects women and reflects their heart may be even more helpful in promoting virtue in this area. With the summer heat upon us, I thought it would be good to highlight these helpful posts and encourage my readers to consider this matter more fully. [HT: Sharper Iron Filings]

Tim Keller on the Gospel versus Moralism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I recently picked up Tim Keller’s new discipleship DVD Gospel in Life: Grace Changes Everything (Zondervan) [watch the trailer here]. It looks excellent, and I was struck by his description of the Prodigal Son parable and the 3 ways to live.

Here is a brief summary of his 3 ways to live:

  • Religion: I obey, therefore I am accepted by God.
  • Irreligion: I don’t need to obey anyone but myself.
  • Gospel: I am accepted by God at an infinite cost to Jesus Christ, therefore I obey.

I also stumbled across a brief online article adapted from Keller’s teaching on how the Gospel is the key to change. I thought I’d share an excerpt on how the Gospel counters this religious way to be your own savior. It’s the Gospel vs. Moralism.

Jesus lived the life we should live. He also paid the penalty we owe for the rebellious life we do live. He did this in our place (Isaiah 53:4-10; 2 Cor 5:21; Mark 10:45). We are not reconciled to God through our efforts and record, as in all ther religions, but through his efforts and record. Christians who trust in Christ for their acceptance with God, rather than in their own moral character, commitment, or erformance, are simul iustus et peccator (Latin) – simultaneously sinful yet accepted. We are more flawed and sinful than we ever dared believe, yet we are more loved and accepted than we ever dared hope at the same time.

Without this unique understanding of grace-salvation, religions have to paint God as either a demanding, holy God who is placated by back-breaking moral effort, or as what C.S. Lewis calls “˜a senile, old benevolence’ who tolerates everyone no matter how they live. The problem is that if I think I have a relationship with God because I am living morally according to his standards, it do s not move me to the depths to think of my salvation. I earned it. There is no joy, amazement, or tears. I am not galvanized and transformed from the inside. On the other hand, if I think I have a relationship with God because the Divine just embraces us all, no matter what how we live”” that also does not move me to the depths. I simply have the attitude of Voltaire, who, on his deathbed famously said, “Of course God forgives””that’s his job.” Any effort to take away the idea of Christ’s substitutionary atonement and replace it with a moralism (i.e., being moral, working for others, imitating Jesus) robs the gospel of its power to change us from the inside out.

The gospel is, therefore, radically different from religion. Religion operates on the principle: “I obey, therefore I am accepted” . The gospel operates on the principle: “I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey.” So the gospel differs from both religion and irreligion. Not only can you seek to be your own “˜lord and savior’ by breaking the law of God (i.e., through irreligion), you can also do so by keeping the law in order to earn your salvation (i.e., through religion). A lack of deep belief in the gospel is the main cause of spiritual deadness, fear, and pride in Christians, because our hearts continue to act on the basis “I obey, therefore, I am accepted.” If we fail to forgive others–that is not simply a lack of obedience, but a failure to believe we are saved by grace, too. If we lie in order to cover up a mistake–that is not simply a lack of obedience, but a failure to find our acceptance in God rather than in human approval. So we do not “˜get saved’ by believing the gospel and then “˜grow’ by trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. Believing the gospel is not only the way to meet God, but also the way to grow into him.

Let me know what you think. I think Tim Keller has struck gold here. This is what legalism really is at heart. It’s a moralism which strikes at the root of the Gospel.

Books for the Bullied: Recommended Resources Dealing with Grace & Legalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

My post yesterday, on “The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22” seemed to touch a nerve. Sharper Iron excerpted this line from my post: “1 Thess. 5:22 Often ‘Used As a Bully Club to Keep People in Line with the Group’s Expectations'”. If that’s all you see, it comes across a bit strongly. But this is the real beef with the misuse of 1 Thess. 5:22. It really is used in such a harsh, unloving and hyper-critical way.

A friend of mine from college posted the following on my Facebook page in response to my post:

Good read! I have been doing some extensive studies on the subject of “living under grace” these past few months. I have sat under many of these “bullies”…it is almost as if they are trying to bully us back under the law. It is interesting…when you read the Scriptures through the eyes of Grace…it sheds a whole new light on everything…

I replied back with some of the books that I’ve read over the years that helped me grapple with Grace vs. Legalism. I thought I’d share some of them here with you today.

I should first stress that the definition or the use of the word “legalism” can be much more incendiary than using the term “bully club”. I don’t want to offend and I don’t conclude that people in most fundamentalist churches are legalists. The tendency to legalism in the manner I am talking about, is a wider problem than just fundamentalism. But let me be careful to define what exactly I’m talking about. I’ve defined legalism in the past, but will try to give a quick explanation here as well.

