Defining Legalism

Dan Doriani:

Since the charge of "legalism" is tossed around carelessly, we should define the terms and see who does and who does not deserve the label. Let me name four classes of legalists. 

1. Class one legalists believe that they can do something to earn God's favor and even obtain salvation. The rich young man who asked Jesus what he could do to inherit eternal life fits this category (Matt. 19:16-22, Luke 18:18-23). Many of the world's religions are legalistic in roughly this sense. 

2. Class two legalists require believers to submit to man-made commandments, as if they were God's law. Think of the Pharisees who attacked Jesus when he didn't follow their rules for the Sabbath, for washing hands, and for avoiding sinners (Matt. 12:1-14, 15:1-2, Luke 15:1-2). 

3. Class three legalists obey God and do good in order to retain God's favor. Here we think of disciples who believe God's daily favor depends on their daily performance. When something goes wrong, they are prone to ask, "What did I do to deserve this? Is God punishing me for something?" 

These three errors are different from each other, yet each is a form of legalism. Sadly, some hurl the "legalist" label at anyone eager to understand and obey God's law. Let us remember that Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15; see also Gen. 26:5, Exod. 20:6, Psalm 119, John 15:10). 

That said, there is probably one more kind of legalist. It is a borderline case. This person avoids the worst forms of legalism. Yet he so accentuates obedience to God's law that other ideas shrivel up. He thinks of Christian living as little more than obedience to God's law. He reasons, "God says we should tithe, so I tithe. The Bible says we must pray, so I pray. It says submit to leaders, witness, read Scripture, so I submit, witness, and read." We could call this person a Nike Christian. He hears a command and thinks I'll just do it. He reasons, "God has redeemed us at the cost of his Son's life. Now he demands my service in return. This is my duty." 

Class four legalists so dwell on God's law that they neglect other aspects of the Christian life—the love of others, the nurture of character, the pursuit of noble but optional projects, and more. They may forget why we obey God. They don't see that the law is more than a command, that it reflects God's very character. That is, we obey, in part, because obedience leads us toward to conformity to him. We don't kill because God gives life. We are faithful in marriage because he is faithful. We tell the truth because God always tells the truth. We are kind to the poor and the alien because God cares for the poor and the alien. 

If we return to the man I met a few weeks ago, we might answer him this way. There are Christians who have tried to love both doctrine and holiness in equal measure. In the history of the church, the Puritans and the early Pietists both hoped to live out that ideal. But given our fallenness, it's hard to get it right. Theologically minded believers can act as if right action will surely follow if we just get our ideas straight. And practically minded believers can avoid the great Christ-denying forms of legalism and yet hurt themselves by wandering into a lesser form of legalism (Nike Christianity). So by all means let us strive to love doctrine and holiness in equal measure. And let us love our Lord all the more, for he loves, forgives, and restores us when we miss that mark.

Read the rest.

"There are many out there who see Christianity as being mainly about teaching us how to be better people."

Amy Hall:

There are many out there who see Christianity as being mainly about teaching us how to be better people. Sadly, this includes a large number of pastors who are passing on this too-common theology of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. There’s a good possibility that many of these pastors are not doing this purposely, but because their preaching focuses on moral lessons, their congregations learn that the moral lessons are what’s important.

I’m convinced that this moralistic focus is a major contributor to a relativistic view of religion amongst Christians. After all, if the goal of religion is to teach us to be good people, one religion can do this as well as another. What reason do we have to say one is right and the other wrong if they’re all right in the way that matters?

This is why I think the religious relativism of Christians is but a symptom pointing to a much deeper problem—a lack of understanding of the Gospel, a lack of knowing that Christianity depends on something objective happening outside of ourselves rather than being just a set of good rules to live by.

The Christianity of the Bible, when it’s explicitly taught, leaves no room for relativism because it depends on an objective event that accomplished a particular purpose for us.

Read the rest.

5 Characteristics of Legalism

Michael Patton: 

1. Excels only in the visible aspects of righteousness
2. Focuses on the easier commands of God
3. Follows by the letter of the law
4. Neglects the more important morals
5. Have a distorted view of others due to their legalism

Read the rest for his great explanations.   This helped me repent of my tendency towards legalism.  We are all spring-loaded legalists!

Even if You Are Not Religious, We Are All a Bunch of Moralists

Derek Rishmawy:

Pick a hot subject (gay marriage, the environment, misogyny, healthcare, etc.) and I’ll scroll through my facebook feed to find someone updating vociferously on the subject, trumpeting their position and damning the opposition in bold, apocalyptic terms. It’s not just that people are wrong, confused, and possibly in need of correction, they’re downright wicked. Of course, this phenomena spans generations, but as younger generations increasingly identify as ‘nones’ (no religious affiliation), it’s not that they have no moral or spiritual bearings, but that they find them elsewhere. 

