The Attraction to Legalism

Perhaps this will add rapprochement to the discussion. I think the author here makes some helpful and valid points for all of us, myself included.

“To give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion…”
Proverbs 1:2-4

“We are so good at being legalists. One minute we’re the “older brother” in our Lord’s parable, resentful of the Father’s lavish grace showered on the prodigal son; the next minute we’re smug judges of the “pharisees.” To reverse the roles in another parable, gospel-liberated heirs can be, rather ironically, like the Pharisee who prayed (at least in my version), “Lord, I thank you that I am not like this Pharisee. I know that I’m totally depraved and am justified by grace alone. I’m so glad I ‘get it’—of course, thanks to you.”

One way of asserting this superiority, waving the “I’m-one-of-those-who-get-it” flag, is to turn the taboos of our past on their head. We’ve discovered liberty in “things indifferent”—adiaphora, or things that are not identified in Scripture as sins. Don’t get me wrong: this liberty is precious. In fact, Calvin went so far as to call it “an appendix to justification.” As he said, to bow the neck to a yoke of slavery in practice is to deprive oneself and others of the joy of the gospel. Yet, as the reformer also observed from Paul, love is the rule. For the weaker brother or sister, we restrain our liberty, but we will not surrender that freedom for which Christ died to those who would exercise tyranny over consciences.

What’s interesting in the Lord’s parable is that the prodigal son never once expressed superiority toward his older brother. The Father had enough love and forgiveness to go around: for both brothers. Enough to unite them in fraternal bonds.

We’re all on a long road to maturity. The problem is that when I behold the holy and generous Father, I can only confess with Isaiah, “I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell among a people of unclean lips.” Not that long ago, there was a shared culture of propriety. Even unbelievers who swore like a sailor with their buddies on a fishing trip held their tongues in check around the women and children. They weren’t foul-mouthed in business meetings.

Today, however, there is a culture of baseness. The lowest forms of cultural expression have become the most pervasive, tearing down all of the dividers between “appropriate here, but not here.” Even middle-aged people sometimes try to mimick the youth culture. We see this not only in the sloppy dress that has now become de rigeur, but in church services that borrow from the trivial banalities of pop culture as if it could authentically convey the riches of Christ from generation to generation. Pastors even sometimes say they use of foul language in the pulpit as a missional device, but the justification sounds eerily familiar to that of the shock-jock looking for ratings.”

If you can’t look at a believer who dresses or listens to different music (or whatever) than you do as a ‘lesser’ or ‘immature’ person, you are a legalist, because the keeping of those rules has become more important to you than the fact that Jesus died for them (James 2:1-13). That’s the sin of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned in Matthew 23:25-28.

Out of curiosity Jay, is there any case that people who have certain lifestyles are spiritually immature? If so, how would we know that? For instance, one of the characteristics of elders is spiritual maturity (not a novice) and that is connected to a representative list of characteristics, none of which have particular explicit applications listed in the Bible for this culture. Furthermore, the list is representative, meaning that that list is not all that means to be qualified. There are other things that could render a man disqualified. Are we legalists for examining that?

One of the huge challenges of legalism is determining what is legalistic and what is not and then trying to make an application. One of the the legalistic taboos that I had trouble figuring out was the dislike for beards- especially considering that my savior had one. Then I read a few weeks about about legalism on the other end of that discussion. The writer was arguing that all godly men should wear a beard because if they do not they are effeminate and the beard is clear indictor of gender distinction.

That got me to thinking about ties. I see nothing wrong with them, but they are actually quite worldly- way more worldly than a pair of blue jeans. If you study the history of the necktie, they originated with mercenaries- not exactly a group of people with a stellar testimony. Yet today hardly anyone knows about the mercenary connection to the necktie so it would be legalistic to forbid them. At the same time, the necktie is a style of this world, so I see little value in requiring them as a sign of spirituality. The world however does require them for important events, so the big question is are we conforming to the world, are we viewing the wearing of a necktie to church as an evangelistic tool, are we wearing them out of a subconscious legalism, is it just a habit, or is there some other reason (maybe your wife thinks you look really nice in one- that, in my opinion, would be the best reason of all)?

