Legalism?

General Christian Theology
CADude
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:43 pm
Location: Southeast PA
Affiliation: Consrvt. Anabaptist

Re: Legalism?

Post by CADude »

Soloist wrote:Okay some good answers.

If the perspective of a rule of the church is that its legalistic, is it wrong to obey it?
I think this depends on what it is. Obviously, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to come out of their legalism and He wouldn't have advocated them continuing in all those laws. I would apply that this way that if you're in a church where legalism is so taught as truth that the people are "whited sepulchres... full of dead men's bones", then I think it might be time to look for a different place to fellowship.

On the other hand, Paul's writings call us to love and forbear with each other as brethren, and in the latter half of Romans 14, to be willing to avoid things that would offend our weak brother's conscience. I've determined that these various teachings call me to be willing to comply with church rules that I don't agree with assuming those same rules don't require me to sin and that the majority of my brethren are not spiritually bankrupt.

So then, what about disobeying a church rule that you don't agree with in the case where you're pretty sure your weak brother won't find out about it, thus he won't have a chance to be offended by it? I suppose the safest approach is to assume that he might find out about it and just comply anyway.
0 x
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Legalism?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

CADude wrote:
Soloist wrote:Okay some good answers.

If the perspective of a rule of the church is that its legalistic, is it wrong to obey it?
I think this depends on what it is. Obviously, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to come out of their legalism and He wouldn't have advocated them continuing in all those laws. I would apply that this way that if you're in a church where legalism is so taught as truth that the people are "whited sepulchres... full of dead men's bones", then I think it might be time to look for a different place to fellowship.

On the other hand, Paul's writings call us to love and forbear with each other as brethren, and in the latter half of Romans 14, to be willing to avoid things that would offend our weak brother's conscience. I've determined that these various teachings call me to be willing to comply with church rules that I don't agree with assuming those same rules don't require me to sin and that the majority of my brethren are not spiritually bankrupt.

So then, what about disobeying a church rule that you don't agree with in the case where you're pretty sure your weak brother won't find out about it, thus he won't have a chance to be offended by it? I suppose the safest approach is to assume that he might find out about it and just comply anyway.
It's possible to be legalistic in insisting upon the "safest approach", too... :shock:
0 x
cmbl
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

Re: Legalism?

Post by cmbl »

CADude wrote: On the other hand, Paul's writings call us to love and forbear with each other as brethren, and in the latter half of Romans 14, to be willing to avoid things that would offend our weak brother's conscience.
I agree with this. Because the New Testament calls us to bear with one another in this way, it seems that in order to implement the New Testament, each of us will at some point have to obey something that we think is an extra-Biblical requirement.
CADude wrote: So then, what about disobeying a church rule that you don't agree with in the case where you're pretty sure your weak brother won't find out about it, thus he won't have a chance to be offended by it? I suppose the safest approach is to assume that he might find out about it and just comply anyway.
If one has agreed to become part of a church body and submit to its rules, then complying is not merely the "safest approach" - it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether your brother might find out.
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
Neto
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Legalism?

Post by Neto »

Until we moved back here to the States in 2003, I had spent nearly all of my adult life among non-anabaptists. At one point, actually shortly after I began to try to live by a set of guidelines, I became so tired of attempting to convince new acquaintances (being in missionary training at the time, I met a lot of new people) that I was NOT a legalist, that I started introducing myself as one. "Hi, I'm Ernie, and I'm a legalist." (Not to be confused with the MN member here known as 'Ernie'.) They were so alarmed by this statement that after asking lots of questions, they began to attempt to convince me that I was NOT one, arguing that since I was not basing my salvation on the rules I was living by, that I could not be a legalist. So I would say that 'legalism' is attempting to gain God's approval by following a set of rules.
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: Legalism?

Post by haithabu »

My thoughts:


Root cause: legalism is what happens any time that someone tries to achieve righteousness without grace.

It involves the idea that my value as a person is based on my level of compliance with the righteous standard, and that my level of compliance is entirely up to me.

It manifests itself in ethical distortion whereby I try to compensate for my inability to meet the weighty requirements of the Law by overachieving in the relatively minor outward things which I can do. Hence legalism is almost entirely guilt driven. Taken to the extreme, this ethical displacement can result in inventing an entirely new metric of man made righteousness only tenuously connected with God's standard.

So: righteousness without grace => guilt => ethical distortion.

Legalism is not exclusive to Christianity or any one form of Christianity. There is a legalistic approach to Judaism, legalism in Islam (for which I believe jihadism is a pressure relief valve), a legalistic form of Catholicism, a legalistic evangelicalism, a legalistic conservative Anabaptism and more recently a legalistic social justice movement.
Last edited by haithabu on Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
CADude
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:43 pm
Location: Southeast PA
Affiliation: Consrvt. Anabaptist

Re: Legalism?

Post by CADude »

cmbl wrote: If one has agreed to become part of a church body and submit to its rules, then complying is not merely the "safest approach" - it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether your brother might find out.
Yes, good point.
0 x
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Legalism?