Legalism is an attitude of the heart that depends on self-efforts to please God. It can apply to sanctification and not only to justification. I used to wonder how people could call fundamentalists “legalists” because none of us were close to a works-based justification. But as I left the movement of fundamentalism (I’m still a historic fundamentalist at heart), I came to grips with a real legalism of my own mind and heart. I really did think I was better than other Christians because of the positions I held or the level of personal sanctification (as evidenced by my external standards) that I maintained. I had to be honest with myself and admit that I used to actually think things like: “Those other people must not be as serious about the Lord or love Him as much as we do, because…”.

This kind of performance-oriented Christianity is legalism. When your relation with God ebbs and flows in direct correlation to how much production you have achieved recently in keeping the do’s and don’ts and in evangelism and service, then you really are legalistic and you don’t understand grace. This doesn’t mean you aren’t saved. It means you are missing out on the true glory of the Gospel of grace.

The following books helped me as I thought through these things, and may be a help to you as well.

The Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing by C.J. Mahaney This book is a real gem. It has been revised and expanded and is now available under the title Living the Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing although you can still find the first edition. This book will help you see how the Gospel intersects with all of life, and it has a chapter devoted to the legalism of which I speak. I highly recommend it. (Click on the picture of the first book, for a post I did on it way back in 2005.)

The Grace and Truth Paradox: Responding with Christlike Balance by Randy Alcorn This book is an easy read and quite helpful. Sometimes we feel that you can either be gracious or stand for truth, but Alcorn shows us that dichotomy is false. Jesus perfectly lived a life balancing an emphasis on Grace and Truth. This book cuts at the heart of legalism. (Click on the book’s cover to read my review with excerpts.)

Extreme Righteousness: Seeing Ourselves in the Pharisees by Tom Hovestol This book studies the Pharisees through new eyes. Instead of seeing how bad they are, or even how bad others are, Hovestol stresses that we are in their shoes. Evangelicals are the closest thing to a conservative religious establishment today, and we would be the target of Christ’s anger too. This book can be biting, but in much of it, Hovestol is sharing his own journey. It’s refreshing to be honest and to really see yourself through different eyes. (Click the book’s cover for the Amazon listing for this book.)

40 Loaves: Breaking Bread with Our Father Each Day by C.D. Baker is a book I reviewed recently. It is a devotional book with 40 small readings. It is packed full of grace from cover to cover. The author told me he shares a similar legalistic past and wanted to stress grace. You will be blessed by this book. (Click on the book’s cover to read my review.)

The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22

~ Bob Hayton ~ 26 Comments

Anyone with roots in conservative evangelicalism, and particularly fundamentalism, will have heard 1 Thess. 5:22 used as justification for all sorts of personal standards. Going to see a movie, drinking from a dark bottle, using playing cards, wearing facial hair (for men) or wearing pants (for women) — all of these activities and more are condemned with the words: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess 5:22, KJV).

These words are used as a bully club to keep people in line with the group’s expectations, or more usually, that of the leader. What appears as evil to one is not necessarily going to appear as evil to another; and so, taken to an extreme, the careful Christian could hardly do anything for fear of it somehow being misconstrued as evil.

This basic interpretation of the verse has surprisingly wide attestation. A wide variety of commentators uphold this understanding: Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Harry Ironside, J. Vernon McGee and Albert Barnes. It certainly is not good to rush into things which appear to be evil. But the nuance I see as unwarranted is more adequately found in these thoughts by Ironside: “All of us should remember that others are watching us and taking note of how we behave. We ought to abstain from all that looks like evil…” Or as McGee puts it: “This… is the answer for questionable pastimes and amusements. If there is any question in your mind whether something is right or wrong, then it is wrong for you. Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

Scripture does teach that we should watch out for weaker brethren and not put stumbling blocks in their way. But this particular verse is taken to teach a testimony should be maintained and things avoided which might at a far glance from a passing stranger appear to be sinful, even if upon closer examination they are not. Consider some of these modern applications of this verse in a fundamentalist context.

Fundamentalist Applications of 1 Thess. 5:22

The verse is used in a list of “67 tests that can be used by a believer to decide upon a course of action“. It is the “Appearance Test”. “Would what I do assume any appearance of evil? Would my actions be misinterpreted or seen in a negative light?”

It is used in a church statement of faith in relation to the dress styles church members should have. “We believe that Christian people should look and act like Christian people and not like those who love the things of this world…. Appearance shall be neat and clean, with short hair for men and longer for women. If any statement is to be made by means of dress, it should be a positive statement for Jesus Christ.”

It is used in a church constitution as follows: “The life of the pastor and his family should be an example of godliness and spirituality. They should not indulge in worldly or sinful practices which would tend to weaken the testimony of the church (1 Thess. 5:22 ).”

In a statement copywrighted by BJU Press, a group called the International Testimony to an Infallible Bible, lists 1 Thess. 5:22 as one of 5 reasons why “Christians… separate from the world and from worldliness…” The reason is “To make clear to Christians and non-Christians alike by their actions that they belong to God, not to the world (I Thessalonians 5:22).”

