Confessions of a Recovering Legalist

My husband has had this tape for years, and I just got to listen to the message this morning, being ill at home today. Excellent material by Jim Binney, entitled “When God Smiles”. Here is the link for Part 1, and Part 2 can be found on this same Sermon Audio page: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72081527410

[Brian Jo] I learned that legalism is not only thinking that I can please God more by doing good things, but also feeling like He loves me less when I’m not doing so well.

.

[“Author op”] My view of Christianity was changed. It was no longer me doing things to please God, it was me doing things to express gratitude for what He’s done in my life. It’s not about a list. It’s about love.

Hey guys and girls. I’m a little late here. I have seen my share of this brand of legalism that you describe and agree with most of the assessments. I am concerned about the bolded parts of the quotes above.

I think of it this way: My children were born into my family. I love them no matter what. They cannot make me love them more or less. But, they can do things that please me and things that displease me.

I hope we don’t rebound too far from legalism to where our over correction leaves out the admonitions to please God:

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I assume that with faith it is possible.

2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

I hope no one ends up with a position that no longer is concerned with pleasing God.

[Renee Suzanne] Well in my discussions over the past 20 years with “recovering legalists” they seem to group everyone in two camps. I am not accusing Brent of this. I did not grow up in church so I admit I don’t know what that would be like. I realize I’m broad-brushing this for effect, but here goes:

Group A - People who have a good heart, and love the Lord and really understand what worship is and walk with God in prayer every day, but have liberty to watch nudity in movies, drink alcohol, and wear sweatpants to church.

Group B - People who are just going through the motions, don’t have any real relationship with the Lord, don’t really KNOW him, but are strict on themselves and others with regard to minor issues on standards that don’t matter to God. These people do not have a good heart.

I submit there could be a Group C - A person who has a good heart, loves the Lord, really understands what worship is and walks with God every day. They also understand the doctrine of Justification - they can’t do anything to make God love them more or less because the Lord Jesus Christ has done it all (this has nothing to do with legalism), but they mortify their flesh by not watching nudity in movies, not drinking alcohol (perhaps because their father was an alcoholic) and by not wearing sweatpants to church (perhaps they have 20 dresses so this is not a financial consideration.) I confess Group C does not understand Group A. This doesn’t mean they feel hateful or superior to them.

Is this possible?? :)

Although I don’t have 20 dresses, I think we’re on the same page here. There is a major difference between trying to earn merit with God and trying to please Him.

Mike I’m so glad you don’t have 20 dresses, but yes, I think you nailed it on the head with your analogy to parenthood - I definitely love my daughters no matter what, but it sure pleases me when they clean up the kitchen just as a surprise! They won’t get any bigger inheritance for doing that, but wow - it sure is nice. I think II Peter makes it clear we are to try to DO something to please God - with ALL DILIGENCE, add to your faith virtue, etc.

First, I appreciated the insights from Mike Mann. Discussions on this subject can easily swing from one extreme to another. The Law/Grace dichotomy has to do with the Mosaic Law. The NT has hundreds of commands, precepts, principles that should be obeyed by Faith in God’s Word. Reasonable applications of those commands, precepts, and principles to the modern world are in order. Paul regularly condemned the Judaizers for imposing the Mosaic Law on the NT church, particularly when the Law was being applied to Gentiles. These were the legalists. Admittedly, we have overly scrupulous brethren in IFB churches who make faulty interpretations and applications of Scripture. The vast majority of them are either biblically ignorant, lazy Bible students, or perhaps have not been exposed to better models of ministry. However, very few are trying to earn merit with God for their salvation. All of us hopefully are laboring for the Lord that we might receive his commendation of being faithful in message, motive, and ministry. The paradox in Scripture is that God graciously rewards us for faithful obedience while simultaneously reminding us that we are all unprofitable servants and that when we have served Him we have only done that which is dutifully expected.

Mike,

I appreciate your well-worded exhortation above, yet it seems that Galatians defines legalism more broadly than simply earning merit with God for salvation. Galatians 2:4 and Galatians 4:9 and Galatians 5:1 speak of believers being tempted with legalism.

Paul’s view of legalism, then, appears to be broader than a pre-salvation effort of earning grace; it extends to the believer who obeys God in an effort to improve or maintain His standing with God.

The danger of post-conversion legalism is that it equally demeans the need for and sufficiency of the cross by attempting to accomplish something in the flesh that only Christ could do on our behalf through grace.