Post by Wade »

Josh wrote:Is legalism a term from the Bible?

Or is it a man-made doctrine used to attack obedience to scripture?
Although it is not a term from scripture that isn't much different than many terms we use as a way to communicate with one another today.

I think judgement could be a closer term if I am understanding the context here?:
James 2:1-16(KJV)
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
If so, then this would not be an attack on scriptural obedience and if not then it is clear why there are so many abusive churches that ask things of others without being willing to lift a finger.

Churches with written standards(which I do support) need to be careful that they aren't like what we read here in James 2. But the poor man is just as accountable for using what resources God has given him wisely so as not using a lack of funds as an excuse for not being submissive. Legalism can fall into both sides of the ditch.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14442
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Legalism?

Post by Bootstrap »

cmbl wrote:
CADude wrote:On the other hand, Paul's writings call us to love and forbear with each other as brethren, and in the latter half of Romans 14, to be willing to avoid things that would offend our weak brother's conscience.
I agree with this. Because the New Testament calls us to bear with one another in this way, it seems that in order to implement the New Testament, each of us will at some point have to obey something that we think is an extra-Biblical requirement.
Much of what the New Testament teaches is general and is lived out in another culture quite different from our own. So if we are to apply it at all, we need to apply it concretely in our time and place. That always results in choosing specific things that go beyond Scripture.

But it's important to realize that, and not judge people whose application looks different from our own, as long as they are following New Testament teaching. And it's important to remember that our ministry is the ministry of reconciliation, not declaring war on everyone who is not following Jesus. Many "Christians" are in the ministry of condemnation, and that doesn't look much like Jesus.
cmbl wrote:
CADude wrote:So then, what about disobeying a church rule that you don't agree with in the case where you're pretty sure your weak brother won't find out about it, thus he won't have a chance to be offended by it? I suppose the safest approach is to assume that he might find out about it and just comply anyway.
If one has agreed to become part of a church body and submit to its rules, then complying is not merely the "safest approach" - it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether your brother might find out.
Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Legalism?

Post by Adam »

I think we should be careful about equating obedience to the words of Jesus and the apostles with legalism. Sometimes people start out obeying more out of fear or obligation than out of love. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Obedience for any reason is better than disobedience. For example, a recent convert may not feel fully convicted about watching certain TV shows that have inappropriate content, but walking in obedience, even if it is just outward at first and not from the heart, is better than watching the inappropriate content. Perhaps he could be accused of legalism because his heart isn't really in it, but over time he may see the value of obedience and his heart will change from a 'have to' mindset to a 'want to' mindset. Nevertheless, obeying out of love is the ideal. Mature Christian faith obeys out of love. But obedience out of fear is better than disobedience out of a fear of being called 'legalistic'.

I see legalism more as it relates to obeying man-made rules that are extra-biblical and finding apparent loopholes to avoid obeying the plain meaning of what Jesus and the apostles taught. The primary problem of the Pharisees is not legalism but disobedience. They were obedient in the minor matters of the law. Jesus recognizes this obedience and does not castigate them for being legalistic. But he rebukes them for their disobedience in weightier matters and also for disobeying God's laws for the sake of following their man-made traditions.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14442
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Legalism?

Post by Bootstrap »

Adam wrote:I see legalism more as it relates to obeying man-made rules that are extra-biblical and finding apparent loopholes to avoid obeying the plain meaning of what Jesus and the apostles taught. The primary problem of the Pharisees is not legalism but disobedience. They were obedient in the minor matters of the law. Jesus recognizes this obedience and does not castigate them for being legalistic. But he rebukes them for their disobedience in weightier matters and also for disobeying God's laws for the sake of following their man-made traditions.
This is good. Though I do wonder: did Jesus sometimes say that obeying the spirit of the law requires us to do things that might occasionally violate the letter of the law? That really boils down to another question: were any of the things the Pharisees saw as his violations of the law actual violations? I don't know the answer, I spent a few hours asking the question once and found it difficult.

And I think we need to realize that we all do the same thing as the Pharisees. The things we fight about are not usually the clear teachings of Jesus or the weightier matters of the law. We sort of know what Jesus showed us about how to relate to sinners, the poor, our own sinfulness, materialism and the things the world chases after, the centrality of love for God and for our neighbors, deep trust in God rather than being anxious about all things ... but it all gets lost somehow.

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus talks about the seed sown among thorns: "but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful". Many of us see those thorns clearly in politicized religion and "trendy causes" religion and "respectable society" religion. But there are also religious thorns that choke the word. That's what Paul is talking about here:
Phil 3 wrote:If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
So often, we are fighting about the kinds of things that Paul calls "rubbish". And we have built great edifices of rubbish, defending them fiercely. Sometimes these edifices of rubbish make it hard to find the things that were central to Jesus. That's easy to see in someone else's religious tradition, but this happens in all religious traditions, including our own. And like the Pharisees, we judge people harshly if they do not have the same rubbish we do.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply