Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism

[WallyMorris]

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

However, I was heartened by the response to this by Dr. Pettit. I’m glad this was addressed publicly and that they don’t want it to happen again.

https://twitter.com/BJUPresident/status/1481394538455478277

[G. N. Barkman] 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. …

Matt 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

The Pharisees imposed many rules on themselves and others. They detailed tithing even of fine herbs, which perhaps reflects a sincere desire to carefully obey the Law.

Part of the problem is that those rules satisfied them, regardless of whether their own hearts (and perhaps the hearts of the people they led) were filled with justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

Note that Jesus’s message did not actually say those rules were wrong. In fact, He said, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
The problem - the real problem - is that adherence to rules (while they can be good) can only clean the outside, while the inside remains filthy!

Greg, I think this is the key to understanding weak/strong issues. The weak are not “clearly wrong” about the rightness of their conviction for themselves.

They are wrong when they 1) use the rule-following as the way to salvation or 2) try to impose it on others.

[Dan Miller]

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.

I think that Mark’s post deals with question #2. But this thread has mostly dealt with question #3. And I think that to honor Mark’s paper, we should turn things back to #2.

Mark seems to say that the disciplines he was taught as a child made entering and succeeding in seminary easier for him. And thus they have value and should not be considered “legalism.” I would classify his seminary work as a “good work.” One done with the aim to enable/improve Mark’s service to the Lord. That’s good. Not just acceptable, but good. If he’s right that his parent’s effort to instill discipline into him made him a better man by giving him mental tools and inclination to study God’s Word deeper, then we could conclude that his parent’s discipline sanctified him. Right?

Many years ago Radio Bible Class published a booklet called “The Pharisee In Me”. Worth reading.

[AndyE]

WallyMorris wrote:

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

I was pretty distraught when I saw this. This was by far the worst thing I’ve seen allowed on campus.

However, I was heartened by the response to this by Dr. Pettit. I’m glad this was addressed publicly and that they don’t want it to happen again.

https://twitter.com/BJUPresident/status/1481394538455478277

I never heard about this. I guess it’s good that I didn’t…

It can be inflammatory for the reasons Rajesh mentions—they were largely unregenerate and most people do not see themselves in that faction of Judiasm—but there is also a reality that the New Testament speaks a lot of about the Pharisees and other legalists for a reason; it is, per Galatians, that we are tempted to it. So as humiliating and irritating as it can be, I think we ought to cheerfully suffer the question “are you being a Pharisee?”

Wally, hope you’re recovering well. :^)

[RajeshG]

The Pharisees that Jesus condemned and excoriated were unbelievers:

[…]

I believe that using that term to speak of believers is unhelpful, unjustified, and a misuse of the term.

I’m sort of in Bert’s camp on this one. While using the exact term “Pharisee” would be unhelpful in describing a believer, the terms pharisaical (literally “like the Pharisees,” with definition “excessively or hypocritically pious”) or pharisaism are describing traits or actions, which could apply to those not pharisees, and indeed actions of Christians can still resemble what the Pharisees were doing, rather than the people themselves.

Pharisaism may not be the perfect term for what is being described in this thread, but it is descriptive and useful at least in this discussion.

Andy,

On Rom. 14:21 that you quoted, I think putting something like an alcohol clause in a church covenant on the basis of that verse will depend on how that verse is taken — is it for each of us to make a personal (good) decision to restrict our liberty at certain times to not cause a brother to stumble, or does it mean that all Christians must not eat meat or drink wine at any time? Given that Paul mentions eating meat at other times, I would think the 2nd interpretation is out. Not to mention Rom. 14:22, which talks about keeping our faith (presumably on such liberty issues from the context) between ourselves and God rather than restricting others’ liberties in a church covenant.

If a church agreed together that they wanted a phrase on abstinence from alcohol in their covenant, I think that is their own business. However, I also believe the reasons behind such a rule should be explained (in this case, not because those agreeing to it believe the Bible prohibits alcohol, but that they want to have a distinctive behavior in order to not cause other brothers to stumble).

The short form, as appears in most constitutions like you mentioned, leaves the reasoning unclear, and could lead to the idea that those behind that text believe something that they actually don’t. Future generations will simply take it as “the Bible prohibits alcohol” even if those who wrote that constitution don’t believe that at all.

[dcbii]

RajeshG wrote:

The Pharisees that Jesus condemned and excoriated were unbelievers:

[…]

I believe that using that term to speak of believers is unhelpful, unjustified, and a misuse of the term.