As you stated, the temptation is to swing the pendulum to one extreme. So while the believer is to obey God in faith, we must be mindful that our obedience is empowered by Christ’s grace purchased for us on the cross. It’s what Paul stated earlier in 1 Corinthians 15:10 and later in Philippians 2:12-13. Our obedience to God springs from grace rather than from any attempt to improve or sustain our legal standing and acceptance with God through flesh-induced efforts.

For anyone is wrestling with this issue, I would recommend Jerry Bridges’ The Discipline of Grace or Bryan Chapell’s Holiness by Grace.

Ken,

The temptation for the Galatians was to apostatize by embracing a hybrid gospel of Judaism and Christianity. Paul’s constant anxiety was over the forsaking of the Christian faith by individuals who had initially embraced Christianity (“labored in vain”). Grace is unmerited favor to the ill-deserving. It is also divine power to continue to work out the salvation that God miraculously worked in. The bondage Paul speaks of is coming under the Mosaic Law to earn or maintain one’s salvation. Paul, however, never viewed personal responsibility to work out one’s salvation, mortify the deeds of the flesh, make no provision for the flesh, etc. as a legalistic attempt to earn or maintain merit with Christ. Frankly, I do not know many in IFB churches who would view their keeping of standards as earning or maintaining merit with God. Much of this is a straw man. What I have noticed, however, is that many sincere people simply have not carefully understood the authorial intent of certain passages in Scripture and thereby form erroneous convictions and applications. They are not legalistic. They are to some degree misinformed or ignorant (some willfully so).

[Mike Harding] First, I appreciated the insights from Mike Mann. Discussions on this subject can easily swing from one extreme to another. The Law/Grace dichotomy has to do with the Mosaic Law. The NT has hundreds of commands, precepts, principles that should be obeyed by Faith in God’s Word. Reasonable applications of those commands, precepts, and principles to the modern world are in order. Paul regularly condemned the Judaizers for imposing the Mosaic Law on the NT church, particularly when the Law was being applied to Gentiles. These were the legalists. Admittedly, we have overly scrupulous brethren in IFB churches who make faulty interpretations and applications of Scripture. The vast majority of them are either biblically ignorant, lazy Bible students, or perhaps have not been exposed to better models of ministry. However, very few are trying to earn merit with God for their salvation. All of us hopefully are laboring for the Lord that we might receive his commendation of being faithful in message, motive, and ministry. The paradox in Scripture is that God graciously rewards us for faithful obedience while simultaneously reminding us that we are all unprofitable servants and that when we have served Him we have only done that which is dutifully expected.

Mike,

I want to stay out of the Galatians debate, because I do believe that it is a very specific case. But I do want to point out that “legalism” is not a word that directly appears in Scripture (leaving aside the rather over-translated NIV rendering of Philippians 3:6). Sometimes Paul uses “law” to denote legalism or legalistic attitudes, but most of the time it makes reference directly to the Mosiac law, God’s law, law in general, or several other less common meanings.

For a long time in Christian Theology, the term has been given a rather precise denotative meaning — the belief that one can justify oneself by the works of the law. But it has a broader connotative meaning within the Christian sub-culture that I think is intended in the lead article of this thread. I’m not certain it’s fair to shoot down the modern connotative meaning of “legalism”, especially because it matches so well with the spirit of what the Scriptures condemn. Starting with the prophets, proceeding through Jesus’ ministry and its opposition to the Pharisees, and throughout the epistles a certain “heart of legalism” is universally condemned — and I think that’s what so many modern Christians also mean by the term.

Now I will fully admit that “legalism” is the cry of many who are truly antinomian (the opposite error to legalism). But I also would note that there are many who have this heart of legalism who would use the very precise definition of the term in theological usage to defend themselves against the charge. I do not think that of you, Mike, but I know many who are legalists (in the heart sense) who justify themselves with the assurance that they believe in salvation by grace. Sadly, they believe the rest of their relationship with God is works, works, works.

Legalism in this sense is bound up in the heart of the sinner, who continually seeks to justify himself in God’s eyes. All false religion is based in it, and those who hold the true religion can easily slip into it if they aren’t careful. I believe that this is why Christ’s battles with the Pharisees are included in the gospels so prominently. Surely God did not want to warn us about an extinct sect. He wanted to warn us of a grave peril in ourselves.

Legalism of Heart exists in a number of strands in modern Christianity, and in some parts of Fundamentalism. Vaguely ascetic philosophies, rules-based sanctification teachings, and an emphasis on enforcement of external righteousness in some institutions where a more Biblical model would be promotion of internal change are all strands that smack of legalistic thinking.

Mike Durning

Mike D.

