Reverse Legalism

[JoeR]

http://dbts.edu/blog/?p=3021

Interesting read from a blog named "Theologically Driven" A FB friend of mine shared this. Discuss...

“I Thank Thee That I Am Not as Other Legalists,” Or, How “Freer Than Thou” Became the New “Holier Than Thou”

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Mark Snoeberger


Some time ago I was asked in a conversation whether I ever drank beverage alcohol and I replied “No.” Upon hearing my answer, my interlocutor quickly and harshly reprimanded me for being a legalist. Then, after I pressed him for an explanation, he made a calculated shift in tack, donned a look of feigned sympathy, and replied, “Oh, I see. You’re not a legalist, you’re my weaker brother.” Not being in a particularly patient frame of mind on that day, I extricated myself from the conversation, but it stayed with me. Something seemed vaguely ironic about the conversation, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

Last week, happily, Michael Horton served up a blog post that helped me to organize my vague thoughts. His post was a timely pushback at a trend that has long been evident in the Reformed community but more recently in conservative evangelical and even fundamental Baptist communities—a trend that he calls “reverse legalism.” His argument is that a reverse legalist can sometimes be, ironically, just as legalistic as a regular legalist…but with a twist. Instead of measuring sanctification by multiplying behavioral standards so that he can smugly announce, “I am holier than thou,” the reverse legalist standard measures sanctification by eliminating behavioral standards so that he can announce, with equal smugness, “I am freer than thou.”

The fact is, sanctification is not a matter of competition with other believers. One can become righteous neither by being more restrictive nor more liberated—one becomes righteous by the obedience of Christ. Nor does one become progressively more holy by such means—one becomes progressively holy by mimicking Jesus Christ. Sanctification is at its heart a quest for godliness in all of its communicable forms. And when it comes to our relationships with other believers, its most visible attribute is not one of rivalry but of love.

Our sanctification is adjudicated then, by a “law of liberty” (Jas 2:12), a perplexing idea that seems almost oxymoronic until one understands its beauty. Christian liberty is not realized by adopting a normative principle of conduct (i.e., If the Bible does not condemn it, then I am free); rather, the law of Christ is realized most significantly when I love my neighbor as myself (v. 8).



In his grace, God has provided many things in his universe simply for our pleasure, and he is surely delighted when we find pleasure in his gifts. No person, in fact, can help but enjoy them (Eph 5:29). And yet, the law of liberty is manifested most visibly when someone seeks another’s pleasure above his own. This is poignantly seen in Ephesians 5 in the institution of marriage, but it is not limited thereto. In 1 Corinthians 8–10 it is seen in declining God’s gracious gifts for the good pleasure of the gospel. In Romans 14 in declining God’s gracious gifts for the good pleasure of the church. The law of liberty sometimes even says, for the sake of pleasing another, “I will never enjoy God’s gracious gifts again” (1 Cor 8:13). Because even though “everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial” and “while everything is permissible, not everything is constructive.” In such cases, the rule is this: “No one should seek his own good, but the good of others” (1 Cor 10:23).

Now one may quibble with me about whether and to what degree God has given alcohol to enjoy. Further, we might ask whether Satan has (as he has done so often) over time perverted something that is “good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom” into a idol of prodigious proportions (so Gen 3:6; Luke 4:3–4). But all that aside, it remains a fact that non-participation in one of God’s gifts may well be the very most basic expression of Christian liberty commended in Scripture. It surely makes no one holy, but it need not make one a legalist either. Unless, perchance, it makes one a slave to the perfect law of liberty.

[Ricardo]

Been there done that. In fact, I still catch myself doing it every now and then.

It is the "teen-age" thing to do. Unfortunately, our churches do not do "teen-age" years too good. In the "normal" stages of human/moral development, we are supposed to throw all rules out and review each one before adopting them as an adult decision.

Those of us who grew up in IFB churches never had the chance of doing this. We are so steeped into the "blind obedience" mode that we accept all kind of questionable things without blinking an eye.

I'm not referring to just OT passages of scorched earth, or slamming babies against rocks. According to 1Cor 11, anyone not participating correctly in the Lord's Supper will get sick and die. This has not been my experience. based on our denomination's opinion on transubstantiation, ALL Catholics should be sick or dead...

Check out James Fowler's "Stages of Faith." It is not an easy read. (It reads like a doctoral thesis.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_...evelopment

So, yes, it is absolutely normal to look for OTHER rules to follow, instead of the rules we just abandoned. Many of us who lived our whole lives in the IFB fold need some sort of safety net when we leave. So, instead of the miriad of rules from the MoG, many of us jump immediately to rules of a different church, or even hanging on for dear life to our bibles.

