There is a common canard today that our conservative churches are full of legalists.\u00a0 We have been called grace killers, fighting fundamentalists, Pharisees, and a host of other colorful descriptions.\u00a0 The charge of legalism, of course, is not only false but is a misleading and sometimes dishonest accusation.\u00a0 The truth is that there is no legalism in our fundamental churches, at least not in any biblical sense of the word.\u00a0 As in politics, however, the seriousness of the charge will always outweigh the truthfulness of the accusation.\u00a0 Since our culture dislikes regulations, standards, or almost any set of rules or convictions that would curb an individual\u2019s \u201cright\u201d to do as he or she pleases, the accusation of legalism becomes an easy label to use.<\/p>\n
The English term \u201clegalist\u201d is not in the Bible.\u00a0 Interestingly, the closest we might come to it is Paul\u2019s quotation of the Corinthians who cried, \u201call things are lawful for me\u201d (1 Cor. 10:23) as an excuse for their sin against the brethren.\u00a0 Non-biblical words (like the word \u201cculture\u201d) become easy to use for one\u2019s own purposes.\u00a0 The problem today is that the word \u201clegalist\u201d has been used so often to mean anyone who has rules of conduct (for yourself, a church, or an organization) that this has become its accepted meaning.\u00a0 This is like googling \u201cMySpace\u201d as a source for research:\u00a0 common usage becomes an \u201coriginal source.\u201d\u00a0 But just because someone has said something often does not make it truthful.<\/p>\n
A \u201clegalist,\u201d by any New Testament definition, would be a Judaizer, a keeper of the Mosaic Law.\u00a0 In the Gospels, these were the Pharisees who insisted that the Jews must keep the Law (and remain Jewish) to be saved.\u00a0 In the book of Acts and the time of the\u00a0 Epistles, these were the Jews who persecuted the Apostles, realizing that the gospel of grace alone was the enemy of salvation by the works of the Law.\u00a0 The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was called because \u201cCertain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved\u201d (Acts 15:1).\u00a0 Legalism, then, would be the attempt to be saved or remain saved by the keeping of the Mosaic Law.\u00a0 Even if we broaden that to be the keeping of the moral law we still do not find this teaching in our conservative, fundamental churches today.\u00a0 Only Orthodox Jews are trying to keep the Mosaic law for salvation.\u00a0 We also have those denominations which teach works for salvation (Romanism, Arminianism) but I do not count them as part of our fundamental churches that preach salvation by grace.\u00a0 Therefore, we simply do not have legalists in our conservative churches today.\u00a0 Myron Houghton has written,<\/p>\n
\u201cA distinction must be made between lists and legalism.\u00a0 It is certainly true that believers differ on their lists, and we must evaluate each item on a list in light of relevant Scriptural teaching.\u00a0 But disagreeing with fellow believers over whether or not Scripture supports their lists has nothing to do with legalism.\u00a0 Legalism is related to why one should obey a list rather than to the rightness or wrongness of the list.\u201d1<\/sup><\/p>\n Charles Ryrie says, \u201cThe existence of a code of law cannot be legalism.\u00a0 The fact that there are regulations, be it those of the Mosaic Law or the law of Christ, is not legalism.\u00a0 Law is not legalism.\u201d2<\/sup> That is, unless one is keeping a law in order to be saved, it is not legalism.\u00a0 If you disagree with that person over the biblical correctness of a specific law, then you should simply say he is wrong.\u00a0 To call him a legalist is either to misunderstand legalism or to be dishonest.<\/p>\n As also in politics, the pointing of one finger at someone else is to have four fingers pointing back at oneself.\u00a0 The accusation of legalism toward those who desire to live godly and separated covers up the obvious problem of worldliness in the churches.\u00a0 The twin problem to (real) legalism in the New Testament was antinomian license.\u00a0 In the book of Galatians, after encouraging the believers against (real) legalism: \u201cStand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free\u201d (Gal. 5:1), Paul wrote, \u201cFor, brethren, ye have been called to liberty; only use not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another\u201d (Gal. 5:11).