Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism

From my comment at dbts.blog … We all seem to so quickly forget the pervasive human tendency to oversteer. Seeing a problem, we wildly spin the wheel in the opposite direction. In this case, the reaction against discipline wasn’t even a reaction to the right problem, so we oversteered when all we really needed to do was adjust speed a little to avoid slipping into a hazard that wasn’t even in our lane. I might be overworking the metaphor, but there’s no need to swing three lanes to the left to avoid a stalled vehicle on the shoulder.
We need to recover a belief in excellence for the glory of God and a belief in the discipline that is part of the pursuit of excellence.

It strikes me that the word “legalism” properly means “trusting in dead works for salvation”, but today, it’s applied to that and to any rule today that one doesn’t like. Some of those do fit the real definition of legalism, and other times it’s applied to when it’s believed that the rule is unreasonable, or is not a good application of Scripture/extends beyond what Scripture says.

Most of the time, it’s one of the latter two categories, so in practice, it tends to be akin to using a sledgehammer to try to kill a fly—it’s way overkill, and the fly sees it coming and doesn’t get things done. Put in more theological terms, the astute hearer is going to hear “legalism” applied to their rules and say “what on earth are you talking about? This is just a practical rule here?” They’ll take a touch of offense to it as well.

If we restrict the definition of “legalism” to endeavoring to gain justification through works, then what do we call the practice of imposing extra-Biblical rules of conduct? (Which is what I think most Christians mean when they use the term legalism.) In the past, I have suggested we use the term “pharisaism.”

Clearly extra-Biblical rule imposition is not the same as requiring works in order to be justified, but it is a perpetual problem among Christians. NT teaching on Christian Liberty is ignored by some, even as it is misunderstood and abused by others. Unwarranted restrictions are antithetical to healthy Biblical Christianity, and need to be challenged and corrected. It was wrong for the Pharisees, and it is equally wrong today.

Well said, GN, and I’m not quite sure that most would understand “Pharisaism” as that different from “legalism”, Maybe they would. I’m tending towards just using the long-form, “dance track” description. YMMV.

I think most of us have run into “pharisaism” during our lives as Christians. It might even qualify as legalism’ (i.e. “legalism-prime”) when used as a qualifier to sanctification rather than justification.

In the fundamental circles I’ve been a part of over the years, I’ve never to my knowledge ever heard that I have to have certain works for justification. I have heard plenty of times that “all good Christians do X.” In other words, while the particular work or behavior they were speaking of doesn’t technically help justification, it is seen by them as necessary for sanctification, at least at the level they are thinking of. Sometimes, it might even lead to them thinking one is not truly saved if that work isn’t present. That’s why I tend to think of it as legalism’ even though I don’t use that term for it with others. Of course the fact that we know believers by their fruits does complicate things for us.

I think most of us understand spiritual discipline, as well as the use of personal “fences” to help us in our own Christian walk. However, we also should understand that particular fences or methods of discipline are personal, rather than something to impose on others (at least outside of an institutional setting where such rules may be entirely appropriate and useful).

[G. N. Barkman] If we restrict the definition of “legalism” to endeavoring to gain justification through works, then what do we call the practice of imposing extra-Biblical rules of conduct? (Which is what I think most Christians mean when they use the term legalism.) In the past, I have suggested we use the term “pharisaism.”

Let’s pick a specific example to see how that works. I’d like to suggest “It’s wrong to have a Christmas tree.” I’m picking that one because I think most everyone on here would agree that it is extra-Biblical but it is also one that I have run into personally. The person I know who holds to this position is a former pastor and currently attends a presbyterian church that I believe also teaches this position. When talking with this man about his own practice or his church’s position – should I call it Pharisaism? Should I say that he (and his church) is making his followers twice as much a child of hell as he is (cf., Matt 23:15)? Should I call him a hypocrite (cf., Matt 23:13)? Should I tell him that while he looks good on the outside, on his inside he is full of greed and self-indulgence, dead people’s bones and all uncleanness (cf., Matt 23:25, 27)?

To me, identifying stricter or extra-biblical standards as Pharisaism does not really capture what the Pharisees actually did, and is no better than calling it legalism. Why not just say that in certain areas this person or this church has a more sensitive conscience concerning these areas than I believe is warranted Biblically, but I’m not going to despise him because he has to answer to his maker and whatever is not of faith is sin for him.

[AndyE]

To me, identifying stricter or extra-biblical standards as Pharisaism does not really capture what the Pharisees actually did, and is no better than calling it legalism. Why not just say that in certain areas this person or this church has a more sensitive conscience concerning these areas than I believe is warranted Biblically, but I’m not going to despise him because he has to answer to his maker and whatever is not of faith is sin for him.

