|
There
is a common canard today that our conservative churches are full of legalists.
We have been called grace killers, fighting fundamentalists, Pharisees, and a
host of other colorful descriptions. The charge of legalism, of course, is not
only false but is a misleading and sometimes dishonest accusation. The truth is
that there is no legalism in our fundamental churches, at least not in any
biblical sense of the word. As in politics, however, the seriousness of the
charge will always outweigh the truthfulness of the accusation. Since our
culture dislikes regulations, standards, or almost any set of rules or
convictions that would curb an individual’s “right” to do as he or she pleases,
the accusation of legalism becomes an easy label to use.
The
English term “legalist” is not in the Bible. Interestingly, the closest we
might come to it is Paul’s quotation of the Corinthians who cried, “all things
are lawful for me” (1 Cor. 10:23) as an excuse for their sin against the
brethren. Non-biblical words (like the word “culture”) become easy to use for
one’s own purposes. The problem today is that the word “legalist” 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. This is like googling
“MySpace” as a source for research: common usage becomes an “original source.”
But just because someone has said something often does not make it truthful.
A
“legalist,” by any New Testament definition, would be a Judaizer, a keeper of
the Mosaic Law. In the Gospels, these were the Pharisees who insisted that the
Jews must keep the Law (and remain Jewish) to be saved. In the book of Acts and
the time of the 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. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was called because “Certain men
which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be
circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1).
Legalism, then, would be the attempt to be saved or remain saved by the keeping
of the Mosaic Law. 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. Only Orthodox Jews are trying to keep the Mosaic law for salvation. 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. Therefore, we simply do not have legalists in our
conservative churches today. Myron Houghton has written,
“A distinction must be made between lists and legalism. 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. But disagreeing with fellow believers
over whether or not Scripture supports their lists has nothing to do with
legalism. Legalism is related to why one should obey a list rather than to the
rightness or wrongness of the list.”1
Charles Ryrie says, “The existence of a code of law cannot be legalism. The
fact that there are regulations, be it those of the Mosaic Law or the law of
Christ, is not legalism. Law is not legalism.”2 That is, unless one
is keeping a law in order to be saved, it is not legalism. If you disagree with
that person over the biblical correctness of a specific law, then you should
simply say he is wrong. To call him a legalist is either to misunderstand
legalism or to be dishonest.
As
also in politics, the pointing of one finger at someone else is to have four
fingers pointing back at oneself. The accusation of legalism toward those who
desire to live godly and separated covers up the obvious problem of worldliness
in the churches. The twin problem to (real) legalism in the New Testament was
antinomian license. In the book of Galatians, after encouraging the believers
against (real) legalism: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ
hath made us free” (Gal. 5:1), Paul wrote, “For, brethren, ye have been called
to liberty; only use not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love
serve one another” (Gal. 5:11). Peter did the same thing in both of his
epistles: “As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness,
but as the servants of God” (Pet. 3:16); “While 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” (2 Pet. 2:19).
The
problem in our churches today is not legalism but license. The changes have not
been for the better (and surely change can be for good) but for the worse. The
throwing out of the elderly was also a throwing out of maturity and godliness.
The bringing in of the contemporary was a bringing in of worldliness and
immaturity. And, this is not new. “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one,
and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were
evil, and his brother’s righteous” (1 Jn. 3:12).
John
Newton, who pastored in eighteenth century England and wrote
Amazing Grace also wrote,
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. 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
Recently, Millard Erickson, in a book on the postmodern generation wrote,
One phenomenon that has not received a great deal of attention is the status of
laws in a postmodern age. For the most part, there is a lesser concern for the
fulfillment of or abiding by laws than in earlier times. To follow laws,
especially in an undeviating manner, is thought to be 'legalism,' which is
deemed a very bad thing. Freedom to deviate from such regulations is a positive
virtue. Often, when pressed for a rationale for such action, the reply given
is, 'We are more interested in people than in rules.' On the surface of it, at
least, this appears to be the concern for community that is such a hallmark of
postmodernism.4
Equally egregious is the misuse of the biblical word “liberty.” 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. Ryrie recognized this danger when he wrote, “To introduce
any laws becomes to them legalism. 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.”5
Charles Spurgeon, in the midst of the Down-Grade controversy, wrote,
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. 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
As
Madame Roland said of the French Revolution, “Liberty, what crimes are committed
in your name!” Spurgeon did not live long enough to hear and read “The
Fundamentals” but he surely would have identified and agreed with the spirit of
them. In them Mrs. Jesse Penn-Lewis from Leicester, England wrote an article
titled, “The Warfare with Satan and the Way of Victory.” In that, she wrote,
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. 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. 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. Liberty to obey God instead of disobeying Him.7
Douglas Moo, in his commentary on the book of James, explains the meaning of
“the law of liberty” in 2:12: “God's gracious acceptance of us does not end our
obligation to obey him; it sets it on a new footing. No longer is God's law a
threatening, confining burden. 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.”8
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. In a new book by Gordon
MacDonald titled, Who Stole My Church, I
thought I would find a like mind. No, the title is only a ploy so that he can
explain why older people shouldn’t complain when their church changes out from
under them. In the preface he writes what he intends to be a compliment to the
contemporary church, “Here 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.”9 As I read the preface I didn’t know
which way he was going in the book. I then realized I was reading this
statement completely opposite of the way he intended. But I still believe I am
correct! The contemporary church has become a club for the convenience of
insiders—those who have taken over the churches and redefined Christian living
as they like.
One
problem that accompanies these disagreements is that of conscience. It is much
more difficult to feel you are in a compromising situation than it is to merely
think that someone doesn’t like what you’re doing. A conscientious Christian
who understands liberty and license knows he/she is in a compromising situation
when his/her church has become contemporary and worldly. But the worldly
Christian looks condescendingly on the conservative brother and thinks his point
of view is just old fashioned.
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!). As is typical, many long-time members of the
church are forced to either become confrontive or leave. Usually they choose
the latter (or are invited to leave and not “rock the boat”) because fighting in
the church is not their nature—and rightly so. I know missionaries who are
careful not to reveal to prospective supporting pastors how contemporary they
are when presenting their field. 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. These situations ought not to
happen in churches but they do all the time.
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 “success.” If the church is not the church as God intends her to be, no
amount of success or popularity will fill the hungry soul. It is time to let
the church be the church.
| 
