The Attraction to Legalism

Here are common manifestations of legalism in fundamentalism - Matt is right.

“Our school has godly dress standards” - which usually means that the girls must wear skirts and coullottes. This says that schools that allow girls to wear slack, even though they follow the biblical principle of modesty are not godly, or not as godly.

“Our school has godly music standards” - which means that any music outside of their standard is considered ungodly - whether it is ungodly or not. I know Pastors who form their music standards according to their college they attended and all other churches in the area that do not have that exact music do no have godly music standards.

“Our camp has godly standards of conduct” - which often means there is no mixed swimming. This implies that any church that ever has mixed swimming is not godly.

[Mike Harding] Is it legalism to you that a church … give[s] guidelines on modesty … distinctives in male/female appearance

Hey Mike

Does your church have a dress code for members? If so is it in the constitution? Or covenant?

Would you be kind enough to cite it here

I ask because I’ve never seen a Church with a specific dress code.

Thanks

Jim,

Thanks for the question. I do not have dress standards for church members to attend church. I have dress standards for those on the platform such as instrumentalists, choir members, speakers, ushers. I also have wedding guidelines for the wedding party regarding weddings at our church that include music, modest dress, ceremony, vows, and the like. We have standards for our staff and teachers as well. We do our best to base our standards on the commands, precepts, and principles of the Word of God. Standards for the most part are applications in our own cultural context of Scriptural commands and principles. We have standards because we want to obey God in the cultural world that we live in, not because we are endeavoring to earn acceptance from God or merit salvation. Loving God is in part desiring to keep God’s commandments to please him, glorify him, have a good testimony to those within and without the church. Fleshing out God’s commandments, principles, and precepts in everyday life has both a corporate responsibility and an individual responsibility. If our motivation is right and our exegesis is sound, then hopefully our applications will strongly reflect the principles from which they are rooted. Sometimes our standards must be adjusted to the cultural context in which we live. Nevertheless, godly people are very interested in living practically in a way that pleases the Lord, follows his Word, and applies his commands. Many of the dangers and warnings given by others should be carefully considered. Nevertheless, the blatant name calling, broad-brushing, motive judging that I see in this article is out of bounds as far as I am concerned.

Joe,

If I recall, Northland Camp does not allow mixed swimming for their teen camps. Northland has a dress standard for their campers for recreation and for services. Northland has music standards for camp as well. I grant you that there are other camps which are more strict in some of these areas. Our young people have attended Northland Camp for many years. This year we went to the WILDS. Having standards does not make a church, a home, a camp, a school, an individual a Legalist. As you have stated, having a wrong view of standards or rules, however, could indicate shallow theology, a bent toward externalism, poor exegetical work on pertinent passages of Scripture, or just old-fashioned ignorance. High standards, I grant you, are no excuse for poor theology, bad doctrine, and weak or nonexistent exegetical skills.

OF COURSE faith produces good works. And OF COURSE adherence to the teachings of Paul, James, John, and the book of Hebrews is not legalism — by definition — because those teachings are in the Bible. I have to confess to some frustration when you argue or imply that someone who questions extra-Biblical rules would also regard Biblical rules as legalistic. That’s neither logical nor fair.

But the whole issue here is how you define the “good works” that are produced by saving faith. From your posts, especially your most recent ones, it appears that your definition of good works includes pretty specific “standards” and “guidelines” that are extra-Biblical but that you nevertheless see as necessary “to obey God in the cultural world that we live in.” By implication, at least, but probably more explicitly than that if you and your staff and your congregation are honest about it, and as Pastor Joe Roof has pointed out above, other churches or individual Christians who do not share your “standards” and “guidelines” are not obeying God (or not as well as you are), are not as godly as you are, and are not evidencing their faith with the same level of good works that you are (and maybe, since “faith which does not inevitably produce good works is not saving faith,” maybe those who don’t share your “standards” and “guidelines” aren’t even saved). I’m sorry, but if that’s not legalism, it’s as close as you can get.

Dave,

Good works are acts of obedience to God rooted in faith, Christlike character and conduct, the Fruit of the Spirit. Our moral standards are rooted in biblical command, precept, and principle as applied to the 21st century world we live in today. For example, Paul insisted in all the churches that women be properly adorned during worship, particularly when praying and worshiping. That adorning included modesty as well as a shawl-like head covering. Culturally today the shawl has no real male/female significance. Nevertheless, the principle of male/female distinction still must be observed in public worship in order to show that women are submissive to the spiritual male leadership in the church. The application of that principle today is not easy, but that does not mean it can be ignored. We have applied that principle in our church, motivated by love and obedience to God. I would not necessarily hold other churches to our exact application; however, any God-loving, Scripturally obedient Christian would take the principle and honor it in the world we live in today. At the very least a sincere Christian would say that He or she would not be given to androgynous dress or appearance, particularly during worship. Following those applications rooted in faith and a proper exegetical treatment of 1 Cor 11 are not legalism. If a church had guidelines for worship based on that principle, they would not necessarily be legalistic. Technically today, the applications are extra-biblical because the 1st century dealt with the cultural meaning of shawls and head coverings. Nevertheless, there are cultural symbols of cross-dressing and androgynous appearance today that the Bible does not mention as a part of the first century in which it was written. Thomas Schreiner has an excellent treatment of this passage in Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Who said:

