Living by Lists

There is something very . . . convenient . . . about the way legalists define legalism. When I was growing up in a very legalistic church I was told repeatedly that legalism was teaching salvation by works. Recently I came across a book in which legalism was being defended by cherry-picking definitions from more or less obscure sources. Not surprisingly the author of this book is a part of an institution that is known far and wide for maintaining some very bizarre rules governing behavior and appearance. As Chesterton put it, there is something "purely acoustic" in this sort of selective definition.

Here is the definition of legalism that appears in Webster's dictionary:

———————
le•gal•ism \ˈlē-gə-ˌli-zəm\ n
1928
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code 〈the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice〉
2 : a legal term or rule
- (Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.)
———————

Dictionary.com has compiled this definition:

le·gal·ism /ˈligəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lee-guh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.
2. Theology.
a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
3. (initial capital letter) (in Chinese philosophy) the principles and practices of a school of political theorists advocating strict legal control over all activities, a system of rewards and punishments uniform for all classes, and an absolute monarchy.
[Origin: 1830–40; legal + -ism]

In one sense, then, the word carries the idea that "salvation is gained through good works"; however that is not the extent--nor, I would argue, the most insidious form--of legalism. And by limiting the definition in this way, legalists have given themselves a free pass for their works-based brand of Christianity, all the while bearing more resemblance to those who called for the crucifixion of the very Christ they profess to serve (and do serve, in their mind).

The far-more-prevalent form of legalism is the more widespread use of the term: "the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws". These are the modern offspring of the Judaizers whose accretions of external observances as an end in themselves prompted the writing of the epistle to the Galatians: those for whom particular appearances and behaviors are guarantors of spirituality; those who have entire lists of expectations in these areas that are founded on inference from the Scripture rather than Scripture Itself. But so long as they can convince us that legalism is restricted to requiring these works before salvation, rather than after, they are allowed to roam freely--snacking on the occasional sheep for sustenance.

Don't dismiss this as frustrated venting. There is a great HIDDEN danger in redefining away real legalism. Paul spells it out in Colossians:

"20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”
22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." Col. 2:20-23, NASB

The last phrase struck me like a thunderbolt. All of these lists, these observances, appear to suffice, but they "are of no value against fleshly indulgence." This strikes close to home for me, as I am still reeling from the news that a missionary pastor whom I respected has been forced to come back from the field in disgrace. So prevalent is the problem that caused his departure from the ministry that I don't have to articulate it--you knew what it was the moment I said he had come back from the field. Why is fundamentalism so fraught with these failings? I would argue that it is because we are living by lists that have supplanted the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. There is far too much evidence mounting up to deny this: as long as we have lists, we don't need the Holy Spirit. We don't have to wrestle with Scripture when our pastor will oblige us with an ex cathedra proclamation as to whether something is right or wrong.

More on this later. But for now, just think about it. Please.