I appreciate your willingness to define modern day legalism. Some define legalism as rules. I think everyone has rules of some kind—some more than others. Your definition goes beyond mere rules to the intent of justifying one’s self before God by the keeping of various rules. Perhaps, this self-justification is unknown to the legalist. However, I think if I were to accuse someone or some institution of such a serious charge, I would have to present clear evidence that such self-justification is the case. At BJU we had many rules. Some were moral; others were institutional for orderly function. I was not under the impression that the rules sanctified me per se. However, the rules were given for moral and functional order. I think a Christian educational institution has an obligation to teach the moral principles behind their rules. Also, such institutions must emphasize that the keeping of rules by no means equals a relationship with God. Nevertheless, the rules serve a practical function in an educational institution much like they serve a practical function in a family.

Not long ago, I finished reading Moo’s commentary on Romans. My personal evaluation of his commentary is that it is the finest of many excellent commentaries on Romans. Moo argues that Paul’s use of the Law in Romans is the Mosaic Law and not law in general. I think this is critical to the discussion. I don’t think that Paul who championed grace viewed grace as opposed to the principle of law. Instead, I understand Paul as showing that the NT church, unlike Israel, is no longer under the Mosaic Law. Paul did not view the Law of Moses as evil. However, we have a different relationship to it than did Israel under the Old Covenant. Those matters in the OT Law that are repeated or adjusted for us in the NT, rooted in the created order and unchanging attributes of God, still have the force of command under the authority of Christ. We obey those commands by faith in God’s word empowered by regenerating and sanctifying grace. Our motivation is to please and glorify God. The result of which is good works, holiness, obedience, and spiritual fruit without which no man will see the Lord. Believers are ordained unto good works. Faith without works is dead. Those who have the Spirit will manifest fruit. Most People would not view John Piper as a legalist. However, Piper emphasizes good works for believers very strongly in Future Grace and The Pleasures of God.

In my understanding of the kind of ministries you are referencing in Fundamentalism, here is the problem as I have evaluated their relationship to grace. Many of these churches and educational institutions have offered a cheap view of grace in the Gospel. They have not emphasized the miraculous work of God in salvation, the Lordship of Christ in Salvation, a true understanding of repentance and faith, and have denied the need for the saints to persevere in the Faith by faith through God’s enabling grace. Instead, they have insisted on a litany of rules after one’s profession of faith (often superficial), some rules which are not based on accurate exegesis or a clear understanding of the authorial intent of Scripture. In other words, they never understood what the Scriptures said theologically or principally and therefore their rules had no biblical basis in the first place and were absent the theological foundation for their proper meaning. I don’t know if legalism is the proper word to describe this problem.

[Mike Harding. I don’t know if legalism is the proper word to describe this problem.

I have acquiesced to this definition over the years even though I know it is not correct. I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. It would be nice if there was a catch-all kind of name for those who put such weight on their man made rules. Spiritual pride seems to be the motivation.

I Pastored a church for a couple of years where the people had been brainwashed to think that short hair on men and vice versa, no pants on women, (culottes? Verbotten) and women acting as if the were super submissive when in fact they weren’t was seen as very good, and expositional teaching was not desirable. In our locale we called that legalism.

Any suggestions for a good descriptive designation?

[Mike Harding] I appreciate your willingness to define modern day legalism. Some define legalism as rules. I think everyone has rules of some kind—some more than others. Your definition goes beyond mere rules to the intent of justifying one’s self before God by the keeping of various rules. Perhaps, this self-justification is unknown to the legalist. However, I think if I were to accuse someone or some institution of such a serious charge, I would have to present clear evidence that such self-justification is the case. At BJU we had many rules. Some were moral; others were institutional for orderly function. I was not under the impression that the rules sanctified me per se. However, the rules were given for moral and functional order. I think a Christian educational institution has an obligation to teach the moral principles behind their rules. Also, such institutions must emphasize that the keeping of rules by no means equals a relationship with God. Nevertheless, the rules serve a practical function in an educational institution much like they serve a practical function in a family.

Mike, you and I are in agreement. Rules in such an institution do not make it legalistic. Implementing rules without clearly linking them to God’s Word and purposes, and/or implying that these produce sanctification merely by obedience to them IS legalism – at least in the sense that I was referring to.

At the same time, I have been thinking about the “heart of legalism” that exists in some parts of Fundamentalism for decades, having been exposed to that wing of the movement in my first college (Hyles-Anderson, after which BJU’s rules felt like a breath of freedom).

As for Fundamentalist colleges, my questioning of graduates of them has elicited a variety of responses. Some who attended during your era at BJU, for instance, did get the impression that there was an implied sanctification in following the rules. Others did not. So if two people in the same setting experience the impact of the rules so differently, what does that tell us? Perhaps that we need to be VERY clear on what we are not saying by such rules.