\u00a0 Peter did the same thing in both of his epistles:\u00a0 \u201cAs free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God\u201d (Pet. 3:16); \u201cWhile they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage\u201d (2 Pet. 2:19).<\/p>\n The problem in our churches today is not legalism but license.\u00a0 The changes have not been for the better (and surely change can be for good) but for the worse.\u00a0 The throwing out of the elderly was also a throwing out of maturity and godliness.\u00a0 The bringing in of the contemporary was a bringing in of worldliness and immaturity.\u00a0 And, this is not new.\u00a0 \u201cNot as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.\u00a0 And wherefore slew he him?\u00a0 Because his own works were evil, and his brother\u2019s righteous\u201d (1 Jn. 3:12).<\/p>\n John Newton, who pastored in eighteenth century England and wrote Amazing Grace also wrote,<\/p>\n There are too many who would have the ministry of the Gospel restrained to the privileges of believers; and when the fruits of faith, and the tempers of the mind, which should be manifest in those who have ‘tasted that the Lord is gracious,’ are inculcated, think they sufficiently evade all that is said, by calling it legal preaching.\u00a0 I would be no advocate for legal preaching; but we must not be deterred, by the fear of a hard word, from declaring the whole counsel of God.3<\/sup><\/p>\n Recently, Millard Erickson, in a book on the postmodern generation wrote,<\/p>\n One phenomenon that has not received a great deal of attention is the status of laws in a postmodern age.\u00a0 For the most part, there is a lesser concern for the fulfillment of or abiding by laws than in earlier times.\u00a0 To follow laws, especially in an undeviating manner, is thought to be ‘legalism,’ which is deemed a very bad thing.\u00a0 Freedom to deviate from such regulations is a positive virtue.\u00a0 Often, when pressed for a rationale for such action, the reply given is, ‘We are more interested in people than in rules.’\u00a0 On the surface of it, at least, this appears to be the concern for community that is such a hallmark of postmodernism.4<\/sup><\/p>\n \n Equally egregious is the misuse of the biblical word \u201cliberty.\u201d\u00a0 Rather than understanding liberty in Christ to be the freedom from sin and the ability to serve God in newness of spirit, the church is defining this word as the right to do as one wishes.\u00a0\u00a0 Ryrie recognized this danger when he wrote, \u201cTo introduce any laws becomes to them legalism.\u00a0 Unfortunately, too, this doctrinal confusion sometimes becomes the basis for a loose kind of living which is justified in the name of practicing Christian liberty.\u201d5<\/sup><\/p>\n Charles Spurgeon, in the midst of the Down-Grade controversy, wrote,<\/p>\n Many good men lament the fact that liberty is, in certain instances, degenerating into license, but they solace themselves with the belief that on the whole it is a sign of health and vigour: the bough is so fruitful that it runs over the wall. . . . It is a pity that such loyalty to liberty could not be associated with an equally warm expression of resolve to be loyal to Christ and his gospel.\u00a0 It would be a grievous fault if the sons of the Puritans did not maintain the freedom of their consciences; but it will be no less a crime if they withdraw those consciences from under the yoke of Christ.6<\/sup><\/p>\n As Madame Roland said of the French Revolution, \u201cLiberty, what crimes are committed in your name!\u201d\u00a0 Spurgeon did not live long enough to hear and read \u201cThe Fundamentals\u201d but he surely would have identified and agreed with the spirit of them.\u00a0 In them Mrs. Jesse Penn-Lewis from Leicester, England wrote an article titled, \u201cThe Warfare with Satan and the Way of Victory.\u201d In that, she wrote,<\/p>\n And the adversary now does his best to counterfeit the true freedom in Christ by inciting rebellion to those in authority, and fleshly zeal under the name of the liberty of the Spirit.\u00a0 But the Word of God shows that the liberty wherewith Christ makes us free is really freedom from slavery to sin, and to the evil one.\u00a0 The freed soul passes under law to Christ, under the perfect law of liberty, which is liberty to do right, instead of seeing what is right, and doing what is wrong.