December 15, 2005
The Other Legalism
There’s a corrosive legalism in the blogosphere to be aware of, particularly in the discussions concerning fundamentalism. Legalism can be defined in many ways, but I refer here to the form of legalism that deliberately ignores the weightier matters of the law by drawing all attention possible to the less important.
There are some in the blogosphere who are in the fray because they believe that what they say is truth and they want to be heard. There are others who simply want to be heard. Too many of these noisy ones pride themselves on their tolerant openness, but they seem to have the most inflexible minds toward messengers of the truth, particularly if those messengers happen to be fundamentalist, conservative, or traditional. Many of these Pharisees were brought up in fundamentalistic, conservative, or traditional backgrounds and deplore a legalism that they think they have rejected. In fact, they have not rejected legalism. They’ve imbibed it. All they have rejected is a form of legalism, a form that made much of externals at the expense of the real. The new legalists, however, replaced the discarded form of legalism for a new form with the same culture of argumentation that was the mark of their non-movie-going, culotted forebears. They too defiantly ignore the weightier matters in stubborn retention of their favorite rules. Their form of legalism comes through in their argumentation. These people are not driven by principle, but by agenda. And this is particularly clear in the discussions current among fundamentalists. Allow me to describe a few.
First, there are the pettifogging sentimentalists. These people self-righteously condemn any kind of condemnation that actually hurts somebody’s feelings. I call them pettifoggers because they are able to parse every word and action of the Christian preacher who is taking a stand for true godliness and elevate his offense to the level of the sin that is actually being condemned, yea, even to the point of covering the real sin. Legalistic maneuvering par excellence. They sniff out a loophole, highlight a weakness, and scream in outrage over one faux-pas of the messenger until the message of the messenger is completely sabotaged. They would make a man of God who is condemning an adulterous murderer crumple in shame for every misspeak, every excess of passion, every misguided (albeit honest) effort as if the man of God’s error was more evil, dark, unloving, and heinous than the murderous adulterer’s abomination. This is legalism. These people are abundant in Christian circles. You will see them in every Christian controversy. They will always take the side of covering the sin, avoid the weightier matters of the law, and talk down to scold (in patronizing tones) the earnest defender of truth for his naughty disruption. These people muddy up the waters and confuse the simple minded.
Secondly, there are the exegetical pirates. These legalists are increasing in number among fundamentalism. These are the “chapter and verse” people who sincerely think that they have the high road in any debate because they will recoil in righteous indignation if a preacher of the Word gets worked up about any issue that is not catalogued in the black-and-white of Scripture. Even worse, they will pirate completely legitimate discussions with an outcry for an exegetical proof of a minor point made by the servant of God as if they are championing faithfulness to the Scriptures. In fact it is nothing more than supercilious casuistry from minds unwilling to be bent toward anything that is not immediately pleasing to them. Many of the so-called “young fundamentalists” are some of the most legalistic people I have ever known because of this kind of piracy. They are like the forebears that they disdainfully repudiate. When one affronts their self-righteousness with offensive biblical wisdom, they hurl back sophistical arguments about biblical exegesis in a poorly-veiled effort to invalidate the message of God’s messenger. They are joined by many of my Reformed brethren and many Evangelicals in this country. An illustration of this is when Pastor Chris Anderson wrote a critique of Young Fundamentalists on Sharperiron.
I select this illustration because I do not necessarily agree with Anderson’s broad-brushing of all dissenting fundamentalists, but I do think that the failure of so many to miss his main point by focusing on side issues illustrates the desparate tactics these “exegetical pirates” will stoop to in order to hijack what is a godly man’s sobering message. It is less important that he is accurate in every sub-point. It is very important that he is sincere in his main point. Legalists always miss the main point. And this was no exception.
Hardly had the post been up when there was holy indignation at the notion that Anderson would condemn drinking without any exegetical argument. In an effort to bolster his point that many young fundamentalists are abandoning standards of personal holiness, Anderson merely said,
“One of the most surprising and energetic debates considers whether the long-standing “tee-totaler” conviction of fundamentalists is necessary. Many rejoice that they have thrown off the bondage of extra-biblical, legalistic standards forbidding the consumption of alcohol.”Anderson’s point was obvious: there’s a trend. It is not necessary that he write a thesis on tee-totaling. However, instead of trying to rebut the point that there is an alarming trend toward worldliness and/or accomodation toward hitherto-considered worldly activity, some launched nearly vitriolic accusations and charges that Anderson needed to defend his stance on alcohol exegetically as if his whole argument hinged on that proof. Thereby, they proved Anderson’s point.