The truth is, I do not know a man’s reason for wearing or not wearing a necktie, but I view it as an issue of individual liberty regardless what he chooses to do. As for me, I wear a tie to church on Sunday but would never look down on those who do not, nor do I elevate those who do.

[Jay]

My other point is that I’m seeing a real issue issue here with ‘our standards/policies/rules/etc’ are godly and nothing else is acceptable. If keeping the rules (or whatever) has become more important to you than helping those ‘weaker’ brothers grow, or if those ‘rules’ are keeping you from fellowshipping with another believer that would listen to P.O.D. (to refer to the earlier example) and working with them to go doorknocking or whatever, then you are at least bordering on the sin of favoritism.

Just curious about the bolded portion, and a rabbit trail for sure:

In the passages we so love to reference concerning the “weaker brother” such as Rom. 14 and I Cor. 8-10, where does Scripture point out an indictment or condemnation of being weak or state that the purpose/goal of the one who perceives himself as strong is to make the weaker brother strong like himself?

[Jay]

I think we can make a pretty strong argument that believers are expected to help other believers grow and mature in their faith (Ephesians 4-6 comes to mind right away). Where I think we run into trouble is when we expect that a ‘strong’ believer will look just like me and my standards (hence, my posts on this thread).

Does Eph 4-6 identify these as “weaker brothers?” I am particularly curious as to where we assume from the passages in question that “weak” as per the definition of Rom. 14 or I Cor. 8-9 is, in the sight of God, a grievous thing that falls under His particular indictment and needs changing with our “strong” help. Are the actions of the weak even identified as sin? I know the actions of the strong are—I Cor. 8:12.

Lee wrote

In the passages we so love to reference concerning the “weaker brother” such as Rom. 14 and I Cor. 8-10, where does Scripture point out an indictment or condemnation of being weak or state that the purpose/goal of the one who perceives himself as strong is to make the weaker brother strong like himself?

I believe the best place to answer that is to stay right in Romans and to continue reading and let Paul address it. Vs 20 of ch 14 makes it clear that we must not eat meat with the purpose of offending. The problem comes when you have weaker brethren that take opposite extremes (ie requiring beards or forbidding beards) and no matter what you do someone will be offended. I believe it is imperative for these reasons that we bring people to maturity on these issues otherwise we end up allowing the weaker brethren among us to set our standard rather than the scripture and when we set anything other than God up as our standard, we end up having a changing standard.

Romans 15 continues by saying that the strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak (carry them along) and then vs 5 speaks of patience and that we are to be like minded according to Christ Jesus. I believe that is telling us that we need to patiently bring the weaker brethren to the point that they agree with the teachings of Christ, rather than just letting them set the standards in the church. Notice what vs 6 says:

Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If we are to glorify God with one mind, we must follow the teachings of the Word of God, not the standard of the weaker brethren, because the standards of the immature believers will constantly be changing and are totally inconsistent.

Not everyone will want to come to maturity or to submit to the teachings of Christ and Paul is very clear in Chapter 16 about what we are to do in that situation.

Romans 16:17-18 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

BTW, I am not suggesting that all rules are wrong (do things decently and in order) but I specifically want to respond to the issue of letting weaker brethren set the standards. At the same time I want us to make sure and remember that Romans 15:5 speaks of patience as it reminds us of God’s patience. With that in mind we must have patience with the weaker brother to the point that we not even “eat the meat” until they can be taught and brought to maturity. That often takes time, especially when they need to be untaught what they have been conditioned to think. Whether you grew up thinking eating meat or wearing pants is wrong, it takes time to learn what is allowable.

Our focus appears to be on comparing ourselves with others instead of evaluating our lives in the light of Scripture. The more I read and study the Bible, the more I am careful about what I do, see, wear, think, etc. I think that is the way it should be. I also keep a watch for things to protect my husband and our marriage. For instance, I went to a bank awhile back and had to deal with a lady who was way to sexual in her appearance (especially considering she worked in a bank). So when my husband needed to go to the bank later, I had him go to a different branch where he dealt with a man. A lot of my “rules” come from scriptural principles, articles I’ve read about proper business dress, and from personal preferences. For instance, I hate beards and my husband therefor doesn’t have one. To me they are scratchy and irritating to my skin and just don’t make a man good looking. Nothing in scripture one or the others. Sometimes my brother has one, I don’t view him as unspiritual for it I just don’t happen to like it. What I watch and read is another matter though, because God commands me to “Love not the world neither the things that are in the world …” therefore, I cannot justify watching a moving or reading a book that exudes illicit sex, foul language, etc. Besides, I know personally what the filth can do to hinder a life. Now if that is legalism, than I guess I’m one, but you’d have a hard time convincing me of that from scripture.

