11,153
edits
Legalism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
“Moralism/legalism” stresses truth without grace, for it claims we must obey the truth to be saved. On the other hand, “relativism/antinomianism” stresses grace without truth, for it claims we are all accepted by God, and we each have to decide what is right for us. We must never forget that '''Jesus was full of grace and truth''' (John 1:14)<ref>Timothy J. Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-centered Ministry in Your City (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).</ref> | “Moralism/legalism” stresses truth without grace, for it claims we must obey the truth to be saved. On the other hand, “relativism/antinomianism” stresses grace without truth, for it claims we are all accepted by God, and we each have to decide what is right for us. We must never forget that '''Jesus was full of grace and truth''' (John 1:14)<ref>Timothy J. Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-centered Ministry in Your City (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).</ref> | ||
Legalism is to fall back into rule-keeping - we lose our freedom. Falling into permissiveness means we abuse our freedom. | |||
Gospel freedom is freedom that both takes away the guilt of sin and eats away at the motivation to sin. | |||
The gospel neither leads us to live a guilty life (since God has lovingly accepted us), nor an unholy life (since the God who has accepted us is perfectly holy). To forget the first is to fall into legalism, and lose our freedom; to forget the second is to abuse our freedom. Both mean we lose grasp of the gospel. | |||
=Legalism= | |||
*Legalism kills love for God (Revelation 3:14–22). | |||
*Legalism places human tradition above God’s Word (Mark 7:5–9). | |||
*Legalism hinders our vision of God (Matthew 23:13–15). | |||
*Legalism overlooks the needs of others (Luke 10:25–37). | |||
*Legalism is a source of selfish pride (Matthew 18:1–4). | |||
*Legalism produces rivalry and deception (Luke 20:9–20). | |||
*Legalism causes us to view others with contempt (Luke 18:9–14). | |||
*Legalism denies our freedom of conscience (Mark 2:23–28). | |||
*Legalism emphasizes externals (Mark 12:38–40). | |||
*Legalism makes us Pharisees and hypocrites (Mark 10:1–12).<ref>Bill Bright, Written by the Hand of God (Orlando, FL: NewLife Publications, 2001), 77–78.</ref> | |||
'''Religious Legalism''' refers to a complex set of attitudes and beliefs organized around the conviction that certain laws must be obeyed in order to establish and maintain a relationship with God. These laws are usually considered divine in origin and therefore immutable. They may encompass any area of life, with no aspect of human activity considered too insignificant or private to warrant possible exemption from regulation. | |||
A belief in a moral code is not ipso facto religious legalism. However, legalism results from such a belief when strict obedience to the code is conceived as being the sole or primary means of gaining and keeping the favor of the deity. Legalism thrives on a distorted sense of obligation. | |||
The theological roots of modern-day religious legalism may be traced to the intertestamental period, when a fundamental change occurred in the role of Old Testament law for the Jews. The concept of the covenant as the condition of membership in the people of God was replaced by that of obedience to the law. This obedience became the basis of God’s verdict of pleasure or displeasure toward the individual. The sole mediator between God and humans became the torah, and all relationships between God and people, Israel, or the world became subordinated to the torah. Justification, righteousness, and life in the world to come were thought to be secured by obeying the law (Ladd, 1974). | |||
This attitude was prevalent during the time of Christ and influenced the biblical precursors of twentieth-century legalism: Pharisaism, judaizing theology, and Gnosticism. | |||
Pharisaism attempted to represent the true people of God by obeying the law and in doing so hoped to prepare the way for the Messiah. The Pharisees observed all the legal prescriptions of Scripture in fine detail; they also held to the authority of the halakah, the body of legal descriptions that interpreted the law. The regulations increased in number and complexity to the point of pedantry. For example, because food could not be cooked on the sabbath, a debate arose between two groups as to whether water alone or both water and cooked food could be placed on a previously heated stove without committing a violation (Muller, 1976). The regulations became so difficult to obey that they proved a stumbling block to those who could not keep them all and who thus felt they were outside the kingdom of God. Christ spoke to that tragic situation in his scathing denunciation of Pharisaical legalism (Matt. 23:4). | |||
A variant of this form of legalism was introduced into the churches in Galatia, prompting Paul to write his famous letter on Christian liberty to the congregations in that province. The Judaizers, as they became known, infiltrated the churches, claiming that full salvation was impossible apart from observance of Jewish law and ritual. They were especially adamant that Gentile Christians be circumcised, since this was the symbol of membership in the new Israel. Paul’s theological and emotional antipathy toward this form of legalism is quite evident in his sarcastic suggestion that those who argue for the necessity of circumcision should take the next logical step and castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12). | |||
The apostle also had to combat legalism in the form of incipient Gnosticism at Colosse. This syncretistic heresy taught that the goal of life for gnostic adherents was to obtain true knowledge (gnosis), which would eventually allow them to leave the prison of the body and merge with the composite whole. A number of Colossian Christians apparently were seeking heavenly visions as part of their rite of passage into a knowledge of the divine mysteries. They were informed that such visions could come about only by a rigorous discipline of asceticism and self-denial. Abstinence from food and drink, observance of initiatory and purifactory rites, and possibly a life of celibacy and mortification of the human body (Col. 2:21, 23) were all prescribed as part of the regimen necessary to obtain fullness of life (Martin, 1978). | |||
While each of these ancient forerunners of present-day legalism differed from the other in certain respects, all three attempted to legislate certain behavior as the primary means of obtaining “salvation,” whether that was defined as hastening the advent of the Messiah, gaining membership in the new Israel, or seeking the eventual release of the soul from the confines of the body. | |||