My frustration has little to do with the debate on alcohol, or even Anderson’s point that there is a noticeable downward trend in the standards of personal holiness among fundamentalists. Perhaps in these two areas I would concur with Anderson. My frustration is with the demand that Anderson’s point is moot because he did not lay out an airtight, exegetical argument for his sub-point. When I read the thread I wanted to say, “Come on, you nincompoops! Anderson’s point is obvious! Deal with his point.” Unfortunately, since most people cannot deal with the major argument, they resort to the tactics of their forebears: they camp intransigently in their pettifoggery. They pirate worthy-to-be-pondered messages.
The problem with this tactic is that it assumes that every opinion one has must be supported exegetically or it is an invalid argument. These are the same people who would probably judge me for getting worked up when I see someone aimlessly meandering down the road. I’d scream at them to get out of the road. They’d probably respond with pious indignation that before I dare to be so emphatic I need to show chapter and verse. Fine. I’ll try to find one. But in the meantime, smoosh! (The fact of the matter is that there is a legitimate argument from Scripture that justifies my passionate pleas to my people to abstain from alcohol or, for that matter, to get out the way of a rushing truck, and that is that I must give an account to God for their souls (Hebrews 13:17). But I digress. That is for another post.) The main point I was making in righteous concern and passionate hollering was that there was real danger of being run-over by a speeding truck. They want to quibble about the Greek word for “speeding truck.”
The point is that in the current discussions there is a legalism that is as subtle as the legalism that keeps women in culottes and sponges Hollywood everywhere but in the theatre. And it is just as obstructive to the understanding of Christ-centered living. That legalism makes infinitesimally small points superior to the weightier matters of the law of God in a deliberate attempt to derail an argument from its obvious intention.
Beware.
This entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism
First, reading this was like watching one of my friends get spanked…by his dad…with a belt.
I am not saying I am innocent, I just haven’t done this recently (clearly God’s grace).
Second, thank you for the exhortation. I have saved this and put it in my “education balanced by grace” file.
Third, what’s the solution? How do we swing from one legalism (my swing came after I understood the doctrines of grace) and not go to the other extreme? How do we fight the desire to jettison the preaching, opinions, preferences, and convictions of those who for so long kept us bound in their legalism?
Fourth, I might have answered my own question. Grace. Does not the grace of God enable us to have great freedom, great compassion, and a great desire for the truth? Yet, we must remember that we need not take up God’s offense. He doesn’t need me to defend Him against bad exegesis, culturally and socially retarded habits of dress and conduct, or even a pulpit ministry characterized by issue-oriented story-telling (um…I mean preaching).
Young men (I) need wisdom and discernment. The ability to apply their (my) biblical knowledge of Who God is and how His grace works to given situations and then trust God for the outcome.
Posted by: josh mccarnan at December 16, 2005 08:37 AMHey, Bob.
Two things, friend:
First, I didn’t immediately see your connection between what some YF’s are doing and legalism. They aren’t trying to earn salvation or even earn a right standing with God — “legalism proper.” You say, “I refer here to the form of legalism that deliberately ignores the weightier matters of the law by drawing all attention possible to the less important.” I agree with the problem you cite, but I’d say that they are guilty of the very Pharisaism they claim to reject. Again, I have no doubt that the points you make are valid, but I think we need to be especially careful where we point “the L-word,” as it might be loaded. It is tossed around far too casually, especially when true legalism (as I understand it) deals with a faulty soteriology.
I suggest that both the YF’s you mention and the culotte-pushers are mistaken, and both can perpetuate errors of Pharisaism (straining at gnats and washing the outside of cups, respectively). But I wouldn’t necessarily characterize either as legalists. What do you think?
BTW, you did acknowledge that legalism has become a very flexible term, so perhaps I’m just straining at a gnat while missing your point. How’s that for irony?!
Second, you said, “I select this illustration because I do not necessarily agree with Anderson’s broad-brushing of all dissenting fundamentalists.”
