Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism

[dcbii] I’m not convinced as to whether church discipline would be appropriate in that case or not.

What I was trying to do was wrestle through this with Romans 14 and 15 in view. Christians are going to come to difference conclusions on various issues that are not explicitly mentioned in scripture. Are we to just “receive” them no matter what? I don’t think that is what Paul is saying, but it does seem that he is saying this in a context in which the local church has received such a person. I say that because the person is not to pass judgement on the person eating since “God has accepted him” (NASB), or “God has welcomed him” (ESV), or “God has received him” (KJV) How does one know if God has done those things? Well, has the person and their actions been welcomed into the church? Would the church take as a member someone engaged in that activity? Would the church discipline someone engaged in that activity? If the church is not judging them, then you should not judge someone for engaging in that activity.

I’m just thinking through this, and using this forum to work out some of my thoughts. I realize as I write this that we could be dealing with a situation of an immature believer, still struggling or uninformed about certain things that the church my very well want to address with that person, eventually. I’m not exactly sure how that fits in with what I just said.

To your point about putting things in writing, many churches have put not drinking alcohol in their church covenants. They are saying, as a church we are uniting on this position to help those who may have had problems in the past with drunkenness, and to help prevent issues of drunkenness from developing, and basically as a general wisdom response to the issue of intoxicating substances in our day. That issue was thought serious enough to put in the constitution. I think it would be hard, as you say, to disciple someone over an issue not explicitly mentioned in the Bible or spelled out in the constitution, but really the issue with church discipline is this – the person’s unrepentant conduct is such that the church as a body can no longer view that person as a believer, i.e., the fruit and practice of that person’s life indicates that he is not a believer, or if a believer, he needs to be removed from the church to hopefully bring him to a place of repentance.

What makes one a Pharisee is declaring something to be sin that the Bible does not, and imposing that restriction upon others. Individual decisions to impose extra Biblical rules of conduct upon oneself are legitimate. Discussing your decision with others, and why you made that decision is also legitimate. Your reference to drinking alcohol provides a good example.

I, personally, have chosen to be a total abstainer. I recognize that the Bible does not require this. I oppose those who misuse Scripture to try to make it teach abstinence. That is a distortion of Scripture, and no good can come from mishandling Scripture to try to make it say what it does not say. That is Pharisaism. The decision to refrain is as much a legitimate exercise of Christian Liberty as the liberty to partake. I have the liberty to abstain. Others have the liberty to partake. No one has the liberty to get drunk, but neither does anyone have the right to impose upon others that which the Bible does not require.

[G. N. Barkman] What makes one a Pharisee is declaring something to be sin that the Bible does not, and imposing that restriction upon others. Individual decisions to impose extra Biblical rules of conduct upon oneself are legitimate.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the mess at the recent BJU Fashion Show as an example of “legalism”.

[WallyMorris]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the mess at the recent BJU Fashion Show as an example of “legalism”.

….but “tacky” comes to mind if the pictures I saw are indicative. There is tons of room for Christians to come up with good fashions that make real people—not waifs or plus size people, but average sized—look good with good function. It’s a struggle in my family with four daughters and very little clothing out there that is affordable and actually works in the four seasons we have here in Minnesota. For that matter, even mens’ clothes are getting pretty bad. My take on the BJU fashion show is that it misses the obvious need and simply does a toned down version of what one would see in New York or Paris.

(wait a second, did I just partially agree with Wally? Time to write it down—smile—or send EMTs to his house so he doesn’t die of shock)

But seriously and more directly to the point, whatever objections exist (beyond mine) to BJU’s fashion show illustrate some of the difficulties in parsing out what is really legalism, what is Pharisaism or what I’d just call “extra rules”, and what is just something we do or don’t like. I’m guessing that if I saw 20 responses to the fashion show, I’d get some in each category.

Bert: Our daughter and her 3 daughters have the same difficulty with finding appropriate clothing. BJU could have provided an excellent service to Christians by designing nice clothes but chose instead to try to be “trendy”. I think this illustrates a deeper problem at BJU.

The EMT’s just arrived at my home.

[AndyE]

G. N. Barkman wrote:What makes one a Pharisee is declaring something to be sin that the Bible does not, and imposing that restriction upon others. Individual decisions to impose extra Biblical rules of conduct upon oneself are legitimate.

But what if the person who is declaring something to be sin thinks the Bible DOES as well, just not directly? Isn’t that the rub, that you and the other person disagree about what the Bible teaches?

I just read Mark 7:1-13. According to this passage, pharisaism is declaring something to be wrong / sinful based on one’s application of Scripture, imposing that view on others and/or judging others for not holding that view, and violating or nullifying other Scripture in the process.