Andy,

“Pharisaism” is not simply identifying stricter standards. I’d agree with you that each believer must answer to his maker, and if I did a one-to-one comparison of all my standards with any other believer, I think I’d find some areas where my standards are what I’d see as “looser” and some where mine would be “stricter.”

The issue is more what extra-biblical standards believers impose on each other (again, outside of an institutional context) rather than simply holding and imposing on themselves. I also know a man in my own church who won’t have a Christmas tree in his home. However, he doesn’t give those who do (which is pretty much everyone else) a hard time because they choose to do that while he believes that it’s not right for him to have one.

“Don’t walk on the grass” is an extra biblical rule. It’s really not the extra biblicalness that is the problem. Because all application is extra biblical and we’re supposed to apply scriptures right?

The ladies at least two churches I’ve attended have an extra biblical rule: don’t pour leftover coffee into the drinking fountain drain. I have no idea what the purpose of this rule is, since if you run a little water you can rinse all of that down with it.

But nobody is getting up in the pulpit and saying that your spiritual life is in jeopardy if you walk on the grass or pour coffee into the drinking fountain drain. So the distinction is in how you present/teach/frame the rule.

Another factor, maybe it’s part of the framing as well, is just judgmentalism. There’s nothing wrong with saying I have a conviction that biblical principle A applies to situation b in this specific way… No Christmas trees. But then what’s your attitude going to be like toward people who disagree? So that has to do with whether your ministry or church has a culture of judgmentalism or not. This is also a separate problem from having rules or not having rules. It’s what you do with your rules.

I would not be surprised if some people believe that the practical guidelines which the Jerusalem Council sent to the church in Antioch were “legalistic” (Acts 15:19-29).

[dcbii] The issue is more what extra-biblical standards believers impose on each other (again, outside of an institutional context) rather than simply holding and imposing on themselves. I also know a man in my own church who won’t have a Christmas tree in his home. However, he doesn’t give those who do (which is pretty much everyone else) a hard time because they choose to do that while he believes that it’s not right for him to have one.

Now, in my case, my friend has a conviction about Christmas trees, but I’m not a member of his church. He can either (1) deem it pretty important and try to convince me that I’m sinning by having a Christmas tree, or (2) realize this is a uncommon conviction among believers and let me be. In our case, he chose the latter. We have had discussions about it but he didn’t call me a sinner. But if he really thought it was a sin, and that I was hurting my spiritual life by having a Christmas tree, should he just let me go on sinning?

The Pharisees were famous for imposing extra Biblical standards upon others. (And in some cases, exempting themselves, but that’s another subject.) It is not Pharisaism to follow a particular practice for yourself because you believe it best honors the Lord. (Such as not having a Christmas tree.) It is Pharisaism when you declare that Christmas trees are sinful, and anyone who has one dishonors the Lord.

The “extra Biblical” rules of which I speak are presented as if they are required by God and taught in Scripture. I wouldn’t put “don’t walk on the grass” in that category. I think everyone understands that rule relates strictly to maintaining a nice lawn, and is not related to Scripture. But, “its sinful to play cards” is an example of an extra Biblical rule. That, in my opinion, is modern day Pharisaism, and is what most Christians would probably call Legalism.

[AndyE] But what if the church says Christmas trees are wrong, preaches that they are wrong? I don’t think I could be a part of that assembly unless I decided I’d rather be in that church than have a Christmas tree. If I was in that church, and insisted on have a Christmas tree, I think they would be right to church discipline me for my unrepentant sin (even though I don’t think it is sin). I would not be “received” by the church and fellow members should not “receive” those in that assembly who are actively going against the churches teaching. So, that means churches need to be careful about what they preach against as sin.

I’m not convinced as to whether church discipline would be appropriate in that case or not. Unless the policy of having a Christmas tree was in the church’s constitution/policies/doctrinal statement/covenant agreed to by members, or there was a clause saying that discipline could occur for anything preached from the pulpit (either of those would be enough to make me not join that church), I would have a hard time seeing that church discipline is appropriate for something not mentioned in the scriptures or specifically mentioned as binding on a member.

If a church laid out specifics to the detail of things like whether one can have a Christmas tree, TV, stereo, playing cards etc. in their home, I personally would give such a church a pretty wide berth. I’ve had experience with at least one such church, and I found it quite unhealthy once I did enough studying and thinking to understand why.

Churches will teach some things that all believers should embrace, teach somethings that they know not all will embrace but deem it important enough to take a particular position, and give freedom within the assembly regarding a whole host of issues that are better suited to be decided by the family.

