Welcome to Summit Theological Seminary
"Teaching God's Word to God's World"
2766 Airport Road, Peru, Indiana 46970, (765) 472-4111
Legalism, What Is It?
George
L. Faull
People today do not like to
be called a legalist. Theologically
speaking a legalist is one who believes he is saved by strict adherence to the
word rather than by the merits of Jesus Christ. I know very few legalists by this definition among the Churches
of Christ. We are fully aware that we
are saved by grace through faith in the shed blood of Christ. When His perfect work is understood we all
know that His righteousness is imputed to us by obedient faith. Salvation is only available to those in Christ and we were baptized into Him. Galatians
3:27.
However, the saved know that
we continue in Him and “work out our own salvation with fear and
trembling.” We are saved by the gospel
if we keep in memory what is preached by the Apostles of Christ.
However, in our world, legalism is applied to a
person who strictly obeys the letter of the law rather than the Spirit of the
law. Like the Pharisees of old, a
legalist insists that we obey the Bible as if it were a legal document instead
of a book of principles to guide us in every situation. It produces strict adherence to the letter
instead of an adherence to what God is really trying to produce in our lives.
Like the Pharisees, modern
legalists make additions that they think help you obey the letter of the
Word. These additions are as binding on
their conscience as the law itself and they will get almost as upset if you
break their rules as if you do not obey the Word itself.
In reality, legalism is an
attitude or a mindset, that it is their way or no way, or maybe even their way
or the highway. Nor is this mindset
unique to conservatives. No one is more
legalistic than liberals are. Observe
the National Organization of Women.
Observe the Jesse Jackson’s and the Al Sharpton’s of the world. How about the ACLU or the Jewish
Anti-Defamation League. Those into
political correctness or environmentalism or PETA are legalists to an
absurdity.
So legalism does not confine
itself to conservative Christians. It
rears its ugly head in society in all walks of life.
However, in the Christian
world, it can show itself in adherence to strict dress codes, the use or
non-use of instruments or even particular musical instruments in the
Church. There is the “no make-up, no
jewelry” crowd. There is the “no cards,
no dice” and “no coffee drinkers” which I’m sure are just as sincere and love
Jesus as those who indulge in these.
One may even hold these positions and not be legalistic. It is a matter of personal conviction that
they hold before God and they are accepted of Him. See Romans 14:1-13.
However, in this article I
want to mention some legalists that are not considered legalists. They fancy themselves enlightened brethren
who understand the grace of God better than their brethren. Some of these run so
far from legalism they make full circle and become some of the worst of
Pharisees and legalists.
Let me remind you, legalists
are those who adhere to the Word or the letter of the Word. Here are some legalists of the worst dye who
build not only on “the Word”, but “a word” found in Scripture. They are ready to divide the church over
their legalistic adherence to a specific word in the Word. I can best tell you by an example.
The preacher was castigating
an elder who was opposed to women deacons.
Though the elder had reasons for his objection, the minister called him
legalistic. Why? The preacher informed the Church that the
word in Romans 16:1
translated “servant” that describes Phoebe was a “diakonos.” He pointed out that is the same word used of
deacons and therefore Phoebe was a deacon.
Now, how legalistic can you
get? The word is the same therefore she
was a Deacon. It does not matter that
women were not made deacons in Acts 6
nor that she did not meet the qualifications of a deacon, for she is not the
husband of one wife. It matters not
there was a word for female deacons, namely deaconess, that Paul could have
used but did not. Nor does it matter
that church history knows of no deaconess till second century and even they had
to be widows. It does not matter that
the Churches of Christ never had deaconesses until some preachers sought to
appease the “women libbers” in the church.
Nor does it matter that it goes against many of the brothers and sisters
conscience. This is all negated by the
use of a word! And he says the elder is
legalistic. Is this not the pot calling
the kettle black?
Question. Since the word “angelos” is used 197 times
for angels, and since John the Baptist is called an “angelos”, was he an
angel? If not, why not? If Phoebe is a deacon because the same word
“diakonos” is used for her as used of deacons, doesn’t it follow that John is
an angel because it is the same word used of angels? An angel and John were both “messengers.” Phoebe and a deacon were both
“servants.” But John was not an angel
and Phoebe was not a deacon.
Incidentally, Jesus, Paul, Timothy, government officials, angels,
household servants and all Christians are called “diakonos”. They were not all ordained to the office of
deacon but they were all servants. Do
you see who the legalist was? It was
the name caller that built his teaching on a mere word. He was the one following “the strictness of
the letter” instead of the spirit of the teaching about who was to be ordained
a deacon. The peace and harmony of a
congregation can be disrupted by such legalism.
But lets look at another
legalist.
What do you call the
following but Phariseeism and legalism?
The president of a Bible College was confronted for having a
denominational woman, who did not even believe “the plan of the man of
salvation,” preach to men on soul winning.
His defense was “We did not let her stand behind the pulpit!” Talk about straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel. It is the Word of
God that sanctifies the pulpit, not the pulpit that sanctifies the Word of
God. Compare what Jesus said about such
reasoning. Matthew
23:16 – 22. Note I toned down what Jesus said of this kind of legalism and
did not call them what Jesus did.
When women began to be put on
the committee of 150 of NACC some objected to women in authority. The defense was “we only allow three or four
women so the women can not rule!” Incidentally,
they called those who objected “legalists and male chauvinists.” It seems to me that a man who objects to
women in leadership has a solid scriptural basis for his position. However, those who limit it to 3 or 4 women
are the ones showing male chauvinism. If
it is scriptural for women to be in leadership roles, by what scriptural right
do men limit their number to three or four?