Take abstinence from alcohol as an example. Pharisaism would be declaring that Christians should never drink alcohol, expecting all Christians to abstain, judging Christians who do drink to be “in sin” or “worldly,” and meanwhile violating passages like Romans 14-15 and James 4:11-12 in your condemnation of other believers.

The key for me is that your position is based on an application of the text, not a direct command / prohibition from the text. The distance between the Scriptural command / prohibition and the level of application determines the authority of the application. For example, the Scripture is clear that Christians are to abstain from sexual immorality. An application that someone could draw from this is that a man should never be alone with a woman who is not related to him (i.e. the Billy Graham rule). If someone declares that this rule is true for every believer and judges other believers based on their adherence to this rule, then that is pharisaism.

I suppose the Pharisees may have sincerely believed that their laws were Scriptural. But they were clearly wrong, which is why Jesus corrected them.

We will never resolve all differences of Biblical interpretation. However, where there is a disagreement, the ideal is to be able to discuss differences, and challenge weak and erroneous conclusions. That’s an important way to grow in grace and knowledge. When differences cannot be resolved, decisions must be made. Is this a serious enough error (in my opinion) that I need to withdraw from this brother? Is this something with which I can agree to disagree and live and let live? But that does not prohibit me from stating, based upon my understanding of Scripture, “I consider what you are teaching to be in error, and like the Pharisees, you are imposing regulations upon others that are not supported by Scripture.”

[T Howard] I just read Mark 7:1-13. According to this passage, pharisaism is declaring something to be wrong / sinful based on one’s application of Scripture, imposing that view on others and/or judging others for not holding that view, and violating or nullifying other Scripture in the process.

Take abstinence from alcohol as an example. Pharisaism would be declaring that Christians should never drink alcohol, expecting all Christians to abstain, judging Christians who do drink to be “in sin” or “worldly,” and meanwhile violating passages like Romans 14-15 and James 4:11-12 in your condemnation of other believers. That is pharisaism.

I just happened to refer to this drinking issue in my SS class last week. I said it was a wisdom issue. That we need to acknowledge places in the Bible where wine is mentioned positively and where the dangers are mentioned. The classic danger passage in Prov 20:1 actually says if you are deceived by wine you are not wise. I mentioned that our church has in its covenant a prohibition against the use of alcohol as a beverage, explained why I thought that was in there (see comments to Dave above) and agreed that I thought it was wise to hold to an abstinence position. I don’t think I created any sort of extra-biblical command, but I did very briefly state my general agreement with the abstinence position. Am I a Pharisee?

[AndyE]

What I was trying to do was wrestle through this with Romans 14 and 15 in view. Christians are going to come to difference conclusions on various issues that are not explicitly mentioned in scripture. Are we to just “receive” them no matter what? I don’t think that is what Paul is saying, but it does seem that he is saying this in a context in which the local church has received such a person. I say that because the person is not to pass judgement on the person eating since “God has accepted him” (NASB), or “God has welcomed him” (ESV), or “God has received him” (KJV) How does one know if God has done those things? Well, has the person and their actions been welcomed into the church? Would the church take as a member someone engaged in that activity? Would the church discipline someone engaged in that activity? If the church is not judging them, then you should not judge someone for engaging in that activity.

I’m just thinking through this, and using this forum to work out some of my thoughts.

Yes, I agree that one of the great uses of this forum is to work out and hone thoughts with input from other believers. I’m doing the same here.

That’s an interesting take that I hadn’t thought of — the local church being the determination of how we know whether “God has received him.” I’ll have to do some more thinking on that, but I would agree that there is a problem if someone repeatedly and intentionally behaves in contradiction to what restrictions he has accepted to follow by joining a church. IMO, the bigger problem comes when it’s something not in the Bible and not laid out in the constitution, but the church is uncomfortable with it. Since constitutions are limited documents and the number of scenarios is practically unlimited, I’d say that will happen a lot more than we may think.

Of course, that gets into a whole separate issue: If the local church is the determination that God has received someone, what should the church standards look like? I’ve heard it said by men I respect that ideally they want the church to be no wider or narrower than what is laid out in the Bible. That’s a great goal in my opinion. However, due to human limitation and differences in interpretation, issues will be seen differently by different men, and hence, the church doctrinal statement doesn’t just have a single line “Refer to the Bible — ESV,” but lays out a particular understanding. However, there will still need to be leeway given on a whole host of issues not dealt with either directly or logically implied in scripture.

