We need legalism!

[Shawn Flynn]

Many will disagree with me on this, but we need a certain amount of legalism in our denomination and Christianity altogether. Now, I am not suggesting that we need to go back to the "no pants days" for women or rings for men. What I am saying is this, when we first start out following Christ, we need guidance and bounderies to help us stay on track. As we grow in Christ, we are better able to make mature decisions.

Now, why in the world would I say such a thing...well, I remember someone saying in another thread that we need a mix; not one or another. Plus, if you think about it, God did the same exact thing for us....first gave us the Ten Commandments then gave us freedom from many rules and regulations by being part of His family.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Ok, I'll bite.

If I somewhat buy your theory (which I sort of do) who is it that defines what the boundries of legalism are?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

I think Jesus gave authority to the church to make rulings and set boundaries, especially in light of current issues. I also think that there have been plenty of times when the church abused that authority.

Still, when things are working as they should, I think this was Christ's inteniton for the Church.

[Barb Bouldrey]

It is all in attitude. Some will call the "Ten Commandments" legalism.

We all need rules and discipline...from the youngest baby to the oldest adult. Even in the secular world.

If you look at legalism as LAWS to live by it is not binding as long as they are God's laws for spiritual living and man's law for being a part of society.

The speed limit is legalism to some. To others it is safety.

Barb

[Cindi Hammons]

Shawn,

We don't need legalism, we need laws. There is a huge differerence. A country without laws equals anarchy...the same goes for church. Legalism is the opposite of anarchy with the belief that only "my" laws are the ones that are to be followed...or else one is going to hell. Sorry, but that we don't need.

Cindi H.

[Shawn Flynn]

Shawn,

We don't need legalism, we need laws. There is a huge differerence. A country without laws equals anarchy...the same goes for church. Legalism is the opposite of anarchy with the belief that only "my" laws are the ones that are to be followed...or else one is going to hell. Sorry, but that we don't need.

Cindi H.
It depends on how you define legalism (I learned part of that line from Bill Clinton). Besides, any law, by your definition, is still legalism; you have to have some sense of ramification if a law is to be followed.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I think I understand your intent. The wording is problematic for me. Legalism is never good (following laws for law's sake). Living within the bounds of a community is great (following the boundaries set by a community for the community's sake).

I blogged on this a bit once: http://jeremydscott.blogspot.com/2005/08/dont-do-this-dont-eat-this-dont-touch.html

I'm not sure what the rules are on linking to blogs now, so I'll post my specific writing here (I edited it a bit to shorten and rid of non-applicable info...see my blog link above for the original writing if you really want):


Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Don't do this! Don't eat this! Don't touch this!
I came across something in Colossians that made me think upon my own tradition, specifically the tradition of my own denomination. I'm sure the question has been asked of this passage before, but I haven' t been a part of the discussion.

Read Colossians 2:20-23 (http://bible.oremus.org/browser.cgi?passage=Colossians+2%3A20-23). It may also help to read it in the context of the whole chapter (http://bible.oremus.org/browser.cgi?passage=Colossians+2).

The Manual of the Church of the Nazarene (2001) states in paragraph 33.1, "We hold that the Ten Commandments, as reaffirmed in the New Testament, constitute the basic Christian ethic and ought to be obeyed in all particulars." This is the very second statement in the "Covenant of Christian Conduct." I won't even go into detail as to why I think "the Ten Commandments" should be replaced with "the Great Commandment" right now. My question right now is about the word "obey."

Obedience is obviously an essential part of being a child of God.

But "obey" seems to imply blind compliance with rules, orders, commandments with or without understanding as to why. I hear teaching all the time that says something to the effect of, "God knows what's best for you, just do it, even if you don't understand it." I agree with this to a certain degree. But I'm not sure that God directs without good intent. I don't think God came up with arbitrary commandments. I understand that sometimes we have to act in faith and trust him at certain points even when we don't understand. But when it comes to day-to-day living, I think we can have a better understanding of why we do what he tells us to.

Or perhaps my rigid definition and connotatoin of "obey" is incorrect. However, I'm not sure that my definition is inconsistent with the culture in which I live. Dictionary.com offers that to obey means:
1. To carry out or fulfill the command, order, or instruction of.
2. To carry out or comply with (a command, for example).
Is this a good biblical definition?

Jesus said, "If you love me...you will keep my commandments." (italics and pause added) (John 14:15)

I'm saddened with how little my church's Manual speaks of love. For me, it is the essence of it all. We obey God because we love God. We don't obey God simply because "the Bible says to," or "the Manual says to," or "my pastor says to." So what is Paul saying here?