I think legalism boils down to our extra-Biblical demands of others, not what we demand of ourselves based on our own extrapolation of Scripture and its principles.

So it isn’t just “We choose to homeschool”, it’s “We choose to homeschool and since we used Scripture to make that decision, everyone who believes the Bible should also homeschool.”

[Michelle Shuman] For instance, I hate beards and my husband therefore doesn’t have one.

Grow one!

I know you don’t have your man under your thumb but it it came across that way. :)

(I have a beard!)

I guess he could, but would that really help his marriage. And I’m not sure what that statement makes you think I came across as me having him “under my thumb.” He doesn’t have one because he knows I hate them. Does that sound better?

Jay, I think your approach for the camp is right on. I believe the same application should be made in a school setting as well. It is much simpler when we are following the rules that others have already established for their particular setting. I would compare that to following the requirement to wear a coat and tie to an upscale restaurant (I’ve never been to that fancy of place, but it would hurt my Christian testimony if I insisted that they serve me as I wore my t-shirt). Where it gets sticky is when some weaker brethren start suggesting that all women need to wear culottes even when they are in the state park with their families and then you have other brethren saying that culottes are worldly because they are too much like pants. I see a huge difference between obeying an institutions rules versus setting a human standard for spirituality.

[JD Miller]

I believe the best place to answer that is to stay right in Romans and to continue reading and let Paul address it. Vs 20 of ch 14 makes it clear that we must not eat meat with the purpose of offending. The problem comes when you have weaker brethren that take opposite extremes (ie requiring beards or forbidding beards) and no matter what you do someone will be offended. I believe it is imperative for these reasons that we bring people to maturity on these issues otherwise we end up allowing the weaker brethren among us to set our standard rather than the scripture and when we set anything other than God up as our standard, we end up having a changing standard.

You speak as if there is some sort of tyranny in being vulnerable (weak) in a specific area. That is sooooooooooooooo not the flavor at all in Rom. 14-15.

In regards to the weak: Vs. 1—“receive ye”; Vs. 10—“why dost thou judge…or…set at nought thy brother…”; Vs. 15—“…if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him…”; Vs. 19—“…follow after…peace, and…edify…”; Vs. 21—“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth,…or is made weak”; 15:1—“We…ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves”; Vs. 2—”Let every one of us please his neighbor…to edification”.

The warnings of harm to the body of Christ are in every place given to the “strong” and not the “weak.”

[Quote=JD Miller] Romans 15 continues by saying that the strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak (carry them along) and then vs 5 speaks of patience and that we are to be like minded according to Christ Jesus. I believe that is telling us that we need to patiently bring the weaker brethren to the point that they agree with the teachings of Christ, rather than just letting them set the standards in the church. Notice what vs 6 says:

Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If we are to glorify God with one mind, we must follow the teachings of the Word of God, not the standard of the weaker brethren, because the standards of the immature believers will constantly be changing and are totally inconsistent.

In regards to the underlined portion: I think you really need to revisit that with a mind not made up to change the weak to your strongness. What you are seeing is not what it says, but what you want it to say. There is nothing there instructing the church body to alter these brethren with specific vulnerabilities in specific areas to another viewpoint any more than there is instruction to the weak to change the strong to theirs. The whole context basically observes what is and instructs on how to function in one body with what is.

That being said, I think it is important here to note that the “weak” being referenced here are not spiritual derelicts or spiritually deficient and are not a blight to the body of Christ like the Judaizers were. Another Gospel, or contrary doctrine (16:17) is not the issue here. Those that would bring in another Gospel are to be treated in an entirely different manner than these defined as “weak.”