At some point, hopefully, we step out in Faith, with no net under us, into God's Grace.

[captain_solo]

A serious study of Romans can lead a person from legalism to reverse legalism and back to the middle of the path in just a few chapters. Paul actually does a good job of not giving any ground to either extreme. If people don't respond to your presentation of the Gospel with "well, should we just keep sinning then since God's mercy just keeps coming" then you aren't preaching God's grace at all, but if your answer to them isn't "Absolutely not" (God forbid in the KJV) then you are not realizing the truth of how significant the grace of God is even to the radical change in desires and actions that saving faith will bring about.

There are plenty of people accusing others of reverse legalism because they themselves don't actually believe that salvation is by faith alone, and there are plenty of people accusing others of legalism that have turned the grace of God into a license to sin. Neither approach actually lines up with what the apostles taught about Grace, Salvation, and the realities of what a life in the Spirit actually is.

[FindingMyWay]

My brother posted this on facebook too ... I thought it was a good blog post.

[Bob M]

Excellent thoughts. When I was halfway through leaving fundamentalism, as a pastor, the head deacon in the church was like this. He challenged people about all kinds of things, music especially. I was much younger than him and did not know what to do. Then I found myself doing it years later in a small group in my new non-fundy church.

[pastor's wife]

I try not to challenge people who do not share my freedom in worship music UNLESS they say that CCM is unbiblical. Then I have to speak up.

I won't mock them for being legalistic for only listening to hymns as they have that right and freedom to make that choice. I will declare them legalistic though if they try to make me follow their standards or claim that only those who share their point of view on music are truly holy.

[captain_solo]

(05-21-2012 08:51 PM)pastors wife Wrote:  I try not to challenge people who do not share my freedom in worship music UNLESS they say that CCM is unbiblical. Then I have to speak up.

I won't mock them for being legalistic for only listening to hymns as they have that right and freedom to make that choice. I will declare them legalistic though if they try to make me follow their standards or claim that only those who share their point of view on music are truly holy.

That is the line I hold too. I have no problem with them choosing something different, but I will not allow them to hold an unbiblical position without at least saying something.

As for the "reverse legalism" charge, I think its actually a mythological straw man. Just as fundies like to deny charges of legalism, they put charges of libertinism on anyone who has "lower" standards then they do on an issue. That's why I referenced Romans...if someone's idea of regeneration is trading slavery to the law of sin for slavery to a law of Christ or whatever other spiritual language they want to wrap it in, then they have not seen true regeneration and are legalists, even if they know all the right words.

The article does a good job of exhorting both extremes with caution

[TonyT]

"I will not allow them to hold an unbiblical position..."

"As for the "reverse legalism" charge, I think its actually a mythological straw man."

Just highlighting with no comment offered.

[captain_solo]

(05-23-2012 12:09 AM)TonyT Wrote:  "I will not allow them to hold an unbiblical position..."

"As for the "reverse legalism" charge, I think its actually a mythological straw man."

Just highlighting with no comment offered.

perhaps "allow them" is the wrong phrase, but the whole sentence communicates what I mean. Maybe if you recognized the context instead of cropping it you would understand. I am more than happy to allow for differences of opinion, especially on these disputable matters, but when someone holds a position that is either based on human imaginations about the scriptures, or a complete misuse of them, I won't just pretend its a difference of opinion. I will challenge someone who is spewing their extrabiblical nonsense as if its the opinion of God himself, because they are desecrating the word of God. If they are charitable in their differences I am more than happy to discuss and consider their thoughts. In my circles I find both approaches to be present, and I have long since abandoned the idea that in order to be "at peace with all men" I shouldn't be honest when people are using the force of their personality to regurgitate tired old arguments against things that are preferences and cultural mores as if they are scriptural commands.

[Ricardo]

Captain,

There is a problem with your: "but when someone holds a position that is either based on human imaginations about the scriptures, or a complete misuse of them, I won't just pretend its a difference of opinion."

I have studied extensively the field of Textual Criticism. I am absolutely humbled by the lifetimes of study by the scholars devoted to this subject. I can't imagine any issue that I could possibly have decided differently.

These are/were men and women who had different levels and styles of Faith, who did a fantastic job of choosing for us the best sections of manuscripts, the best wordings and more.

But NOTHING in this process can be described as more than human endeavors.

Any attempt to claim one canon, one set of manuscripts, one specific translation or one interpretation as "God's Word" is -at best- wishful thinking, at worst crass manipulation. Every step of the way has been one huge fight between factions, internal politics, inflated egos, power struggles.

So. "misuse of scripture" is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, any claim of having or knowing "God's Word" for the rest of us, is suspect.

Some of my best conversations with God happen while I'm in the throne. Should I be suggesting we all do the same?