Further, I can't get over how familiar this sentence sounds when I read it in relation to the holiness tradition:
"These [statements, rules, orders, etc.] have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence." (verse 23)

I could write for a while on this and may do so someday. But for now, I leave these questions to the rest of you to help me out.

F&TC,
- J



So that was my blog post. Mark Metcalfe actually gave a great response to my blog at the end of it, speaking about "children" and I think he quoted the passage about not being a stumbling block to the "little ones" - which one might read as those who don't know any better. It is these, growing disciples who may need the "laws", as you call them.

This post is already all too long, but I've been thinking on these things quite a bit recently. I still believe that the CotN would do much better to replace the Ten Commandments in this article with the great commandment(s). I feel that the love commandment(s) fit a holiness church much better than the Ten Commandments. I had considered beginning a thread to this effect, and I still may.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

*crawls under a leaf and peeks out to watch and listen*

[Shawn Flynn]

In doing some pre-reading for this thread. I have come into about 3-4 definition of legalism; some defintions say that you must follow certain laws to obtain salvation and other say strict adherence to a group of rules. First off, I am NOT SAYING that you must follow certain rules to gain your salvation (except that the only way to heaven is through Christ - I guess that's a rule) ...not saying that at all. I'm not saying that we should look down on those that have trouble obeying a set of rules...that's just not very loving.

--- Quick thoughts without the fluff. ---

Maybe we all should list our defintion of legalism so we might get on the same page.

---

Jeremy, I like what Mark said in his comment to your blog. Everyone should read it (your blog entry and the comment).

---

I think our "me" society has also effected the church, thus many, including myslef, having some trouble with the loving our neighbors as ourself. To me this also includes the whole stumbeling block thing.

[Billy Cox]

In doing some pre-reading for this thread. I have come into about 3-4 definition of legalism; some defintions say that you must follow certain laws to obtain salvation and other say strict adherence to a group of rules. First off, I am NOT SAYING that you must follow certain rules to gain your salvation (except that the only way to heaven is through Christ - I guess that's a rule) ...not saying that at all. I'm not saying that we should look down on those that have trouble obeying a set of rules...that's just not very loving.

--- Quick thoughts without the fluff. ---

Maybe we all should list our defintion of legalism so we might get on the same page.

---

Jeremy, I like what Mark said in his comment to your blog. Everyone should read it (your blog entry and the comment).

---

I think our "me" society has also effected the church, thus many, including myslef, having some trouble with the loving our neighbors as ourself. To me this also includes the whole stumbeling block thing.


It is important to understand the difference between 'law' and 'legalism'. In my understanding, laws communicate expectations for existing peacefully within a community. In the New Testament, one of the synonyms for sin is 'lawlessness'. Law is not bad.

Legalism elevates the law above the community that it was intended to protect. Legalism is never good. I cannot imagine a definition of legalism that does anything besides fly in the face of the gospel, but I am willing to listen.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I don't really think the purpose of your original post was to argue for the use of a particular phrase, just that there is a place for boundaries in the Church.


In doing some pre-reading for this thread. I have come into about 3-4 definition of legalism; some defintions say that you must follow certain laws to obtain salvation and other say strict adherence to a group of rules. First off, I am NOT SAYING that you must follow certain rules to gain your salvation (except that the only way to heaven is through Christ - I guess that's a rule) ...not saying that at all. I'm not saying that we should look down on those that have trouble obeying a set of rules...that's just not very loving.

--- Quick thoughts without the fluff. ---

Maybe we all should list our defintion of legalism so we might get on the same page.

---

Jeremy, I like what Mark said in his comment to your blog. Everyone should read it (your blog entry and the comment).

---

I think our "me" society has also effected the church, thus many, including myslef, having some trouble with the loving our neighbors as ourself. To me this also includes the whole stumbeling block thing.

[Barbara Moulton]

Maybe we all should list our defintion of legalism so we might get on the same page.



I think that legalism, whatever definition you wish to give it, has become synonymous with Pharasaical behaviour in the minds of most people.

Once upon a time I might have posted and said, "We need 'gay' Christians!" I would not not do that anymore because most people think of one thing when they read the word "gay"

I would agree that we can benefit from guidelines in the Christian life. I would agree that some "rules" are also beneficial.

But I would not use the word "legalism" to describe this. No matter what the word might have once meant or what it could mean, there is only one dominant definition in the church today.