I’m sort of in Bert’s camp on this one. While using the exact term “Pharisee” would be unhelpful in describing a believer, the terms pharisaical (literally “like the Pharisees,” with definition “excessively or hypocritically pious”) or pharisaism are describing traits or actions, which could apply to those not pharisees, and indeed actions of Christians can still resemble what the Pharisees were doing, rather than the people themselves.

Pharisaism may not be the perfect term for what is being described in this thread, but it is descriptive and useful at least in this discussion.

[dcbii] On Rom. 14:21 that you quoted, I think putting something like an alcohol clause in a church covenant on the basis of that verse will depend on how that verse is taken — is it for each of us to make a personal (good) decision to restrict our liberty at certain times to not cause a brother to stumble, or does it mean that all Christians must not eat meat or drink wine at any time? Given that Paul mentions eating meat at other times, I would think the 2nd interpretation is out. Not to mention Rom. 14:22, which talks about keeping our faith (presumably on such liberty issues from the context) between ourselves and God rather than restricting others’ liberties in a church covenant.

If a church agreed together that they wanted a phrase on abstinence from alcohol in their covenant, I think that is their own business. However, I also believe the reasons behind such a rule should be explained (in this case, not because those agreeing to it believe the Bible prohibits alcohol, but that they want to have a distinctive behavior in order to not cause other brothers to stumble).

I’ve already said I think the issue is a wisdom issue, but there are people who argue that the wine in the Bible is not like the wine and alcohol we have today and even if it was OK, even good sometimes, to drink in moderation in Bible times, the situation today is not the same. And that the new, modern situation demands what we take the warning passages regarding alcohol as normative, and that it is sinful to drink a beer, or have whiskey, or wine, or whatnot. I’m not going to call those people pharisees. Just like I’m not going to call Pastor Barkman a Pharisee even though he insists on an extra-biblical standard regarding abstinence in church covenants. Pharisees lead people to hell. That’s not what people are doing if they say wine is a sin.

[AndyE]

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.

I did some reading on John Newton Brown a few years back when updating our church’s covenant. If memory serves, he was involved in the publication of the New Hampshire confession and the covenant which became very popular among moderately Calvinistic Baptist churches across the US since the 19th century. Brown had a significant role in the temperance movement which would eventually lead to the prohibition movement in the early 20th century.

Paul Jackson wrote a book on Baptist church order for the Regular Baptist Press in the 1950s or 60s, and he suggested that it was time for an update on the old covenant by Brown. If the was true 60 years ago, it’s even more true today!

It ought to be noted that when we’re talking about Pharisaism these days, most often we’re referring to those who are trying to “fence off the law” with additional rules “so we cannot get close”. That’s the central tendency of Pharisaism—it was an attempt to regulate society to avoid the kind of sins that earned God’s wrath that got them sent to Babylon.

So it’s not a “guilt by association” along the lines of “well, you want to wear a mustasche, well you know Hitler wore one too!”, but rather a legitimate metaphor akin to saying “if you state that the workers ought to own the means of production, you are voicing a Communist sentiment whether you like it or not.”

We also ought to remember the consequences of those “fencing off” rules. I taught on Matthew 12 recently, and it struck me that in their zeal to preserve the Sabbath, the Pharisees were breaking laws of mercy, of work on the Sabbath (how far were they walking to harass Jesus that day? Doesn’t that count as work?etc..), and they were in general infringing on the entire purpose of that seventh day. Consistently, Christ and the Apostles point out that the “laws of men” flat out contradicted the written Law of Moses.

I see the same dynamic in place with a lot of the “extra rules” I’ve seen in evangelical and fundamental churches. It’s hard to reconcile, IMO, evangelical and fundamental “dress codes” (“gotta wear a suit” and the like) with James’ admonition to associate with the poor man in vile raiment. Strict regulations on music seem to contradict the last two Psalms, and then there’s “OK, so your church covenant prohibits your members from going to the wedding at Cana with Jesus….”

One side note; ancient wine wasn’t that different from today’s in terms of character or strength. It’s the same species of grape (vitis vinifera) and the same species of yeast (saccharomyces cerevisiae), and the Greeks used about the same techniques to get wines to ~16% alcohol that are used today. Distilled spirits are somewhat different (40% typically, some cask liquors at 75% or more), but the long and short of it is that a determined drinker back in Bible times could get himself drunk/incapacitated/killed in about the same way as today. It’s not like it was safe then but super dangerous now.

(another casualty of additional rules at times seems to be, ahem, the truth)

[AndyE]

I think Paul is saying that there are times when abstinence is necessary for the good of your brother. I think that also means that the “keep it to yourself” option in vs 22 is not always possible or practical, depending on the situation.