I do not have dress standards for church members to attend church. I have dress standards for those on the platform such as instrumentalists, choir members, speakers, ushers. I also have wedding guidelines for the wedding party regarding weddings at our church that include music, modest dress, ceremony, vows, and the like. We have standards for our staff and teachers as well.

I find it ironic that you have to have dress standards for the most spiritual of your people (those who are serving full time at your church and school and the ones who are not full time are the dedicated musicians and other servants. And the ones who are not serving on staff or not in the choir etc .. you don’t have standards for them. It would seem that the least spiritual would need the standards more than the most spiritual!

I was a pastor for 16 years and we never had to tell a bride how to dress. In 38 years of marriage I’ve never had to tell my wife how to dress. I just study the Word with her faithfully and she follows the Lord and does the right (modest) thing. (She does however sometimes need to tell me how to dress. I am not allowed to wear orange polo shirts. )

[Jim]

…I was a pastor for 16 years and we never had to tell a bride how to dress. …

You mustn’t have been to many weddings lately. Just sayin’…………………………………………

Your missing my larger point … if we (a corporate “we”) are teaching the Word (“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17)) … and if our people are mature Christians (and aren’t “fundamentalists the crème de la crème of Christians …. do they need all the rules?

And back to my point for Mike … he has rules for the most mature (presuming that the staff and committed workers are the most mature (seems reasonable!)) … but not for the less mature.

To use the analogy of the privilege of Internet access at work … years ago only certain levels of performing employees were able to have Internet access. (Not bragging but because of my own performance I was one of them). Now almost everyone where I work has Internet access. A rule that still exists is that certain employees (based on a combo of job function AND performance level (annual review) may work from home at will (no need to even ask permission in advance). So far I’ve been able to meet that criteria.

So from that analogy, the more mature / dedicated employee has less rules & regulations.

But at Mike’s church it is the opposite. The mature and dedicated have a dress code while the less committed do not. I just find that ironic! And counter-intuitive.

I go back to Francis Schaeffer’s discussions he had at L’Abri (sorry I can’t remember the specific book this is from off hand) where he talked to Christian young adults about “taboos”. His conclusion: Most had a problem with specific “taboos” that related to something they wanted to do. We do need to have structure. We also need to make applications to our culture where our culture is not the least bit interested in following God (and there are more and more applications of this all the time!).

Are rules for the mature or the immature? I would guess there are different rules for the young believer. Do we not start out with them in regard to prayer, Bible study, evangelism? Granted, these are biblical “rules”, but rules nevertheless. If we examine our lives more deeply, we may even enact rules upon ourselves to keep from besetting sins, or to challenge ourselves. After all, Paul had a “vow”, and he surely didn’t need to do that. We ought to be making progress and have different targets of growth in our lives.

You can argue that the rules needed shouldn’t be from the 1940’s, and I get that. But let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water here and go completely libertarian either. Let’s be sure that we don’t let discussions of issues with “rules” be a smokescreen for those who want to bend the rules so they can do what they want. After all, Adam and Eve had one rule, and they were not able to keep it. We know the law shows us that we can’t keep the law (Rom. 7) and we need Christ. The point of rules is what? Not that we become spiritual by them, or that we obtain salvation by them. However, we need to have structure and some sort of standard. It doesn’t make us more spiritual per se to conform to that standard according to Christ. Nor does lawlessness.

Jim: Just because Mike has a code of dress for those on the platform does not necessarily make them the more “mature”. You’re missing the point. I don’t think we should ever dictate how an individual comes to a church service, but I do believe their dress will portray their heart attitude to God. Our church has standards of dress for those in the choir, orchestra, etc also and I think they should, but those singing in the choir are sometime not the most mature nor the most faithful people to the church. So when Mike talks about dress standards for those people, please don’t start throwing people in the category of mature and immature based on whether or not they are on the platform. Personally, right now I am under doctor’s orders not be stand or walk on one of my knees so I’ve had to drop out of our choir temporarily. Its been interesting as you suddenly see the full picture regularly. I’ve seen women whose dresses are “modest”, but who clearly don’t know how to sit in them and reveal parts of their body that really should be kept for the bedroom. How unfortunate that we don’t teach women how to be ladies today. As for the wedding thing, today’s styles dictate that we have to start regulating dress. Our church didn’t have regulations 5 years ago when I got married, but about that time there was a wedding when the mother of the bride and a former church member/leader showed up in clothes that embarrassed every one present. How sad that our culture has come to this.