[Paul Whitaker]

Are these rules/laws to written in blood, ink or pencil (with an eraser)?

[Gina Stevenson]

I think that legalism, whatever definition you wish to give it, has become synonymous with Pharasaical behaviour in the minds of most people.

Yes, think it has. However, when reading Shawn's initial post here [Shawn, you don't really want to identify with Bill Clinton, do you? :rolleyes:], I took it that he meant some boundaries which "laws" give us, which are part of the "legal system" within which we live.

Once upon a time I might have posted and said, "We need 'gay' Christians!" I would not not do that anymore because most people think of one thing when they read the word "gay"

This is funny in that it reminded me of how there was this one cardboard fan that I had for years -- campmeeting "antique" from when I was a kid -- that said something like: "Be Happy! Be Gay!" Apparently since those two words at one time had similar meaings, yet they put them both on the fan, maybe "gay" was supposed to be a superlative form of "happy" ... or something. ;)

[Hans Deventer]

Many will disagree with me on this, but we need a certain amount of legalism in our denomination and Christianity altogether. Now, I am not suggesting that we need to go back to the "no pants days" for women or rings for men. What I am saying is this, when we first start out following Christ, we need guidance and bounderies to help us stay on track. As we grow in Christ, we are better able to make mature decisions.

Yeah, but then we have to avoid "the appearance of evil" for those who "first start out following Christ", so we'll allways be bound by that "certain amount of legalism". Which is fear, really.

Somehow, it looks to me like Jesus didn't have a lot of that fear, nor did He try very hard to avoid "the appearance of evil".

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

i think i can understand in part from where Shawn is coming.

The medical field has some very strict protocols. There are legalisms, if you please, through out much of the profession. Legalisms, protocols, laws that are for the betterment of staff, patients, families and community. It is very interesting to observe students and staff who have a problem with submitting to guidelines. Some skirt around through humor, abrasiveness, slyness, flat out rebellion. Who would you trust the most as your care giver? Can you tell from the mannerisms of your care giver if they are following the guidelines to the best of their ability for your situation - or - that they are purposely choosing to compromise for some known or unknown reason?

Those who have read my words the last several years know how i deplore legalism - yet, i am learning to see value, comfort and protection in legalism. i think that my view of legalism was taunted by being around several who had attitudes that viewed them as being something more than comforting, protecting and of value.

As a student in this area, i can sit back and observe. It is really really cool not being a leader at this time. It causes me to reflect as comparisons are made regarding that world and the world of the Church. When i first entered this world, i thought i would be going off in an opposite direction. The more i learn of medicine and the role of healing - i am becoming acutely aware of how they go hand in hand.

What i see as a student is three groups of people in this world of guidelines, protocols, rules, laws, legalisms:

1. The group that will skirt around the expectations and in the process belittle, name call, mock, condemn those who are trying to do things the right way for the right reason - who see things in a different way than they do.

2. The group that will adhere to the expectations and in the process will belittle, name call, mock, condemn those who are trying to skirt around doing things right for a host of reasons - who see things in a different way than they do.

3. The group in the middle - who see the value of expectations - who adhere to the best of their ability - who readily acknowledge when accidents occur - who give grace, dignity and honor to those who try and mess up around them - who attempt to get along with group 1 and group 2, without getting caught in the blood bath - for the sake of the profession, their own integrity and the institution of which they are employed.


Many times group 1 - calls group 2 - legalistic (with good reason)
Many times group 2 - calls group 1 - rebels (with good reason)
Many times groups 1 and 2 call group 3 - fence sitters, goodie goodie two shoes, and a host of other names that belittle them.

The *I* group and the *They* group.

Looking at others - looking at myself.

Groups 1 and 2 are always looking at others. Measuring themselves and others.

Group 3 looks to themselves - and releases others to look to themselves.

Sometimes group 3 gets caught in the middle trying to bring peace and respect of personhood from both sides (cause good people really are in both groups -educated people really are in both groups - discouraged people really are in both groups -tired people really are in both groups) - then, they have to step back and let the war be between them.

Sometimes the two groups get bored and start picking on group 3 - still trying to recruit them to their group. (laughs) i am amazed at how ones try to *recruit* me - - (Come on, Belinda -lets go get supplies - as soon as i am out the door - blah blah blah blah blah)...

At the moment, i am in group 3 at work. i LOVE it. But it is hard being in that group. The anger that i get from both sides is interesting to observe. They really aren't happy to find someone in the middle.

hmmm... as i write this - could it be that anger is a root that separates us all? What is the antidote for anger???