These forms of legalism did not die; they merely altered their appearance and continued to plague the church throughout the centuries. A study of church history suggests that too often religious legalism has been the norm rather than the exception. Evangelicalism in the United States continues to wrestle with legalistic tendencies within its ranks, partly due to its Puritan roots and fundamentalist legacy. The Puritans, for example, at one time decreed that one could dress a baby on the sabbath but not kiss it; they also allowed that a man could comb his hair on that day but not shave his beard (Brinsmead, 1981b). Fundamentalism, while it is usually not as extreme, continues in a similar legalistic framework with its absolutizing prohibitions that do not have sufficient scriptural warrant. | |||
An examination of the phenomenon of religious legalism reveals some striking similarities to obsessive-compulsive disorder (which includes characteristics of both obsessional neurosis and obsessional personality disorder; the former is usually more dysfunctional). | |||
Religious legalism often infects the practitioner with a sense of moral superiority and a concomitant critical, condemning attitude toward those who do not conform to the same standards of conduct. This type of attitude is graphically illustrated in the biblical story of the Pharisee who stood in the temple thanking God that he was not like the terrible sinners around him. Christ warns that this type of self-exaltation can prevent a person from being justified before God (Luke 18:10–14). Similarly the obsessive-compulsive individual claims moral superiority and will often show an air of condescension to those around him or her. The manifestation of moral superiority most often hides feelings of inferiority and self-hatred that are then projected onto those who are deemed inferior. Just as the legalist must obey all the laws perfectly, so too the obsessive-compulsive person strives for perfection, avoiding tasks that might cause him or her to fail. Failure for the obsessional is equivalent to breaking the law for the legalist. Absolute perfection is the minimum acceptable standard for both. | |||
Both types of persons have great difficulty with the gray areas of life. The legalist wishes to legislate every area of life and thus tends to concentrate on behavioral and religious minutiae. The obsessive-compulsive is characterized by aversion to ambiguity and a tendency to put all of life into neat, black-and-white categories. | |||
Anxiety and fear are primary motivators for both the legalist and the obsessive-compulsive. The practitioner of legalism is driven to obedience by an overwhelming fear that God will punish or reject those persons who do not obey perfectly. The person caught in obsessive-compulsiveness is driven to obey rules, obsessions, and compulsions by the unceasing threat of internal punishment meted out by the perfectionistic and hypercritical superego. Although the rules of conduct may differ for both types of person, they serve a similar function of assuring that catastrophe, whether spiritual or psychological, may be averted as long as the laws are obeyed or the compulsions followed. | |||
Legalism is caused by biblical and doctrinal distortions and misunderstandings. Obsessive-compulsiveness can be traced in theory to a basic anxiety (Horney, 1950), defined as a feeling of profound insecurity, apprehensiveness, and helplessness in a world conceived as potentially hostile. Thus they are not the same phenomenon. However, the affinities between the two are such that they can exist closely with each other. The intertwining of legalism and obsessive-compulsiveness creates a hybrid that is resistant to alteration through counseling or psychotherapy. | |||
Counseling of the legalist/obsessive-compulsive must be grounded in the therapeutic triad of empathy, genuineness, and unconditional acceptance on the part of the therapist. The importance of acceptance cannot be overstated. By accepting the client just as he or she is, the therapist models, although imperfectly, a loving, accepting Christ whose love is not contingent on one’s being perfect, since he died for us while we were yet sinners (Rom. 5:8). At the same time this unconditional acceptance will help mitigate the destructiveness of the critical, perfectionistic superego. | |||
An examination of the cognitive elements of the disorder will decrease their power over the person as he or she learns to look at the world, self, and God in a new light. Individuals with this type of problem usually have negative concepts of God stemming from doctrinal distortions and/or an equation of the heavenly Father with the person’s punitive, rigid earthly father. Helping a person to gain insight into these aspects of the problem can prove both spiritually and emotionally liberating. | |||
Lastly, the Reformation principle of sola fide, justification by faith alone apart from works or obedience to the law, can provide an antidote to the poison of legalism/obsessive-compulsiveness. Bruce (1977) notes that Paul’s statement that Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4) means that since Christ has come law has no place whatsoever in one’s approach to God. “According to Paul,” he adds, “the believer is not under the law as a rule of life—unless one thinks of the law of love, and that is a completely different kind of law, fulfilled not by obedience to a code but by the outworking of an inward power” (p. 192). | |||
The New Testament does not make appeal for proper behavior on the basis of Old Testament rules. Christians’ behavior throughout the New Testament is shaped and colored by what Christ has done. The law of Christ demands that believers forgive as they have been forgiven (Col. 3:13), accept one another as Christ has accepted them (Rom. 15:7), and place the same value on people that the blood of Christ places on them (Brinsmead, 1981a). | |||
As Luther observed, no good work helps justify or save an unbeliever. Thus the person who wishes to do good works should begin not with the doing of works but with believing, which alone makes a person good; for nothing makes a person good except faith or evil except unbelief.<ref>David G. Benner and Peter C. Hill, eds., Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology & Counseling, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 1030–1032.</ref> | |||
=The impact of William Branham's legalism= | =The impact of William Branham's legalism= | ||