I think it would be hard, as you say, to disciple someone over an issue not explicitly mentioned in the Bible or spelled out in the constitution, but really the issue with church discipline is this – the person’s unrepentant conduct is such that the church as a body can no longer view that person as a believer, i.e., the fruit and practice of that person’s life indicates that he is not a believer, or if a believer, he needs to be removed from the church to hopefully bring him to a place of repentance.

I mostly agree with that view of church discipline. That’s why I think it should be mainly used for issues which are of scriptural importance, and any list of additional items thought to be sin because of particular interpretation or application should be chosen very carefully, and kept as limited as possible in order to avoid “adding to the scriptures.” Any distinctives that once violated can be a considered an offense worthy of discipline (i.e. declaring that as far as the church is concerned the person being disciplined is unrepentant to the point of being considered an unbeliever) had better have strong biblical support, and the member should be familiar with each of them.

Your example of alcohol use is a pretty good one. Anyone with strong beliefs that the Bible does not require abstinence would very likely be unwise to join a church that had a “no alcohol” clause, even if they personally abstain, because they are already agreeing to something they see as wrong doctrine or interpretation of Scripture. That clause might be an indication of much bigger issues with the church’s approach to biblical interpretation that should be considered before joining.

Probably. The correct course is to remove the un-biblical abstinence prohibition from your church covenant. (As we did several years ago. It was quite the battle!) Then you are on solid ground stating your own personal decision to abstain, and why you highly recommend that course for others. (as I do from time to time) But when done in this way, it is clear that this is a personal preference, a matter of opinion, yes a wisdom issue, but not an imposed law that goes beyond Biblical teaching.

Church covenant abstinence requirements convey the impression, if not the declaration, that this is what the Bible teaches and requires. Romans 14 make clear that the choice to drink or not to drink wine is a personal decision, and a matter of Christian liberty. If my church covenant makes abstinence a requirement, the covenant is in violation of Romans 14:21,22. That’s the conclusion I was forced to accept many years ago. I knew it would be difficult to implement, but faithfulness to Scripture is more important than refusing to disturb strongly held traditions.

The word legalism gets used in a few different ways:

1. The act of placing and following rules for salvation.

IOW, can I do SOMETHING to earn my standing with God? If you say “Yes,” then you’re a legalist. Now, even if you say, “No,” I would hope that you still believe that there is such a thing as sin. Even though you believe with Paul that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works, you still believe that there is such a thing as works and that we should do them.

2. The act of placing and following rules for sanctification

IOW, once saved by faith, do we bring about our own sanctification by doing good works? This is actually a really interesting and difficult question. Mark seems to be saying “Yes,” at least partially or in a sense or sorta.

Even if you believe that both salvation and sanctification are by grace through faith and not by works, you still believe they should move the believer toward doing good works. So there’s still such a thing as a good work!

3. The act of placing rules on others that they have not concluded for themselves are God’s rules or applications of Biblical principles.

IOW, since the reasonable Christian here at SI believes in Eph 2:8-9 and ALSO v. 10, the question becomes, “What actions are good works?” And the term legalism is often used for people who consider things required/prohibited that I don’t.

[AndyE]

But what if the person who is declaring something to be sin thinks the Bible DOES as well, just not directly? Isn’t that the rub, that you and the other person disagree about what the Bible teaches?

Of course that can happen. That’s why I’d use the Martin Luther test (scripture together with plain reason) and give the person a chance to convince me. If he can’t do it to my satisfaction (also considering advice from people whose biblical understanding I trust and respect), I’m not going to agree that it’s sin, and I’m then going to treat such a prohibition from someone else as “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” If he’s only taking that position for himself, and realizes that while he might believe it a sin, he can’t prove it scripturally and doesn’t hold me to his standard, then that is completely different.

The Pharisees that Jesus condemned and excoriated were unbelievers:
Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
I believe that using that term to speak of believers is unhelpful, unjustified, and a misuse of the term.

[G. N. Barkman] Church covenant abstinence requirements convey the impression, if not the declaration, that this is what the Bible teaches and requires. Romans 14 make clear that the choice to drink or not to drink wine is a personal decision, and a matter of Christian liberty. If my church covenant makes abstinence a requirement, the covenant is in violation of Romans 14:21,22. That’s the conclusion I was forced to accept many years ago. I knew it would be difficult to implement, but faithfulness to Scripture is more important than refusing to disturb strongly held traditions.

BTW, I have a little booklet called “A Baptist Church Manual” written by a J. Newton Brown in 1853. It has a sample church covenant that reads like almost every church covenant I’ve ever seen. It includes this line, “to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage…” I don’t know if this booklet is the source for these church covenants or what, but it’s interesting to me. Our covenant reads almost word for word with this one, as do many of covenants that I have read.