The Attraction to Legalism
“Why is legalism so attractive? It is attractive because it feeds the sinful flesh. It may not feed the flesh in the same way that sexual perversions, alcohol, drugs, and promiscuity do, but it does feed the flesh.
And, I will argue that it does so in a more dangerous way, because it deceives a person into thinking he is doing the right thing while in fact he is destroying his life and the lives of those around him.”
Dr. Matt Olson weighs in on The Attraction To Legalism
- 75 views
Couldn’t keep up with the discussion for a few days there and I’m not sure how to respond at this point.
There were a couple of comments directed at my posts regarding strawmanning, and the Lucado example, etc. Maybe it’ll be helpful to just summarize what I’m saying and not saying.
I offered Lucado as an example of the sort of rhetoric that is out there. The category I’m referring to is “broad brush anti-legalism rhetoric,” and there is tons of it. I’m going to include the Olson post under that general heading though, no, Olson doesn’t go as far as Lucado. The similarity is the vaguely defined concept of what legalism is, the tendency to give the impression that everyone who takes discipline in Christian living seriously is a legalist, and the tendency to reject rules (rhetorically—though just about nobody rejects them consistently in practice) as having any instrumentality in godly living or growth in grace.
One more thing is characteristic of the category: the tendency to see/speak of “legalism” as though it were the great spiritual ailment of our time, or at least in the top two or three things afflicting believers today.
So my beef is with that sort of rhetoric. And the reason I object to is simply this:
- Rules play an important role in godly living and growth in grace
- Legalistic thinking is not anywhere near the worst thing afflicting the church today (not even close), though it is a severe problem in some ministries and some “pockets” of fundamentalism. It just depends on your sample size. I’m convinced that the trend is toward self-indulgent and passive Christian living and that, on the whole, Christians need more personal discipline not less.
- It’s sloppy and unhelpful to use the same term for a. belief that you can earn your justification, and b. overemphasis on external regulation of behavior among the already-justified, much less c. belief that disciplined living is our calling as Christians. So we need to stop lumping these together as “legalism.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I was flipping through Berg’s Changed Into His Image last night, and there’s a very helpful diagram on rules and the underlying principles in one of the appendixes. If I can get permission from Dr. Berg, I’ll reproduce it here, but I wanted to point that out in case anyone reading this thread had that book and wanted to refer to it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Dave Gilbert]“Legalism” ( my definition ): The over-application of Biblical truth and exhortation via teaching, usually done with a misunderstanding of the regenerate spirit and grace in general, that results in a false sense of accomplishment with regard to spiritual growth both personally and as a congregation.
Pretty vague definition. What is “over application”? Where is the legal in this?
But I agree that many are using a definition something like this. The problem is that it too often really means “applications I disagree withism” or “actually caring about obedienceism” etc.
We need a lot more precision about these things so that we avoid tossing out the NT concept of disciplined pursuit of holiness along with the other stuff we’re trying to be rid of.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Again, at the risk of redundancy, the record of Scripture is clear. The church (Jerusalem) that absolutely renounced legalism (Acts 15) is the exact same church that put Paul under very strict law for the purpose of communicating “…that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law…” while in the same passage re-affirming their repudiation of legalism—“…as touching the Gentiles which believe, we have …concluded…only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (Acts 21:24-25).”
Aaron is right: “over-application of Biblical truth” probably translates into something like “ax to grind about something I really want to do.”
Lee
I’m still working through my own study of Galatians and identifying as precisely as possible what the error of the Galatians really was.
It’s clear to me that the error of the Pharisees was unbelieving self-righteousness, which is quite a different animal from “making rules based on a genuine desire to be obedient to Scripture.” Night and day.
But the Galatians… Though I’m not sure what their error was, I’m quite sure what it was not: it was not the belief that applying Scripture in the form of clear requirements and prohibitions would help them grow in godliness. The NT’s abundant calls to self discipline (among other things) make that view unsustainable.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion