Skip to main content

A PSA on Legalism

    Political correctness--we see it all the time.  A celebrity says something insensitive and is immediately forced to apologize.  A state makes a law that the left doesn't like and are immediately shunned until they change their minds.  Sports teams are forced to change mascots because someone might be offended.  If someone does something that is against the agenda of liberalism, he must be shamed to the point that he concedes, recanting and apologizing, even though we all know that the remorse is fake and forced.  People avoid saying things just because they don't want to be seen as insensitive or backwards.  It's manipulation.  We all know it and it's getting ridiculous.  

    Thankfully the Evangelical Christian world doesn't have to deal with too much of this liberal PC nonsense, but we do have our own sort of political correctness.  There is a term that gets thrown around quite a bit, especially when someone is out of valid rebuttals.  That term is legalism. Similar terms are legalist and legalistic.  No one really even knows what these terms mean, but we use them all the time.  When someone has you backed into an ethical corner, just throw out the term legalism. That should end the conversation.  No one wants to be called a legalist, after all.

    Let's be very clear.  Legalism is an issue.  There are people out there who are legalistic and they are dangerous, both to the their own souls and to the souls of others.  However, since some people cannot seem to grasp the distinction between actual legalism and "I just don't want to hear what you're saying" legalism, here is a list of things that are not legalistic:

1) Quoting Scripture to your Christian brother when an ethical issue is being discussed
2) Trying to do good things
3) Trying to avoid doing bad things
4) Telling someone that they should not do something that is clearly wrong
5) Desiring to obey God 100% of the time
6) Believing that something is wrong while failing to maintain that standard 100% of the time
7) Believing in the Regulative Principle of Worship (for the record, not an endorsement)
8) Abstaining from drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, etc.
9) Establishing fences to avoid sin
10) Being Presbyterian

    None of those things are legalistic or constitute a person as a legalist.  For good measure, here is a list of things that are, in fact, legalistic:

1) Attempting to save yourself by your own obedience to God's Law
2) Holding other people to your personal standards
3) Believing that you have to abstain from drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, etc. to be a Christian
4) Believing that girls wearing pants is a sign of the End Times
5) Being pretty sure that your worship is the only kind that actually glorifies God
6) Believing that you can't have "church" without an altar call
7) Believing that you can't have an altar call
8) Being absolutely sure that your view of baptism is the ticket to Heaven, without which St. Peter
     will send your heretical "brethren" packing
9) Believing that enjoying NYFRB is a mortal sin (okay, that one might have some validity)
10) Accusing people of being legalists all the time (okay, maybe that just makes you a jerk)

    So, there you have it.  There are some examples of what does and does not constitute legalism.  I hope that clears things up some and that we can avoid labeling each other as legalists anytime we can't think of something valid to say.  Thank you.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...