It appears to me that we are headed back to the days of Judges when every man did what was right in his own eyes. This week on a local radio show someone asked what happened from the 1960s to today that has created all these mass shootings. The answer….we kicked God out of our schools and people decided they wouldn’t let anyone tell them what to do. Therefore we now have almost total chaos. Crime, immorality, laziness, rebellion, sloppiness, and the list goes on.

Jim,

I think most Christian organizations have leadership standards for pastors, deacons, Sunday School teachers, employees, counselors, etc. that are higher than the standards for church membership. Having platform standards is a matter of decorum and good testimony. We have up to 70 people in our choir and 45 in our church symphonic orchestra, many of whom are young people still in the stage of development. I have been a pastor for 33 years and having those platform standards and leadership standards has never posed a problem for me or our church. Our weddings are lovely and Christ honoring. We perform quite a few because of the size of our congregation. The wedding guidelines lay out our expectations in areas of dress, music, ceremony, vows, decorum. They are done decently and in order. Weddings in our church are church services. Many of my wedding guidelines I developed from the example of Dr. William Rice, the 40 year pastor of Inter City Baptist Church. Dr. Rice was a strong theological, expositional pastor with an earned Ph.D. from a very reputable seminary. He ran the church and seminary with very high standards of dress and music, particularly for staff and the platform. Church services are to be led and controlled by the duly elected and appointed pastors of the church. Paul lays out 18 different rubrics for pastors and deacons in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 to define the nature of the position and the kind of people who should aspire to those places of service. I view leadership standards in the same light.

Carl Trueman writes in Fools Rush In Where Monkeys Fear To Tread an interesting observation about where some anti-Legalism forces among younger Calvinists have led them. I am by no means suggesting that anyone in our current discussion would ever go to these extremes or endorse what these young Calvinists are now practicing. I am suggesting, however, that Aaron’s concerns about License being the new trend in evangelical circles with its trickle down effect into fundamental works is not without merit. Though rules are not evil and do not equal Legalism per se, there are dangers in having a rule-oriented mindset regarding sanctification. I fully agree. Nevertheless, one’s legitimate opposition to Legalism can ironically lead to a “Legalistic anti-legalism” or even worse, an attitude of License.

Trueman insightfully comments:

“Why is it that language that would offend most of my non-Christian friends, and that they would regard as a sign of seriously limited vocabulary and deep childishness, is deemed by some in the Reformed world to be, on the contrary, a sign of urbane sophistication and spiritual maturity? The answer you are likely to receive when you ask is: Christian freedom. As Christians, we are free to use such language, and doing so therefore shows what a good grasp of the gospel we really have.”

“I disagree. First, it is clear that New Testament teaching opposes obscene talk, so the argument is fallacious at the outset. Thus, if objecting to obscene talk is pietistic legalism, then Paul was a pietistic legalist. But even if we set that aside for the moment, it seems to me that what we are dealing with in this instance is less the matter of Christian freedom and more that of Christian Freudom: an Oedipal [Frueudian] rebellion against older religious practices, often, although not always, those of the parents or early Christian mentors.”

“[In Calvinist circles] legitimate criticism of a legalistic pietism too frequently degenerates into illegitimate rubbishing of appropriate piety. Thus, the F-bomb and other casual obscenities and profanities have become, for some, the trendy hallmarks of mature Christianity. Strange to tell, talking like sexually insecure thirteen-year-olds has become the way we Christians show how grown-up we are. We embrace what the older generation rejected in order to show that we have come of age, and to show the world that, hey, we’re not as weird as we used to be; we can be as rough-and-tumble, as hip, savvy, cool, and gritty as the rest.”

“I even heard of one minister who was proud that his son smoked at fourteen – as if this were some sign of biblical maturity and masculinity. If one really must judge masculinity, I would suggest that something like rock climbing or surfing or marathon running – something that involves discipline, focus, physical prowess, and skill, and the ability to handle risk and/or pain – might be somewhat more impressive than smoking a cigar.”

Jay,

Northland clearly has extra-biblical rules in their camp and college. That does not make them legalistic or pharisee. Neither, however, does it make other Christian ministries inherently or by necessity legalistic or pharisee if they have extra-biblical rules, regulations, or guidelines. Stop the name-calling, broad-brushing, and judging of motives. Matt is holding other ministries to a definition of legalism that his own ministries do not adhere to. It is completely a double standard.