Considering Legalism: A Few Ground Rules

I want to warn you about mistaking perfectly appropriate rules of organization for legalism. Legalism has become a cheap and distorted word in some circles, one used completely apart from its biblical context. A few examples: When your Mom tells you to clean up your room, you cannot yell “legalism.” When the cop pulls you over for having a busted taillight, you should not scream, “You’re just being legalistic. And because I’m free in Christ, I don’t have to obey any of your silly man-made rules.”

And when church leaders say you shouldn’t disrupt morning services by talking or eating breakfast in the pews or snoring or letting your cell phone ring or allowing your child to play with her Chatty Cathy doll -- these things are not -- I repeat, not -- legalism.

Legalism, as explained in the New Testament, is an effort to detract from Christ's authority, His character or the sufficiency of His atoning work on the cross by substituting rules of man-made religion. It's a very serious pattern of heresy. So, don't distract from the dangerous deceptions of legalism by casually tossing around the word as a pejorative whenever you meet rules of order and organization you think are unfair, burdensome or unproductive.

One can argue about the efficiency of rules or their timing and usage. One can even question the legitimacy of the ones making the rules. But throwing out rules altogether is foolish. It makes you an ally of chaos. Indeed, it puts you out of step with the Scriptures themselves for rules (commands, exhortations, warnings) or part of the very fabric of the Word.

Also, to unfairly toss around the charge of legalism in any controversy over rules and guidelines really creates a greater mess. It is a attempt to make a spiritual issue out of something that is often of a purely practical nature. The legitimate discussion of a curfew, for instance, which occurs between a father and his 18-year-old son who still lives at home isn't helped by Junior calling his father a legalist for the very idea of a curfew. No, using the word "legalism" as a cudgel is to be avoided. That's trying to win an argument by impugning the motives or character of the one who disagrees with you or, worse still, it assumes the absurd presupposition that organization itself is a bad thing.

You get the idea? Henry Martyn Robert did not become a legalist when he came up with his now famous Rules of Order. Football referees or baseball umpires are not legalists because they require players to strictly abide by rules. My doctor who ordered me to cut down on caffeine is not a legalist. So, let’s be careful how we use the term.