The Attraction to Legalism

It allows them to write more rules that protect from sin and make them even “better Christians.”

Just as a thought experiment…. which of these rules does not make a person a “better Christian”?

• I and my family will not gamble
• I and my family will not support any leader who favors abortion
• I and my family will not borrow funds in excess of 50% of our annual income
• I and my family will not skip Sunday worship to attend sporting events

(These are all “man-made rules”)

As is common on this subject, there’s ambiguity on what the point is. Is he saying belief that rules are a vital part of Christian living is characteristic only of “legalism,” or that “legalism” shares this characteristic with healthy Christian living? If the latter, why mention it? If the former… it’s impossible to apply​ the Bible to your lifestyle without making some rules, and if you apply it accurately and wisely, they will indeed make you a “better Christian.”

So once again we have a response to “legalism” that does not define it clearly and that proffers a confusing solution.

(An observation about the Galatians passage: Paul does not fault the Galatians for trying live a Christian lifestyle by regulating their choices according to biblical principles. He faults them for trying to return to living by the law of Moses.)

Ironically, many anti-“legalists” have elevated a man-made rule: “Thou shalt not attach any importance to rules.”

I think this post is relevant: How “Freer than Thou” Became the the New “Holier Than Thou”

Aaron, what is the definition of a “better Christian” in your post? (I know Matt Olsen used the phrase first, but he was putting words in the mouths of the unwitting legalists he was writing about.) In what sense is the person you’re describing a “better Christian” as a result of the rules you propose about gambling, voting, borrowing, Sunday activities, etc.?

But underneath they were motivated by the law and not by grace. That is all the difference. Keeping the law cannot please God, but “believing” does. Only grace can produce real fruit. Everything else is plastic.

I can understand how this topic is confusing. Obviously we don’t want to condone sin for any reason. But we also don’t want to make it sound like abstaining from sin is an end in and of itself. God hasn’t just called us to be free from sin, but free unto righteousness. And the fruit of the Spirit is all about virtues- and virtues by their nature MUST work themselves from the inside to the outside. The fruits of the Spirit are never plastic.

I know some young people who are fleeing legalism, and I do mean Legalism (as in “Do as I say and not as I do” Capital L Legalism) but their answer to being free from legalism involves fornication, drunkenness, tats and pierces, bar hopping and screamo rock bands, and then flaunting their ‘freedom’ in front of all the Legalists who confused and wounded them in the first place.

That is not freedom- that is going from the frying pan into the fire. It is always better not to sow wickedness, but just avoiding wickedness is never going to address the real problem- a life without a relationship with Christ and His Word.

The only thing worth adding here is that Matt Olson’s name is spelled with a double “o” and not an “e.”

Olson, not, Olsen.

As a dispensationalist I fully agree that we are not under the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was the Constitution for the nation of Israel. Nevertheless, the Law is good. It came from God. The moral aspects of the Law have been carried over into the NT and are repeated for us. By grace alone through faith alone we believe what the NT has said in command, precept, and principle and wisely/skillfully apply the Word to the World we live in today. Institutionally, we have some rules for the home, school, and church. Some of those rules are based directly on biblical command, precept, and principle. Other rules are based on the practical need to do things decently and in order. Rules do not inherently sanctify us nor do they carry the weight of Scripture. Aaron has already made the case for the positive aspect of rules.

I am fairly certain that Matt is endeavoring to find the correct balance between the legitimate use of rules and the genuine sanctification of the life. As pastors we all struggle with that balance. It is even more intense when one is a college president of an Independent Fundamental Baptist College, not to mention the ministry of the Camp. There are rules for campers, rules for employees, rules for counselors, etc. No matter how much one would simply like to say “Love God; Love People”, it becomes necessary to “flesh” it out in real life in a tangible fashion. In our school we have rules for the students. By no means do we think the rules will inherently sanctify them. God sanctifies them through God’s truth. Nevertheless, the rules help control their behavior and help protect the students from themselves and others. We have rules against the recreational use of alcohol, rules against smoking, illegal drugs, pornography, entertainment characterized by gratuitous violence/nudity/sexual material/profanity, rules about bullying other students, etc. The rules are necessary; nevertheless, they do not inherently sanctify a person nor are they the apogee for measuring the Christian life.

