Bulletin Articles
OPPOSITION TO “LEGALISM” IS MISGUIDED
OPPOSITION TO “LEGALISM” IS MISGUIDED
Every few years, there arises yet another faction of brethren who feel the need to oppose what they call “legalism” in the church of Christ. The repetitive and predictable nature of this is a testament to the words of Edmond Burke: “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” While they think they’ve discovered some new truth, it is actually the same old error (cf. Eccl.1:9-11). The fact is, “legalism” is nothing more than “strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code” (Webster’s Online). A thoughtful examination of the Scriptures shows that it’s difficult to find fault with the need for strict conformity to God’s law (Rm.8:4; Rm.13:8-10; 1Cor.9:21; Ga.6:2; 1Tm.1:5-10; Jm.1:21-25; Jm.2:8-12; Jm.4:11-12).
Now it is true that we cannot be saved on the basis of law-keeping, for the simple reason that we are law-breakers (Rm.3:20; Ga.3:10). So, God, in his grace, sacrificed His Son on the cross, making forgiveness of sin possible (Mt.26:28; Rm.3:24-25). But the mistake that is repeatedly made by the “anti-legalism” crowd is that they fail to see the need for continued obedience to God’s law (Rm.6:15-18). While there is an ever-available provision for forgiveness of sin (1Jn.1:7-9), it doesn’t erase the need for obedience; instead, it re-enforces it! (Rm.3:31)
When presented with these facts, the “anti-legalist” will (as false teachers often do) change the definition of legalism. Often, they will say something like, “Legalism is when you make an opinion into God’s law.” If they can convince you of that, they will follow up by saying the commands they don’t like are “just opinions.” In this way, the anti-legalist can give lip-service to obedience (e.g., baptism or morality), while simultaneously denying the need to obey God’s commands relative to the work, worship, and organization of the church; marriage, divorce, and remarriage; the role of women in the church, etc. And anyone who dares teach the truth on such matters is regarded as a “legalist” – and held in highest contempt. As a result, the “anti-legalist” ends up with a convenient (and man-made) list of “essential” and “non-essential” commands. I have seen this error arise many times in my life.
I would also like to suggest that opposition to “legalism” is tantamount to sectarianism. To explain this, let me first define sectarianism. Sectarianism "properly denotes a predilection either for a particular truth, or a perversion of one, generally with the expectation of personal advantage; hence, a division and the formation of a party or sect in contrast to the uniting power of 'the truth' held, in toto" (Vine). In other words, a particular doctrine(s) is elevated and emphasized as the sole basis for acceptability, with little regard for the rest of the truth, or for those who feel differently. It is easy to see how this applies to the “anti-legalism” folk, because they have a predilection for “grace” – but they aren’t too keen on “law.” This, by definition, makes them sectarian. In Galatians 5:20, the word “heresies,” (i.e., divisions, parties, or factions, depending on your translation) describes this sin.
The recurring error of “anti-legalism” reminds me of the old “Catholic verses Protestant” controversy of ages past. The Catholic emphasis on doing certain “works” (defined by them, not Scripture) led to an over-reaction on the part of Protestants, leaving us with the false doctrine of salvation by “faith only.” While it was true that the Catholics had imposed works not found in the Bible, the Protestants over-compensated with “faith only” (cf. Jm.2:24). In a similar way, the modern-day “anti-legalist” over-reacts and over-compensates for what they perceive as too much emphasis on obeying God. As a result, most of them end up embracing “faith only” just as the Protestants did. It is precisely this lack of historical perspective that makes them ripe for this error. The truth is that Scripture makes salvation contingent upon BOTH law AND grace. It’s not one or the other, but BOTH! (Hb.5:9; Ep.2:8)
I realize that this article probably won’t change many minds. Generally, the committed “anti-legalist” is determined to stay on his/her course not matter what. But, just in case there is an open-minded “anti-legalist” out there who might read this, I hope this article will enlighten them. I also write to warn other brethren who may come across the false doctrine of “anti-legalism.” To you I say: Do not be deceived; opposition to legalism is nothing more than an excuse for lawlessness!
--Lanny Smith