\u00a0 Liberty to obey God instead of disobeying Him.7<\/sup><\/p>\n Douglas Moo, in his commentary on the book of James, explains the meaning of \u201cthe law of liberty\u201d in 2:12:\u00a0 \u201cGod’s gracious acceptance of us does not end our obligation to obey him; it sets it on a new footing.\u00a0 No longer is God’s law a threatening, confining burden.\u00a0 For the will of God now confronts us as a law of liberty — an obligation that is discharged in the joyful knowledge that God has both liberated us from the penalty of sin and given us, in his Spirit, the power to obey his will.\u201d8<\/sup><\/p>\n \n It is my conviction by observation, reading, and listening to many speak that because legalism and liberty have been entirely redefined, the contemporary church has lost its way in the matter of holiness and godliness.\u00a0 In a new book by Gordon MacDonald titled, Who Stole My Church, I thought I would find a like mind.\u00a0 No, the title is only a ploy so that he can explain why older people shouldn\u2019t complain when their church changes out from under them.\u00a0 In the preface he writes what he intends to be a compliment to the contemporary church,\u00a0 \u201cHere and there, however, are marvelous people who seem to understand that a church is not meant to be a club organized for the convenience of insiders but a cooperative where people combine together to grow spiritually, to worship the triune God, and to prepare themselves for Christian living and service in the larger world.\u201d9<\/sup> As I read the preface I didn\u2019t know which way he was going in the book.\u00a0 I then realized I was reading this statement completely opposite of the way he intended.\u00a0 But I still believe I am correct!\u00a0 The contemporary church has become a club for the convenience of insiders\u2014those who have taken over the churches and redefined Christian living as they like.<\/p>\n One problem that accompanies these disagreements is that of conscience.\u00a0 It is much more difficult to feel you are in a compromising situation than it is to merely think that someone doesn\u2019t like what you\u2019re doing.\u00a0 A conscientious Christian who understands liberty and license knows he\/she is in a compromising situation\u00a0 when his\/her church has become contemporary and worldly.\u00a0 But the worldly Christian looks condescendingly on the conservative brother and thinks his point of view is just old fashioned.<\/p>\n I have known many churches in recent years where a pastoral candidate presented himself as conservative in order to be elected as the pastor, and then, once safely in office, turned the church in a contemporary direction (in business this is called a hostile takeover!).\u00a0\u00a0 As is typical, many long-time members of the church are forced to either become confrontive or leave.\u00a0 Usually they choose the latter (or are invited to leave and not \u201crock the boat\u201d) because fighting in the church is not their nature\u2014and rightly so.\u00a0 I know missionaries who are careful not to reveal to prospective supporting pastors how contemporary they are when presenting their field.\u00a0 Later, when reporting back to their supporting churches, they are careful not to show in any pictures or reports the contemporary nature of their missionary work.\u00a0 These situations ought not to happen in churches but they do all the time.<\/p>\n \n In the second half of this article, I want to describe why I think the conservative, traditional churches are still the best churches regardless of size or supposed lack of \u201csuccess.\u201d\u00a0 If the church is not the church as God intends her to be, no amount of success or popularity will fill the hungry soul.\u00a0 It is time to let the church be the church.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There is a common canard today that our conservative churches are full of legalists.\u00a0 We have been called grace killers, fighting fundamentalists, Pharisees, and a host of other colorful descriptions.\u00a0 The charge of legalism, of course, is not only false but is a misleading and sometimes dishonest accusation.\u00a0 The truth is that there is no […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","episode_type":"","audio_file":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[143,164],"class_list":["post-354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","tag-church","tag-legalism-license-liberty"],"yoast_head":"\n