I think I’m in general agreement with this, as I suspect any Christian who isn’t just trying to be libertine would be as well, whether abstentionist or not.

But regardless, if it is good for an individual to abstain in certain situations, why would it not be proper for the entire church to do the same?

Of course the “certain situations” makes all the difference doesn’t it, especially when it doesn’t appear in the covenant text? Again, any independent church can put in their documents whatever standards they wish. The way most are written on this topic, similar to the booklet you quote, does appear to me to go further than what the Bible is requiring, so I at least understand Greg’s point of view. I just think that if such clauses are used, church documents should make clear when they are asking such of those who subscribe to them, and why they are being asked to do so.

But there’s a bigger issue in my mind, at least. Since I see church discipline as not only protecting the church body, but trying to save the soul of someone unrepentant, I think putting things like this on the same level as scripture does one of two things: 1. It says that breaking this rule that didn’t come from the text is just as important as breaking scriptural prohibitions, or 2. It means that church discipline will need to be followed not just for issues dangerous to a person’s soul or to the church, but also for things that are just specific to the “club.” Maybe breaking agreed-on rules like this, that are added for “wisdom” reasons should result in a different type of separation from the church that what is the norm for church discipline. (i.e. we don’t see you as an unbeliever, but you can’t stay a part of this local church.)

Some churches have new members classes in which they cover things like this. I think this would be a good idea.

Agreed, though sometimes expectations don’t match reality. Adding explanatory text in the church documents would seem to be longer lasting and more obvious to those who may not remember the class.

…there are people who argue that the wine in the Bible is not like the wine and alcohol we have today and even if it was OK, even good sometimes, to drink in moderation in Bible times, the situation today is not the same. And that the new, modern situation demands what we take the warning passages regarding alcohol as normative, and that it is sinful to drink a beer, or have whiskey, or wine, or whatnot. I’m not going to call those people pharisees.

I might not call them Pharisees, but in my mind this comes pretty close to “situational ethics.” It’s like saying that God didn’t anticipate what would happen in the 21st century, and that we have to “better” what he wrote and declare things sinful that he did not. Anything I do (or a whole church does) for “wisdom” reasons might be a good thing (just like individuals being careful to not cause their brothers to stumble), but again, we have to be careful to not teach “for doctrines the commandments of men.” Explaining a clause prohibiting alcohol use as being wise rather than sin would certainly be a good start.

Pharisees lead people to hell. That’s not what people are doing if they say wine is a sin.

The Pharisees might not have been sending people to hell by telling them they should wash themselves or utensils before eating. Personally, I believe this was a (legitimate) personal application they made, given the number of unclean things (like many types of insects) that would touch them or utensils on a nearly constant basis in an ancient agrarian culture. And yet, the scriptures made clear that eating with unwashed hands did not defile a man (Matt. 15:20), so applying that personal holiness standard to others was shown to be at least unnecessary, and maybe wrong.

I’m certainly good with someone developing personal holiness standards (fences not directly tied to the scriptures), and even OK with a group like a church doing so, as long as they understand that such standards are not the equal of scripture, and that violating them (depending on the circumstance, like when private and not causing another to stumble) is not necessarily dangerous to them spiritually.

from the article:

I’m not suggesting that Bible Colleges are to blame, though several have seemed to lose their raison d’etre rather suddenly and cataclysmically in recent years. I admit to sympathies here, not only because (1) my experience at one Bible college played a key role in my ministry preparation but also because (2) Bible colleges have been tasked, by parents and churches, with the very difficult and somewhat unnatural task of functioning in loco parentis and in loco ekklesia. The problem, I would suggest, is much deeper than Bible colleges. The source of the problem, ultimately, is a general sense, born out of sentiments endemic in broader culture, and perpetuated at times in Christian homes and churches, that cultivating discipline and developing a work ethic are somehow dangerous, legalistic, or antithetical to the Christian Gospel. This is patently false.

Bottom line: if you want to prepare for seminary (and specifically, for Detroit Baptist Seminary) and ultimately for pastoral ministry, start by learning the discipline of sustained reading, the long task of thorough research, the meticulous skill of writing cogently, and the meaning of hard work. Then, having cultivated these disciplines further in seminary and made them field specific to Christian ministry, you will be better positioned to be a workman worthy of his hire.