What but prejudice against women could limit their number? The ones who are
basing their objection on scriptural grounds need have no prejudice or male
chauvinism involved at all. They are
simply complying with what they understand is the will of God. But who really has a legalistic mindset by
straining over the words “have authority”?
What about those who quote Galatians
3:28 as their Magna Carta of women in
leadership movement? It says, “There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” These verses are used to negate any teaching on women by the same
author. It matters not that I
Corinthians 14 and I
Timothy 2:11–12 written by Paul years later,
forbids women to teach or have authority over the man. They have their proof text and the legalists
use it on the ignorant.
Are they not legalists who
are changing the words in the above passages to “wives” instead of
“women?” The word “gune” can be
translated “women” or “wives” depending on the context. They ignore when they do so that in the
verse in the same context it says “in like manner also that women adorn
themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with
braided hair or gold or costly array (but which becometh women professing
godliness) with good works.” Shall we
change the word women to wives each time?
Is there no instruction to the unmarried women? Can they adorn themselves as they
please? What if we follow the same
reasoning and translated “aner” (which can be “husband” or “man”) as loosely as
the brethren do “gune”. What is this
but legalism? “Straining at a word” to
support ones own doctrine is most definitely legalism.
A preacher used a movie clip
to offer an invitation. It is a clip
from Sister Act. I am told (for I’ve
not seen it) that it is a story of a harlot hiding out and disguising herself
at a convent. She gets the nuns
swinging in a song called “I will follow him.”
Whoopi Goldberg, therefore, gives the invitation to follow Jesus. (That is not even what the original song is
about. Still others affirm the “Him” is
the Pope who in the film is shown nodding his head in appreciation.) Twelve Christians who objected walk out of
the service in JUSTIFIED righteous indignation. They were written a letter of rebuke by the leadership of the
church and disfellowshipped and asked not to return. The preacher was glad to get rid of “those legalists”. Who was the legalist? What preacher has not offended someone and
had someone walk out for an “off-the-cuff” remark or an attempt at humor that
was misunderstood? What should he do? I’ve always gone and offered my
apologies. Humble pie doesn’t taste all
that bad. Legalists never eat
crow. They just ostracize.
Just try to confront a
convention president or a school president for bringing in a renowned big named
false teacher like Tony Campolo or Chuck Colson. With great fervor they will quote Luke 9:49, 50 –
“49 And John answered and said, Master,
we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he
followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” They ignore that the man in Luke was neither
said to be a false teacher nor a claimer of false gifts. They legalistically quote the verse assuming
it should apply to any teacher regardless of doctrine. When you quote Romans
16:17–18 – “17 Now I beseech you,
brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 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”,
you are immediately termed a legalist.
Who really is the legalist?
There is another example of
legalism that is rampant in our churches today. It is on the subject of baptism.
Let me illustrate this legalism.
A man comes to the preacher
and says he wishes to be apart of the local church. The preacher says, “Have you been immersed?” The candidate assures him he has been
immersed. Enough said! End of discussion! He’s been under water and that is sufficient. It matters not why he was baptized. It matters not when he was baptized. It matters not that the man believes he was
saved 5 years before he was baptized.
The legalist is content that the candidate has been under water. This is absolute legalism. Those of us who believe one needs to know
why he was baptized, or that he was baptized into Christ instead of into some
man-made denomination are often called the legalist. But who really is the legalist?
Is it the man who wants
immersion to be according to the spirit of its purpose? Or is it the man who will fellowship anyone
who has been under water, regardless of the reason? I maintain those who are content with the letter in that the man
has been dipped in water for whatever reason is the legalist. He borders on being a water
regenerationist! It is not the man who wants
the spirit of immersion observed that is the legalist, but one who simply wants
to make sure the man is immersed at some point in his life. The former is called the legalist but in
realty it is the latter. The latter
puts the emphasis on water, the former on obedience to Christ.
There is another legalist.
It is the man who insists
that unless the church uses his kind of music it must be changed. The “hymn singers” are called legalist. However contemporary music lovers say such
churches are ineffective, outmoded, unevangelistic, and not meeting the needs
of people. They insist those under 35
are turned off by the old hymns of the church.
They feel music must be loud and fast with no archaic KJV words. Contemporary music introduced tactlessly and
with insults as if the older generation had no right to express their devotion
to God in the way they have for forty plus years, are legalists. One man said recently at a convention, “You
need to introduce it even though the elderly will not like it. You may even lose some elderly people. That’s the price you’ve got to pay, and it
will be worth it.”
I think this type of legalism
is literally tearing apart our churches and is a far cry from the principles of
the apostles. Do not misunderstand me,
I am not opposed to new songs or using some of the new praise choruses or even
a praise team. That is in the area of
Christian liberty. But a reading of Romans
14 and I Corinthians 8 will show that “all are to follow things which make for
peace and things whereby we may edify another.” Romans 14:19. What we are to judge is that “we not put a
stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in our brothers way.” Romans
14:13.
We are to “take heed lest by any means our liberty becomes a
stumblingblock.” Through the exercising
of our liberty and knowledge “the weak brother for whom Christ died can
perish.” “When you sin
so against the brethren and wound their weak conscience you sin against
Christ.”
Paul affirmed he would not
eat meat if it caused his brother to violate his conscience. (See I Corinthians 8:7-13)
Legalists insist only their
music is to be used. This legalism is
not found only in hymn singers as so many young preachers are affirming. If they would look in a mirror they would
see another legalist looking back! Many
preachers are going to have a lot to answer for if they do not get rid of their
legalistic attitudes and that is true on both sides of the “praise team.”