Cooper Abrams of bible-truth.org applies this to ecclesiastical separation: “This verse too is dealing with biblical separation from evil and sin in any form. It is the broadest of all the verses and plainly states to “abstain” from all appearance of evil. To “abstain” means to “hold one’s self off from” or to “refrain from.” Is not false doctrine evil? God clearly throughout His word over and over again condemns sin and false and idolatrous teachers. Is standing beside them, and working with those in doctrinal error “refraining” evil? The answer is obviously no. It is in fact standing with them.”

A popular King James Bible Only site, lists the NKJV’s rendering of the verse as “every form of evil” instead of “every appearance of evil” as one of 337 changes removed from the AV 1611.

David Cloud, an influential fundamentalist leader, applies the verse to everything from alcohol and TV to a new evangelical approach to ministry.

A Closer Look at 1 Thess. 5:22

Key to understanding 1 Thess. 5:22 is appreciating it in its context. Determining the meaning of the Greek word ειδους‚ (eidos) translated “appearance” by the KJV but “form” or “kind” in most modern Bible versions is also important.

Leon Morris in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians covers both of these points quite well. I’ll let him explain:

The positive injunction is followed by the negative. The form employed is a strong one with the preposition apo (as in iv. 3) used to emphasize the complete separation of the believer from evil. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the word eidous rendered appearance… as in AV [another abbreviation for KJV]…. The word eidos means the outward appearance of form (Lk. iii. 22, ‘shape’), without any notion of unreality. It is also used in the sense ‘sort, species, kind’. AV takes it in a third sense, ‘semblance’ as opposed to reality, but this does not seem to be attested elsewhere, and it is unlikely that the apostle would be concerned only with outward appearance (there is no word ‘even’ here to give the meaning, ‘even from the appearance of evil’). Our choice seems to be between ‘every visible form of evil’ (with no notion of unreality), and ‘every kind of evil’. The use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament favours the former; but there are enough examples of the term meaning ‘kind’ in the papyri to make the second quite possible. And in view of the context I am inclined to accept it. Paul is urging his friends to eschew evil of every kind.

The change from that which is good (lit. ‘the good’) in the previous verse to ‘every kind of evil’ in this is significant. The good is one, but evil is manifold, and is to be avoided in all its forms. — pg. 106, Eerdmans 1958 (1982 reprinted edition) [italics original, bolded emphasis mine]

I would add that The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology edited by Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1975) also explains that the modern concept of “semblance” is foreign to the Greek mind.

The distinction is commonly drawn between outward form and essential substance. Whilst this distinction is also found in Gk., the Gk. idea of form does not imply that every kind of form is a mere outward appearance…. [Speaking now specifically of the classical usage of ειδος]: the modern distinction between the external and the internal, the visible and the invisible, the husk and the kernel, and between the outward form and essential content is inappropriate and foreign to this aspect of Gk. thought…. The LXX uses eidos to translate mar’eh (sight, appearance, vision) and to’ar (form). Here too the outward appearance of the whole being is meant (cf. Gen. 29:17; Isa. 53:2 f.), and not merely the outer shell behind which something quite different might be supposed. — pg. 703-704 (vol. 1)

The closest that the Greek comes to the idea of “semblance” is with the word σχημα.

Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, present many papyrii examples contemporary to the NT of the meaning “kind” or “species” for the word ειδος. They also explain that the Greek word (ε)δικος‚ meaning “one’s own” comes from the word ειδος.

The meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22

Given the above closer look, I want to draw out what I believe is an appropriate interpretation and application from this text. I’ll be drawing from the immediate context of the verse beginning with vs. 19 – 23.

Don’t quench the Spirit by despising the role of prophecies in the local assembly. Instead of despising prophecies, you are to test everything (including prophecies). That test should result in your holding fast to “the good” and abstaining from every manifestation of evil. Some prophecies are evil, but the attitude of despising prophecies are also evil. As we test everything, we must approve the good and reject the various forms of evil. In fact we need God Himself to “sanctify (us) completely” so that we are “kept blameless at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Abstaining from “every form of evil” certainly fits in with that.

Now don’t be put off by the mention of prophecies. It is right there in the Bible. Whether or not prophecy applies to times beyond the NT is beside the point in our argument here. One thing is for sure, this teaching can be applied to the preaching and teaching of the Word. We shouldn’t despise teaching which we don’t like, but we should test it.

If it is legitimate to find a distinction between the appearance and the true nature of something in this passage, it would most appropriately apply to the prophecies which appear good but actually are forms of evil. I’m not convinced the Greek would allow this. The passage clearly addresses prophecies we don’t like but that are true. I don’t believe the opposite variety of prophecies (seem true but are bad) is referred to in this passage.

Other Articles

I refer you to the following articles for more on the real meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22.