For discipline to be appropriate for things in your 2nd category here, I think they would still have to be laid out in a form that members agree to when joining. If a church can discipline on things that are not specifically biblical, but not laid out in writing anywhere else (i.e. unspoken rules, or something recently preached), then I think that church is abusing church discipline.

If such positions are laid out, and the member agrees to be bound by them, then yes, he would be subject to discipline for breaking the “rules.” However, like most, I would think church distinctives would be based on things we know are scriptural (like baptism) where interpretation changes practice due to a particular understanding. Again, dictating that something like a Christmas tree is grounds for discipline would have me wondering about that church, and not in a good way.

Now, in my case, my friend has a conviction about Christmas trees, but I’m not a member of his church. He can either (1) deem it pretty important and try to convince me that I’m sinning by having a Christmas tree, or (2) realize this is a uncommon conviction among believers and let me be. In our case, he chose the latter. We have had discussions about it but he didn’t call me a sinner. But if he really thought it was a sin, and that I was hurting my spiritual life by having a Christmas tree, should he just let me go on sinning?

If someone tried to convince me of that, I’d ask him to show me from the scriptures (either directly written, or an inevitable logical consequence of what is there) how it’s wrong. If it wasn’t clear enough, we’d have to agree to disagree. If he chose at that point to separate from me as someone in “unrepentant sin,” or consider me a non-believer, that would be one of those cases where I’d let that relationship go. I’d respect him for wanting me to be right with God, but ultimately, the only thing that would work is for us to go our own separate ways.

No two people are ever going to agree on the limitations of Romans 14, but all Christians should recognize that because that text is there, we’re going to have to be able to disagree on things that are not clearly sin without accusing the other of being unrepentant. If that can’t be done between two believers, it’s time to move on.

I appreciate the good discussion here, and one thing that arises is that sometimes it’s something of a bummer that we don’t have people with apostolic authority anymore to put out some of the fires we’ve got today. Or maybe God, in His grace, wants us to learn to use our heads.

On a side note, I’ve read some of the writing to proscribe celebrating Christmas, and by and large, it consists of a series of guilt by association fallacies, of which my favorite is that the Norse “Yul” or “Jul” derives from something in Babylon, as if the Vikings had intimate knowledge of Babylonian pagan practices. Overall, it was a real mess, evidentially and logically speaking.

So if I were in a church troubled by a quorum of people advancing that theory—and the case referenced here appears to be a very mild one—I might be tempted to take people aside and walk them through why it’s important that people of the Logos ought to use sound logic, and if people persisted in spreading a divisive idea that didn’t have much support in evidence, logic, or Scripture, I would be open to some level of church discipline.

[G. N. Barkman]

The “extra Biblical” rules of which I speak are presented as if they are required by God and taught in Scripture. I wouldn’t put “don’t walk on the grass” in that category. I think everyone understands that rule relates strictly to maintaining a nice lawn, and is not related to Scripture. But, “its sinful to play cards” is an example of an extra Biblical rule. That, in my opinion, is modern day Pharisaism, and is what most Christians would probably call Legalism.

When that rule grew up within a portion of Christendom, my perception is that it flowed from consciences concerned about worldliness and/or a possibly false understanding of the origin of playing cards.

On the worldliness side of it, they may have had a point given the connection to gambling and associated evils.

On the understanding of origins side, there they may have been poorly taught or not inquisitive enough to discover the truth of the claim.

In any case, over time, a rule like that, with possibly legitimate origins (the worldliness angle), becomes a Tradition, and to violate it means breaking Tradition. I think that’s where people scorn them as “extra-Biblical” and unworthy. Maybe they are. But I am not sure how throwing out all the rules is the answer, or ridiculing those who hold or held them.

[G. N. Barkman] The Pharisees were famous for imposing extra Biblical standards upon others. (And in some cases, exempting themselves, but that’s another subject.) It is not Pharisaism to follow a particular practice for yourself because you believe it best honors the Lord. (Such as not having a Christmas tree.) It is Pharisaism when you declare that Christmas trees are sinful, and anyone who has one dishonors the Lord.

Is the issue in this case simply that you disagree that Christmas trees are wrong, and so anyone who says they are wrong is a Pharisee? In other words, are you completely against using Biblical principles to decide ethical questions that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible? Anyone who does that is a Pharisee? or is it when they come to a different conclusion than you that they become a Pharisee? Or is it that people can come to their own position but they have to keep their position to themselves and can’t express their views as the correct Biblical position?

It seems to me that the charge of being a Pharisee is pretty serious, which is why I quoted what I did in my previous post. My understanding is that they were guilty of way more than just being wrong on what they thought God required of them.