Taking that sense from the reigning Causes linked to the demands of benevolence (“love”, “justice”, “equality”) of the day, is the increasingly popular option, more any explicit religious system. This is why our political arguments aren’t just about the issues, they’re about a much-deeper justification of the Self. If I am defined by my position on health-care and corresponding self-image as a moral, caring (or pragmatic and free) person, then when I argue with you about it, I’m defending my raison-d’etre. You don’t simply have a different opinion on a subject, you threaten my very being. 

What’s more, if supporting this Cause is what makes me righteous and pure, your opposition demonstrates your impurity and wickedness, possibly even your inhumanity. You must be opposed, hopefully only through argument, but if you persist in your perversity, other, stronger means of enforcement may need to be used. This is modern/postmodern ideological moralism. 

None of this is new, of course. Postmodern thinkers have been describing the way we construct oppositional identities like this for years, but what’s been interesting to see is this sort of logic at work in the lives of my peers and contemporaries in today’s debates. Of course, posting aggressive memes on Facebook isn’t exactly coercion, or fanatic violence yet, but the language used, and, at times, the political measures advocated by partisans verges on it. 

Christians reading this might be tempted to take this as a simple condemnation of secularists, saying, “See, look what happens when you don’t have God.” I mean, in a sense, that’s what’s going on. But that doesn’t let religious believers off the hook too quickly. As a friend of mine pointed it, this simply the logic of Holy War, sublimated and secularized. All it does is point out one more way that the whole dichotomy of ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ breaks down at the functional level. Get rid of God, and something else fills in the existential vacuum. In other words, at this point, they’re only doing what religious people have done with their gods for years, including Christians. 

Actually, this ought to put believers, especially Christians, on notice to examine whether we’re getting our sense of self, our purity, our wholeness. Is it from the righteousness of our own moral positions, or from the righteousness we have in Christ by grace, apart from our own moral achievements? If the former, we’re in the same boat. If the latter, that sets us in a position to be able to disagree, even forcefully with others, without feeling our entire sense of self threatened. Even if others oppose us, not only on moral issues, but set themselves in vocal opposition to Christianity itself, how can we look on them as totally other than ourselves? For is this not what we ourselves were apart from God’s condescending grace? Enemies of God in need of redemption (Rom. 5:6-11)? And are we not secure, no matter what accusation or charge brought against us (Rom. 8:30-39)? 

In other words, there’s a visible, practical difference we observe in the lives of those who trust in the Christian Gospel as opposed to merely subscribing to its morals. In fact, unless you believe the former, you won’t be able to practice the core of the latter, at the center of which stands the command to love our enemies the Christ has loved us. Moralism, secular or ‘religious’ can only inspire demonization of the enemy. Only the Gospel of grace can lead us to true goodwill towards all.

Well said.

Preaching The Opposite of Grace

Tullian:

In an interview that Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Services conducted with me regarding my new book One Way Love: Inexhaustible Grace for an Exhausted World, one of the questions he asked was: 

What are the ways in which you–yes you, as a clergy person–been complicit in perpetuating this system (works righteousness)? 

I answered, in part, by saying: 

I’m so embarrassed by many of the sermons I preached early on. I wish I could go back and apologize to all the people who heard them. My primary concern at that time was to get people to do more, try harder, and change. The end result was stunted spiritual growth for our people because I was causing them to fix their eyes on themselves rather than on Christ. 

Read the rest here.

Is your god kind of like Superman, but less awesome?

Guest post by Aaron Armstrong

In his book, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, sociologist Christian Smith describes what he refers to as "the de facto dominant religion among contemporary teenagers in the United States is what we might call 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.'"

The creed of this religion, as codified from what emerged from our interviews with U.S. teenagers, sounds something like this:

1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about one-self.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

"It's just whatever makes you feel good about you," says the teenager from Maryland. Smith's essay is an eye-opener. Because at the heart of it all:

It's all about us.

Am I the only one who finds that a bit depressing?

The god of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is best described as "something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist—he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process."

He helps me pick myself up by my spiritual bootstraps, gives me a pat on the head and then is off to... I don't know, take a nap or something.

Kind of like Superman, but less awesome.

Is that a god really worth believing in?

Read the rest.

An Unmistakable Sign of a Legalistic Spirit

Legalism has been defined in a number of ways, but here is my attempt: Legalism is the tendency to regard as divine law things that God has neither required nor forbidden in Scripture, and the corresponding inclination to look with suspicion on others for their failure or refusal to conform. . . . 