Ouch. You? Disagreeing with me? Wow. Déjà vu. ;-)
Joking aside, I’d be interested in hearing the points with which you disagree. Though I risk coming off as a defensive hair-splitter, I’m not certain that your statement that I “broad-brush[ed] all dissenting fundamentalists” is accurate or fair, especially when you use almost the exact same phrasing here that I used in my article: “Many of the so-called ‘young fundamentalists’ are…” I don’t think you’re broad-brushing all YF’s, and neither was I. You addressed “many,” and so did I.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts here. Your post was kind to me, and I’ve been encouraged by our interaction, especially in recent months. I’m looking for clarifications, not an argument; I agree with the force of your post.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Anderson at December 20, 2005 11:21 AMChris,
I agree that you were not broad-brushing. A closer read shows that. You said,
I am not intending to paint all young fundamentalists with the same broad brush. If the young men I have discussed are anything, they are independent. I am not suggesting that what is true of some is true of all. The mindsets of these young men differ greatly from one to the next; we dare not lump them all together.
Therefore, I am sorry that I stated it that way because my “beef” was with the “déjà vu” part of your analysis that equated the current arguments with the neo-evangelicalism of the 40’s and 50’s. That was, I thought, a “broad-brushing” of the problem as similar to the controversies with neo-evangelicals. I poorly articulated my point because I was acting mostly by memory. Please forgive.
Having said that, I still say that we probably disagree on the “déjà vu” simplification of the current controversies. That for another thread and day. We do need to discuss it.
As to the L-word. I’ll answer that as soon as possible, but I don’t think that your narrow definition of it is the way the word is generally used or it could never be applied to anybody evangelical. I know I need to justify my use of that word, so I’m not dodging. . .But it’s Christmas time! I gotta shop.
I just want you to know that I highly respect what you say and I carefully read what you say before I glaringly misrepresent you!!
Seriously, I misrepresented my issue with your article and consequently misrepresented you. No harm intended. I think you could see my effort was to respect you and your point of view. My apologies.
More later.
Posted by: Bob at December 20, 2005 01:10 PMNo sweat, Bob. I’ll look forward to interacting with you more later on the article. It’s Christmas-time in Ohio, too.
Regarding “legalism”: I understand that my narrow definition is probably archaic. A “legalist” is now defined as anyone to the speaker’s right; a “libertine” is anyone to the speaker’s left. You, friend, have managed to use the same term for both groups. Bravo! I do understand what you’re saying.
I still believe that we should be more careful with the term, however. Someone who won’t go to a theatre isn’t necessarily a legalist, though he might be. Cairns deals with the term in his excellent Dictionary of Theological Terms:
1. The dogma of salvation by works….
2. Neonomianism — the theory that works of obedience are a constituent part of saving faith, rather than its natural fruit….
3. The Galatian error of preaching faith plus something else to make one acceptable to God….
[Note: It seems that there is a fair amount of overlap with those three. Here’s his fourth…]
4. Sometimes it is used erroneously to describe those who advocate that Christians should be careful to observe the moral law on the ground that whereas the law as a covenant of life is abrogated by the gospel, it still stands as a standard of Christian obedience.
His 4th definition gets into the whole dispensationalism/moral law debate. (Talk about “another thread and day”!) But I think that the term is used erroneously to describe not only the theological position Cairns describes, but also the practical position of those with certain standards of conduct, etc. Dr. Horn once said something like this: “Preaching against pants may be silly, but it’s not legalistic.”
I’m arguing (assuredly in vain) that the word not be hijacked or redefined. Do I think it will change how we use the word? No, but I do think it is important.
Again, I agree with the concerns you express. Our disagreement is one of semantics, not substance.
Chris
p.s. Speaking of shopping, is your daughter into “American Girl Dolls” yet? Cha-ching. It’s a cult, much like Pampered Chef, stamping, scrapbooking, etc. for moms. Anyway, imagine shopping for *FOUR* daughters, all of whom have dad right where they want him: Cha-ching……….Cha-ching……….Cha-ching……….Cha-ching.
How exactly does one go about applying to Global Grace for financial assistance? ;)
Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at December 20, 2005 02:23 PMHow exactly does one go about applying to Global Grace for financial assistance? ;)LOL. Very funny. =} Posted by: joy at December 22, 2005 12:47 PM
What’s sad is that I’m going broke on “American Girl” this year and I don’t have FOUR daughters! There really should be a mercy fund of some kind for Brother Anderson.
Posted by: Bob at December 22, 2005 01:49 PM