I have written an article on the topic of Legalism and the Christian School movement that addresses some of these topics. It will appear somewhere on line in the near future.

[Mike Harding] In my understanding of the kind of ministries you are referencing in Fundamentalism, here is the problem as I have evaluated their relationship to grace. Many of these churches and educational institutions have offered a cheap view of grace in the Gospel. They have not emphasized the miraculous work of God in salvation, the Lordship of Christ in Salvation, a true understanding of repentance and faith, and have denied the need for the saints to persevere in the Faith by faith through God’s enabling grace. Instead, they have insisted on a litany of rules after one’s profession of faith (often superficial), some rules which are not based on accurate exegesis or a clear understanding of the authorial intent of Scripture. In other words, they never understood what the Scriptures said theologically or principally and therefore their rules had no biblical basis in the first place and were absent the theological foundation for their proper meaning. I don’t know if legalism is the proper word to describe this problem.

I agree.

Thanks for your comments.

I was struck reading through the post and comments how the preponderance of the authors and preachers who pointed so many of us to the importance of sanctification by grace and not by works are new evangelicals (Bridges, MacDonald, Mahaney). Why is it that there seems to be a fundamentalist vacuum on the topic? I know we can probably recall some names/books by fundamentalist authors, but I find it interesting that our first choices come from elsewhere.

Paul’s recent comment led me to this post, which I had not read before. Wonderful article by the way.

I personally think quibbling over definitions of “legalism” is not helpful. I see how it can be a stigma and a term people would want to avoid. I think though that it is a personal thing and certain structures increase the likelihood of it happening. It may be just a low view of grace or not a clear enough teaching on the mechanics of sanctification — coupled with an extreme emphasis on external rules keeping. Now if you don’t want to call that legalism, that’s fine. But the result in the hearts of many is a kind of legalism.

We need the Gospel of grace not just to “enter” the Christian life, but for each step along the path. This is what is missing. The messages in my IFBx church/college excelled at “stomping on your toes”. The speakers had a gift for hurling loads of guilt upon their hearers. Who hasn’t failed often in their efforts to measure up? The problem is the solution was phrased in terms of “re-dedicating” yourself, deciding to do better, getting character, not giving up, etc. The solution was basically “reform yourself”, not “rest in Christ’s finished work on the cross and the Spirit’s work in your hearts”. There may be a time for doling out guilt, but only if the remedy is where you leave us. Only if you bring those hearers to Christ. I try to speak to this point in a post from my blog several years back: “Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching”.

For me Gal. 3 is quite helpful in evaluating post-conversion legalism:

1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? (ESV)

We “received the Spirit” (i.e. initial salvation) and we experience the ongoing benefits of (the supply) the Spirit, not by “works of the law”, but by “hearing with faith”. Because of this, it is crazy to try to be “perfected by the flesh”. We advance in sanctification the same way we receive justification — by hearing the Gospel and responding with faith. This means for continual forgiveness of sin, we need to focus on the Gospel and respond in faith. The Gospel is at work in us believers (see my series on “The Gospel’s Work in Believers” for more).

Anyway, great post.

[Paul Matzko] I was struck reading through the post and comments how the preponderance of the authors and preachers who pointed so many of us to the importance of sanctification by grace and not by works are new evangelicals (Bridges, MacDonald, Mahaney). Why is it that there seems to be a fundamentalist vacuum on the topic? I know we can probably recall some names/books by fundamentalist authors, but I find it interesting that our first choices come from elsewhere.

Paul, I’m not sure they all agree with Sactification by Grace. At least the preaching of some would suggest that they do not.

A defective view of sanctification is my number one concern with some circles in the Fundamentalist movement, and I think it’s a larger problem with the laity than the clergy. Too often, the preaching is hot against certain actions, which, absent theogical context on Sanctification, can cause the average pew-sitter to conclude that they can attain personal holiness by avoidance of certain activities. I also believe that some organizations and churches can implicitly send this message by their policies without explicitly saying so.

I suspect sanctification is one of the most misunderstood and least preached doctrines in Fundamentalist circles.

[Mike Durning] Paul, I’m not sure they all agree with Sactification by Grace. At least the preaching of some would suggest that they do not.

I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re saying here Mike. Does “they” refer to fundamentalists or to the evangelical authors Paul referred to? Do fundamentalists disagree with Sanctification by Grace, I think some do. I’m sure some Evangelicals do as well, but I’m with Paul in seeing more evangelical teaching and concern on this issue than I do fundamentalist. But maybe its just because evangelical materials are more widely disseminated and available.