2. Do you elevate to the status of moral law something the Bible does not require? . . . 

Hold your conviction with passion and zeal, but do not seek to enslave the consciences of others who may disagree with you. . . . 

One unmistakable sign of a legalistic spirit is the tendency always to be looking for what’s wrong in other people’s lives in order to judge them, instead of looking for what’s right in order to encourage them. . . . 

Legalists feel good when they can identify another person’s errors. It reinforces their feelings of superiority. They actually think themselves more spiritual, more godly, and more favored and loved by God.

- Sam Storms, Tough Topics: Biblical Answers to 25 Challenging Questions, 311–12, 314–15

(HT:  Andy Naselli)

Addressing Christian Activism That Can Easily Lead to Moralism

The Treadmill of Merit

Tullian:

I recently read this testimony from a guy who grew up in the pop-Evangelical culture of the late 20th century and who, for 7 years, was a full-time staffer at a large, well-known Evangelical para-church ministry. Sadly, I’ve heard this same kind of testimony from numerous people who grew up inside the church. As you can see from how he describes his experience, distinguishing law and gospel is not simply a theological exercise. Perhaps you can relate:

I experienced what happens when the Law and the Gospel are not understood and therefore distinguished. My Christian life, truly begun in grace, was now being “perfected” on the treadmill of the Law. My pastors did not end their sermons by demanding that I recite the rosary or visit Lourdes that week in order to unleash God’s power; instead, I was told to yield more, pray more, care more about unbelievers, read the Bible more, get involved in church more, and love my wife and kids more. Not until I came to the [theology of the Reformation] some 20 years later, did I understand that my Christian life had come to center around me and my performance: my life, my obedience, my yielding, my Bible verse memorization, my prayers, my zeal, my witnessing, and my sermon application. I had advanced beyond the need to hear the cross preached to me anymore…What had my Evangelical training done to me? The Gospel was critical for me at the beginning, critical for me to share with others, and still critical to get me to heaven, but it was of little other value. The “evangel” in Evangelicalism was missing. My training had me on a treadmill of merit.

A High View of The Law is Essential

Tim Brister:

...a high view of the law gives us a truer and deeper understanding of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man. God is always more holy than we can perceive him to be, and we are always more sinful that we perceive ourselves to be. On the contrary, a low view of the law obscures beauty and brilliance of God’s holiness and gives damning comfort and false security to the sinner.

A low view of the law produces legalism, because the bar is so low that sinner’s feel justified in attempting to be made righteous by keeping it. A low view of the law also encourages sinners to substitute their own laws for the law of God, making self-righteous standards to live by, and judging others when they fail to live up to their own laws. Therefore, a low view of the law is the breeding ground for moralism where God is an utility to our self-righteous ends of moral justification (i.e., God helped me, not God rescued me).

A high view of the law leads Christ-centered, grace abounding salvation. With a clear view of God’s holiness and man’s sinfulness, there is a deep recognition and awareness of our need of reconciliation and redemption that can only come through the law-fulfilling life and sin-substituting death of Jesus Christ. You diminish the holy character of God and sinful nature of man, then the cross of Christ is depreciated and the gospel is cheapened. When there is a high view of the law, there is a corresponding high need for God to do for you what you are incapable of doing yourself–being made right in the eyes of God through grace.

If your desire is to be a part of a church that is saturated with gospel-loving, Jesus-treasuring, cross-exulting Christians, then it is incumbent that there be a high view of the law. A low view of the law leads to gospel substitutes. A high view of the law leads to gospel enjoyment and celebration. Don’t miss the relationship of law and gospel!

Read the rest.

On this topic, I would recommend this book.

You Are Not a Sinful Wretch

This is a helpful corrective.

Many will be locked and loaded with the  "Yeah... But..." comment.  I feel it coming.

"Values" Don't Save Anyone

Al Mohler:

Human beings are natural-born moralists, and moralism is the most potent of all the false gospels. The language of “values” is the language of moralism and cultural Protestantism — what the Germans called Kulturprotestantismus. This is the religion that produces cultural Christians, and cultural Christianity soon dissipates into atheism, agnosticism, and other forms of non-belief. Cultural Christianity is the great denomination of moralism, and far too many church folk fail to recognize that their own religion is only cultural Christianity — not the genuine Christian faith.

The language of values is all that remains when the substance of belief disappears. Tragically, many churches seem to perpetuate their existence by values, long after they abandon the faith.

We should not pray for Christian morality to disappear or for Christian values to evaporate. We should not pray to live in Sodom or in Vanity Fair. But a culture marked even by Christian values is in desperate need of evangelism, and that evangelism requires the knowledge that Christian values and the gospel of Jesus Christ are not the same thing.