What concerns me about Matt’s article is the tone. It seems angry and one-sided. Dare I say an over-reaction.

Mike, perhaps Matt is nursing some hits that still hurt. But I think he is on to something. Consider Bob’s tone over here in what he wrote, “Confessions of a Recovering Legalist.”

Aaron, LDS friends will often make comparisons on the basis of such lists and quite openly conclude among us in our community, “This makes one a better Christian.”

It can so easily spiral downward into this confusing heart issue:

You follow the rules better than me = You are a better Christian than me

[Susan R]

But underneath they were motivated by the law and not by grace. That is all the difference. Keeping the law cannot please God, but “believing” does. Only grace can produce real fruit. Everything else is plastic.

I can understand how this topic is confusing. Obviously we don’t want to condone sin for any reason. But we also don’t want to make it sound like abstaining from sin is an end in and of itself. God hasn’t just called us to be free from sin, but free unto righteousness. And the fruit of the Spirit is all about virtues- and virtues by their nature MUST work themselves from the inside to the outside. The fruits of the Spirit are never plastic.

I know some young people who are fleeing legalism, and I do mean Legalism (as in “Do as I say and not as I do” Capital L Legalism) but their answer to being free from legalism involves fornication, drunkenness, tats and pierces, bar hopping and screamo rock bands, and then flaunting their ‘freedom’ in front of all the Legalists who confused and wounded them in the first place.

That is not freedom- that is going from the frying pan into the fire. It is always better not to sow wickedness, but just avoiding wickedness is never going to address the real problem- a life without a relationship with Christ and His Word.

There is further confusion in that your list includes actions forbidden by Scripture sprinkled in with things not forbidden by Scripture. I don’t have tatts or piercings, but I do not consider them sinful. Putting screamo rock, tatts, piercings, drunkeness, and fornication in the same list does not help the discussion—this is what many of us former Fundies find so amusing. Let’s give the same emphasis to these issues as the Scripture gives to them and not a bit more. I have many solid Christian friends who are tatted and pierced up—this is a cultural issue only.

FWIW, I don’t deny that there are those who make a knee jerk reaction to legalism and swing completely off the other side. It grieves me to see people abusing alcohol and dishonoring God by indulgence in fornication—these are clearly forbidden in Scripture.

Matthew

[Matthew Richards]

[Susan R]

But underneath they were motivated by the law and not by grace. That is all the difference. Keeping the law cannot please God, but “believing” does. Only grace can produce real fruit. Everything else is plastic.

I can understand how this topic is confusing. Obviously we don’t want to condone sin for any reason. But we also don’t want to make it sound like abstaining from sin is an end in and of itself. God hasn’t just called us to be free from sin, but free unto righteousness. And the fruit of the Spirit is all about virtues- and virtues by their nature MUST work themselves from the inside to the outside. The fruits of the Spirit are never plastic.

I know some young people who are fleeing legalism, and I do mean Legalism (as in “Do as I say and not as I do” Capital L Legalism) but their answer to being free from legalism involves fornication, drunkenness, tats and pierces, bar hopping and screamo rock bands, and then flaunting their ‘freedom’ in front of all the Legalists who confused and wounded them in the first place.

That is not freedom- that is going from the frying pan into the fire. It is always better not to sow wickedness, but just avoiding wickedness is never going to address the real problem- a life without a relationship with Christ and His Word.

There is further confusion in that your list includes actions forbidden by Scripture sprinkled in with things not forbidden by Scripture. I don’t have tatts or piercings, but I do not consider them sinful. Putting screamo rock, tatts, piercings, drunkeness, and fornication in the same list does not help the discussion—this is what many of us former Fundies find so amusing. Let’s give the same emphasis to these issues as the Scripture gives to them and not a bit more. I have many solid Christian friends who are tatted and pierced up—this is a cultural issue only.

FWIW, I don’t deny that there are those who make a knee jerk reaction to legalism and swing completely off the other side. It grieves me to see people abusing alcohol and dishonoring God by indulgence in fornication—these are clearly forbidden in Scripture.

Matthew

I’m not ‘listing sins’, I am pointing out that these young people are purposefully doing these particular things to ‘prove’ their ‘freedom’ to everyone. It’s their motives that are the issue, not just the actions. Getting a tat to ‘stick it to the man’ is not freedom, and it IS sinful, because the motive is sinful. That is the trap of legalism as well.

I am not going to assume motives—that would be sinful as well. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on those gray issues. Obviously the drunkeness and fornication are sinful regardless of motivation.

Matthew

[gadietrich]

The only thing worth adding here is that Matt Olson’s name is spelled with a double “o” and not an “e.”

Olson, not, Olsen.

Thanks

[Matthew Richards]

I am not going to assume motives—that would be sinful as well. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on those gray issues. Obviously the drunkeness and fornication are sinful regardless of motivation.

Matthew

When they sit at my dining room table and tell me exactly what they are doing and why, then no assuming is necessary.

You are still painting with a broad brush. So a few former legalists have told you their motivations—doesn’t mean most or all the rest have same motivation.

I know some young people who are fleeing legalism, and I do mean Legalism (as in “Do as I say and not as I do” Capital L Legalism) but their answer to being free from legalism involves fornication, drunkenness, tats and pierces, bar hopping and screamo rock bands, and then flaunting their ‘freedom’ in front of all the Legalists who confused and wounded them in the first place. That is not freedom- that is going from the frying pan into the fire. It is always better not to sow wickedness, but just avoiding wickedness is never going to address the real problem- a life without a relationship with Christ and His Word.

Bro. Richards- Where did I say anything about “most or all the rest”? I was pretty specific about who and what I was talking about.

Aaron: A worthy thought experiment.

Just as a thought experiment…. which of these rules does not make a person a “better Christian”?

I and my family will not gamble
I and my family will not support any leader who favors abortion
I and my family will not borrow funds in excess of 50% of our annual income
I and my family will not skip Sunday worship to attend sporting events
(These are all “man-made rules”)

I think these rules would not make a person a better Christian if the one who kept them looked down his nose at a brother who bought a lottery ticket, voted for a moderately pro-choice Constitutionalist, borrowed funds at 52% of their annual income, and occasionally played in a weekend tournament.

Rules are necessary to flesh out biblical principles. They are good. Your rules are good in my mind. I think the legalism comes in when we regard as lessor Christians others who draw their extra-biblical rules in a different place, but with a clear conscience. I think you would agree.

Responding to Matt Olson’s comment:

The same error that plagued the Jews, and early church, is alive today—in all of our churches.

“in all of our churches” = Hyperbole?

On rules:

• I’m convinced that Christian schools (day schools / colleges) have to have behavior rules
  • Eg: students should not attend movie theaters or view Hollywood videos
  • Or shall not listen to certain kinds of music
• When the rules become so complex (I’ll call it über-rulism) that students spy on other students and significant staff resources are used to monitor students, the rule-system has become bureaucratic, authoritarian, and counter-productive (I can think of a school or two but will not mention)

On lists:

• My view is that lists are valuable if it is a Biblically-based standard for self. I personally have a mental list for my own behavior.
• Matt Olson said: “It provides a checklist for them to measure how other people are doing”.
  • I suspect that many of us have such a list.
  • Such a list could form the basis for evaluating potential candidates for leadership positions in the church (eg some churches consider giving records when vetting men for the diaconate.)
• The danger of rule-based sanctification is that it can be like a spiritual Maginot Line: meaning that we have defended against but one front while ignoring others.