A few comments:

1. Developing the personal disciplines discussed in the article is less about spiritual matters and more about being successful academically and personally. If you’re pursuing an advanced theological degree and called to pastoral ministry, you need to develop the discipline of time management as well as the others mentioned in the second paragraph above. That’s not legalism, that’s just the truth about pursuing any advanced degree. If you’re pursuing pastoral ministry to get out of these disciplines you have no business becoming a pastor. Period.
2. Developing personal disciplines around cleanliness, timeliness, personal hygiene, hard work, study habits, etc. are part of growing up and becoming an adult. It’s true: our culture loves its autonomy and freedom and thinks discipline, self-control / denial, and sacrifice are terrible. And, don’t get me started on the fact that many in our society view these issues as involving “white privilege.” However, if you study the lives of great athletes, leaders, etc., oftentimes their success in life is due to their discipline, self-denial, and sacrifice. They paid their dues, so to speak. Today, many people want to become celebrities by doing nothing in life other than posting YouTube or TikTok videos.
3. I reject the idea that Christian colleges need to function in loco parentis or that they should function in loco ekklesia. These are not the roles and responsibilities of the Christian college. They do a terrible job when they try to usurp the role of parent or church to their students. Instead, they should treat their students as adults and allow their students to attend the church of their choice.
4. Today, many young pastors are more interested in building their brand or their ministry clout than they are in being faithful shepherds. Further, they lack the disciplines required for sustained pastoral ministry. When things get hard they quickly move on to the next church. They like to blame God for moving to their next church … which happens to almost always be bigger and pay more.

[dcbii] But there’s a bigger issue in my mind, at least. Since I see church discipline as not only protecting the church body, but trying to save the soul of someone unrepentant, I think putting things like this on the same level as scripture does one of two things: 1. It says that breaking this rule that didn’t come from the text is just as important as breaking scriptural prohibitions, or 2. It means that church discipline will need to be followed not just for issues dangerous to a person’s soul or to the church, but also for things that are just specific to the “club.” Maybe breaking agreed-on rules like this, that are added for “wisdom” reasons should result in a different type of separation from the church that what is the norm for church discipline. (i.e. we don’t see you as an unbeliever, but you can’t stay a part of this local church.)

But we are not putting the things in the covenant on the same level as scripture. Maybe you don’t really like the idea of a covenant at all, which is fine. The covenant is not the doctrinal statement, but rather things the local body affirms with each other. Many things are directly from scripture to be sure (e.g., “to walk together in brotherly love”), but others are more practical applications (e.g., “engage to maintain personal and family devotions”) or highlight areas of special concern in the Christian life at the church engages with this present evil age (e.g., “maintain a clear line of separation from all religious apostasy and all worldly and sinful pleasures, practices, and associations”). This last category is where my church puts “to abstain from the sale of and/or use of intoxicating drink” and adds a couple things not found in Brown’s covenant (“and from the abuse of drugs, and from every appearance of evil”).

In other words, the covenant highlights things of special concern to the local congregation. I’ve often thought, to pvawter’s point, that the covenant could stand to be updated on a regular basis, maybe reviewed every decade or so, to maintain relevance. At my previous church, we read the covenant out loud as a church body at very business meeting, so that we would be reminded of what we have covenanted to do. But I do agree that church discipline may not be warranted for violation of the covenant. It might warrant a separation, but one on good terms rather than bad.

I might not call them Pharisees, but in my mind this comes pretty close to “situational ethics.” It’s like saying that God didn’t anticipate what would happen in the 21st century, and that we have to “better” what he wrote and declare things sinful that he did not. Anything I do (or a whole church does) for “wisdom” reasons might be a good thing (just like individuals being careful to not cause their brothers to stumble), but again, we have to be careful to not teach “for doctrines the commandments of men.” Explaining a clause prohibiting alcohol use as being wise rather than sin would certainly be a good start.

I don’t look at it that way at all. If we go down that road, then what do we do with a host of ethical questions not addressed specifically in the Bible? And, besides, Paul does say there are times when it is good not to drink wine. It’s not like those situations were not anticipated in the Scriptures. But to your point, I am very sensitive when I teach about not teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. I really try to be very careful about that, and I’m upfront if I know I’m taking a position not commonly held or if I’m dealing with a wisdom issue. I want people to see where in the Bible I’m getting what I’m getting, why I am interpreting a verse or word the way I do, and how I’m applying an ancient text or narrative to a modern-day situation. I certainly wouldn’t oppose adding clarifying verbiage to a covenant, but I’m not sure it’s absolutely needed, either.

Just as a footnote, when I was part of the founding of a church plant many years ago, I was involved with the development of our church constitution, bylaws, and covenant. We did not put the abstinence item into our covenant. I was fine with that. It was not because we wanted to say drinking was fine, but so that we could bring people along to a position who might not be there right away when joining the church. At least that is how I remember it. I would probably lean more towards having it in now, but there are various valid ways to deal with the drinking situation in a church.