Read the rest.

Books by Dr. Mohler.

"All other religions give advice, and they drive everything you’re doing on fear."

A very helpful illustration that touches on the essence of Chrisitianity and how to live in light of it.  Great for sharing your faith.

Tim Keller:

Now think this out: here is a king and he goes into a battle against an invading army to defend his land. If the king defeats the invading army he sends back to the capital city messengers, very happy envoy. He sends back, “good news-ers” with his report. They come back and they say, “It has been defeated! It’s all been done! Therefore respond with joy and now go about your lives. Conduct your lives in this peace which has been achieved for you.”

But if the invading army breaks through, the king sends back military advisers and says, “Swordsmen over here and marksmen over here and the horsemen over here. We’re going to have to fight for our lives.” Dr. Lloyd-Jones says that every other religion sends military advisers to people. Every other religion says, “You know, if you want your salvation, you’re going to have to fight for you life.” Every other religion is sending advice, saying, “Here are the rights, here are the rituals, and here are the laws and regulations. Earthen works over here, marksmen over here. Fight for your life.”

Joy or Fear?

We send heralds; we send messengers, not military advisers. Isn’t that clarifying? It doesn’t mean there’s nothing to do about it—my goodness—both messengers and military advisers get an enormous response. However, one is a response of joy, and one is a response of fear. All other religions give advice, and they drive everything you’re doing on fear.

You know what, when you hear the gospel, when you hear a message that it’s all been done for you, that it’s a historical event that’s happened, your salvation is accomplished for you, what do you want to do? You want to obey the Ten Commandments, you want to pray, and you want to please the one who did this for you. If on the other hand, you send military advisers who say, “You’re going to have to live a really, really, good life if you want to get to heaven.” What are you going to do? You’re going to want to pray, you’re going to want to obey the Ten Commandments—it looks the same doesn’t it? [But] for two radically different reasons: one is joy; one is fear. In the end, in the short run, they look alike. But in the long run, one leads to burnout, self-righteousness, guilt and all sorts of problems. Isn’t that fascinating?

Read the rest.

Books by Tim Keller:
The Prodigal God
King’s Cross
Gospel in Life: Grace Changes Everything
The Reason for God 
Counterfeit Gods 

Does God Just Want Any Sort of Obedience?

Tullian T.:

...many Christians think God cares only that we obey. In fact, many believe that it is even more honorable-and therefore more righteous-when we obey God against all desire to obey him. Where did we get the idea that if we do what God tells us to do even though “our hearts are far from Him”, that it’s something to be proud of, something admirable, something praiseworthy, something righteous? Don’t get me wrong, we should obey even when we don’t feel like it (I expect my children, for instance, to clean their rooms and respect their mother and me even when they don’t feel like it). But let’s not make the common mistake of proudly equating that with the righteousness that God requires.

The truth is that God isn’t concerned with any kind of obedience; he’s concerned with a certain kind of obedience. What motivates our obedience determines whether or not it is a sacrifice of praise. Doing the right thing with the wrong heart reveals deep unrighteousness, not devout righteousness. T.S. Eliot said it best, “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

Read the rest.


Books by Tullian:
Jesus + Nothing = Everything

Surprised by Grace: God's Relentless Pursuit of Rebels
Unfashionable: Making a Difference in the World by Being Different

Prevent Moral-anity

Erik Raymond writes a great post about how he leads his 15 year old son through the sexual dysfunction that is on display at his high school.  I especially appreciated this section:

Prevent Moral-anity: If the issue is sin (fornication, homosexuality, porn, whatever) then does that mean that the kids who are not doing these things are all right? After all, there a lot of kids in his school that are not making out in the halls (straight or gay), does that mean they are good? 

If Christianity was all about making people seem like they were good it wouldn’t need ‘Christ’ in it. We could just call it ‘Moral-anity’. But this is not what Christianity is about. Christ came to save sinners. He came rescue rebels by giving his own life for us. He lived the perfect life in the place of sinners who couldn’t and wouldn’t. He is the law-abiding, wrath-satisfying, death-stomping Savior! He doesn’t come and give a code of conduct, he comes and gives himself as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 

This is why the Christian message to homosexuals is not a merely a message aiming to convert them to heterosexuality. Instead, the message to all people (gay or straight) is that we are all sexual sinners in need of a Savior! We all need Christ for redemption. 

I need to remind myself and my son that the gospel works first on the internals before the externals. The gospel deals with the heart and then produces fruit. Therefore, everyone in that school, teachers and students alike, is in need of the same rescuing grace. This is a great opportunity to reset the reach of depravity and the shams that get passed off for salvation.

Read the rest.