[BobHunt]

I came out of a very legalistic denomination. It was as if they were proud that they kept these certain rules, and deemed them as necessary to make i t to heaven. But after seeing so many inconsistencies (like you have when men make rules) I began to really question them. Its a long story.

[Hans Deventer]

It was as if they were proud that they kept these certain rules, and deemed them as necessary to make i t to heaven. But after seeing so many inconsistencies (like you have when men make rules) I began to really question them.

I think there is a place for rules, or rather, guiding principles. Because indeed, the more detailed rules get, the more inconsistent they will become.
So I would very much prefer to have General and Specific Guidelines in the Manual, in stead of "rules" or "covenants". As I wrote before, that age is rapidly fading. Nowadays you belong before you behave. Actually, that was Jesus' way as well.

[Shawn Flynn]

Yeah, but then we have to avoid "the appearance of evil" for those who "first start out following Christ", so we'll allways be bound by that "certain amount of legalism". Which is fear, really.

Somehow, it looks to me like Jesus didn't have a lot of that fear, nor did He try very hard to avoid "the appearance of evil".
This is exactly what I was talking about.....as mature christians, we should do things out of love not fear. If I was a new christian, I would rather someone refrain from doing things because they love me and don't want me to fall.

Those who are afraid of rules, like what I suggest, are afraid because 1) this henders (convicts) their ability to choose what they want to do and 2) they believe they will not be able to always adhere to those rules...which really causes fear. I think to really live without fear, we must develop our faith in that the Holy Spirit will provide the love we need for others so that we want to do everything we can to help others grow closer to Christ.

Although we must all workout our own salvation, we must do everything possible to help others find theirs - it is part of ministry. We are one body.

[Gina Stevenson]

I think to really live without fear, we must develop our faith in that the Holy Spirit will provide the love we need for others so that we want to do everything we can to help others grow closer to Christ.

... which brought to mind while reading your entire post (tho' this part above highlights it) I John where we're told how "perfect love casts out fear."

[Sara Sheppard]

... which brought to mind while reading your entire post (tho' this part above highlights it) I John where we're told how "perfect love casts out fear."

Gina,

That is the verse my pastor sent to me when I was diagnosed with cancer. He reminded me that fear is a tool of Satan but God's love for us will drive out fear! I certainly found it to be true throughout this past year. Whenever I began to fear, I prayed for God's love to surround me with peace.

Sara

[Paul Whitaker]

Many will disagree with me on this, but we need a certain amount of legalism in our denomination and Christianity altogether. .

We as human beings need 'boundaries' as to our behavior. We witnessed a youngster less than 2 years old who was extremely frustrated. He just didn't know what his boundaries were. He would try what he thought his parents set as a boundary, they would give in, he would try further, they would give in. It was really sad. The problem was he was extremely sick and they didn't want to discipline him.

We don't give our children boundaries (within reason) and they end up in frustration.

Could the same be said for us as Christians. If we don't have boundaries - what's going to happen to us?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Since it seems that by "legalism," you mean boundaries and guidelines... I agree.

Fortunately, we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit to provide those boundaries so we don't have to. That's a good thing because if we did, we would mess it all up! We'd probably make silly rules like no dancing even in gym class and no going to movies and no wearing wedding rings and ....

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

Since it seems that by "legalism," you mean boundaries and guidelines... I agree.

Fortunately, we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit to provide those boundaries so we don't have to. That's a good thing because if we did, we would mess it all up! We'd probably make silly rules like no dancing even in gym class and no going to movies and no wearing wedding rings and ....

Wilson

All this talk about boundaries, and someone finally mentions the Holy Spirit.

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:1-4


Perhaps we could have saved ourselves alot of heartbreak as a church if we had sought to keep the Holy Spirit in the center of our doctrine of holiness rather than usurping the Spirit's guidance with our silly rules.

[Gina Stevenson]

All this talk about boundaries, and someone finally mentions the Holy Spirit.

Uh, perhaps not by name, but by implication ... otherwise, how does that "love that casts out fear" reside, other than through His indwelling, eh? ;)

[Gina Stevenson]

All this talk about boundaries, and someone finally mentions the Holy Spirit.

Uh, perhaps not by name, but by implication ... otherwise, how does that "love that casts out fear" reside, other than through His indwelling, eh? ;)

BTW, sounds like you've been around a long time, too, eh, Wilson? "no dancing, even in gym class" ... well remember those days ... and square dancing would've only been some good exercise, not a lewd activity, by any means! :rolleyes: