Tag: Christianity

Why Do We Say "Legalism"

~ fundyreformed ~ 20 Comments

A friend of mine just posted an interesting list of definitions by John Piper on a variety of topics. He linked to the online sermon or article from which the definition was taken, and gave a summary of the definition.

One of those definitions was legalism. Let me give Piper’s definition here.

(1) Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor. . . .(2): The erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church; This is where unbiblical exclusivism arises.

I think this is an excellent definition, but of course not everyone will be happy with it. Someone commented on the original post about this definition, taking issue with it. As I typed an answer to it, I thought maybe my answer could serve as a post here. His basic objection was to the first part of Piper’s answer. Why shouldn’t people treat biblical standards of conduct as personal regulations? Why is it that such actions are construed as legalism or as “earning favor with God”?

Here then is my answer, minus a few introductory statements:

Chris…. you bring up some valid points. But look at Piper’s definition a little more closely: “Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor.” Piper has many personal rules of conduct that he keeps out of a desire to please God. He does so from love for God, not a sense of rigorous duty. What’s important I think is “by our own power” . For years I was in a system that taught us to “just do it” . If we were really serious about God we would keep these rules and regulations, most of which went way beyond what was spelled out in Scripture. It was hard to toe the line, and we were encouraged to have character and resolve. Yes we were told to depend on the spirit, but the emphasis was on personal effort.

In keeping those rules we felt that we were truly obeying God. And when we saw others who didn’t keep those same rules, part of us, deep inside, thought we were better than them. We felt we were in a sense earning status with God. Our group was more serious about God then other groups. Why? Because we did this, and that. The emphasis was on us. And we didn’t truly have a perspective of God’s grace and a genuine love for all the brothers and sisters we have in Christ.

This is what Piper is arguing against. And while I often bristled against the term “legalism” too. After I came out of the system and thought more objectively, I realized that legalism really did fit. The focus was externals. Not that those aren’t important, but the very nature of the environment we were in promoted the idea of making sure we look good to others by keeping the community’s rules. Since we judged each other on externals so much, and since externals were harped on in the pulpit so often, it became natural to think this way. We were all, to one degree or another, earning favor and status with God. Yes the Gospel was preached but it was presented as a thing to accept mentally and assent to once, and after that you pay God back, in a sense, by keeping His rules. It was not really presented as something you can live by.

What is missing is that in our own strength we are sure to fall. The rules are hard. And when that was acknowledged we were encouraged to vow to do better, to clench our teeth and determine not to give up, to go forward and recommit ourselves to God during the public invitation. To seek accountability and force ourselves to do it. Often manipulative, human-oriented schemes were used to try to belittle those who didn’t persevere. It was a method to try to encourage them to keep on keeping on. In all of this a focus on Christ was lost. The Gospel is all about the fact we can’t keep God’s rules. We need help. And we have a glorious Savior. From the love He’s given me, and in light of the glorious grace of God giving me what I do not deserve, I can have a Spirit-wrought desire to please Him. With that motivation, the rules of what I do or don’t do, are not burdensome. They don’t even really matter. What matters is my love for Jesus and desire to please Him. If I fall, I know I have an advocate, and I am saddened since I displease Him. And I’m again amazed that He picks me up and helps me keep going.

I hope you can see how this “legalism” can be harmful. It can take our focus off of Christ and onto ourselves. And the 2nd kind of legalism points us to our neighbors. We assess whether they are qualified for me to even consider them part of our church. This is doubly harmful because the standards we’re measuring them by are not even entirely Biblical. They are more often a particular application of a Biblical principle.

I hope this helps explain where we are coming from. Terms like this are inflammatory I know. There’s not much we can do about that. But if you see where our objection is to this kind of thing, maybe it helps you understand why we label it “legalism” and why we are against it.

I’d encourage you to check out C.J. Mahaney’s book The Cross-Centered Life, it has an excellent chapter on legalism.

Blessings,

Bob Hayton

Christless Christianity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

When I came across Alex Chediak’s post on Michael Horton’s new book: Christless Christianity, I had to wonder if this is not primarily to blame for Ray Boltz’s fall. In so many ways, American Christianity has become a man-centered mess. I started (not sure if I totally finished it) a series on this issue in the past, you can find my last post here (which links to all the posts in the series).

Look to my Vodpod widget on my sidebar and watch the 5 minute video clip of Horton explaining why he thinks American Christianity has become Christless. This is a book that’s now at the top of my wish list!

Christian Musician Ray Boltz Declares He's Gay

~ fundyreformed ~ 27 Comments

This news shocked me. But I really appreciate Fred Butler’s assessment on this. It’s sad, as this reveals Boltz has sung about but very likely never truly embraced the Gospel. There is still hope for him. May God convict him. And may he wisen many of us up to the damning allure of sin.

If you don’t recognize his name, Boltz was a CCM singer who won numerous awards over the years. He’s most famous for his song “Thank you for giving to the Lord”.

Vern Poythress on the Christocentricity of Scripture

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

Dr. Vern Poythress of Westminster Seminary is an ardent advocate of Redemptive Historical interpretation. He recently contributed History of Salvation notes for the forthcoming ESV Study Bible. Crossway just released his article, Overview of the Bible: Survey of the History of Salvation, included at the front of the ESV Study Bible. I’d encourage everyone to read that brief article (3 1/2 pdf pages). Succinctly yet powerfully, Poythress covers the whole gamut of how the Bible works together as a whole in recording the History of Salvation, and highlighting the glory of Jesus Christ, our Savior.

The ESV Study Bible blog, points out a recent interview of Vern Poythress at the Beginning with Moses blog. I’ve read the first two parts, but the third is due on Monday. The questions and answers there are also worth your time. I especially like how Poythress concludes the second interview post:

It is not fashionable nowadays, but I confess that I do believe that every passage, and even every word, of the OT reflects Christ.

I’d encourage you to check out what Poythress says in connection with this claim. The whole of Scripture really is Christo-centric. Poythress’ notes are one of the main reasons I’m so excited about the new ESV Study Bible, by the way. In treating the Bible academically, we run the risk of forgetting that it is a living Book. We need to think when we read it, yes. But we also need to listen to the Holy Spirit. We can easily miss the forest for the trees, and Vern’s Salvation History notes will remind us of the major themes of Scripture as we battle over the meaning of each individual passage therein.

One last note: Poythress has many articles and even book available online for free at the website he jointly shares with his friend John Frame. Check out www.frame-poythress.org for some great, freely available, Christ-centered resources.

Submitting to God’s Will in Marriage — 1 Pet. 3:1-7 (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

This is part 2 of an outline from a lesson I gave for my small group, recently. Read part one first.

Submitting to God’s Will in Marriage (1 Pet. 3:1-7) —
Part 2: The Husband

I realize this is a thorny topic for many. I’d like to recommend a couple resources before I continue here. For much of this lesson, I’m dependent on a chapter from Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem). Wayne Grudem’s chapter “Wives Like Sarah, and Husbands Who Honor Them” focuses on these seven verses in 1 Peter. Also,a pastor at C.J. Mahaney’s Covenant Life Church, in Gaithersburg, MD has written an extremely helpful book from this complementarian perspective on marriage: Love That Lasts: When Marriage Meets Grace. Gary and Betsy Ricucci (Betsy is C.J.’s sister) have really outdone themselves with that book, you’ll find it very practical. I’d also recommend perusing the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s website, where you will find a rich resource with many online articles covering all aspects of this issue, from the practical to the apologetical. Finally, feel free to check out the few posts I have made on these topics (listed here and here).

2. Considerate Leadership — The Husband (1 Pet. 3:7)

A. Definition.

1) Leadership

Because this verse is tacked on to the instructions for how a woman should submit, we can understand it as applying to how a husband leads his wife. he must do so considerately. It should also be noted that 3:1-7 clearly shows that the husband leads, and leadership is not equally shared. Both submission and leadership are not optional. “Husbands cannot rightly opt out of family leadership and become passive non-participants in decisions and activities. Neither can they rightly make the opposite mistake and exercise harsh, selfish, domineering authority in their families….” (Grudem)

2) Considerate Leadership

“In an understanding way” literally is “according to knowledge”. So husbands are to live together with their wives according to knowledge. Exactly what that knowledge is, is not specified. Likely it would include knowledge of God’s Word relating to marriage, and intimate knowledge of his wife (emotionally, physically, spiritually, etc.). Living according to this knowledge means understanding your wife and treating her carefully and lovingly, yet realizing the Biblical call to lead her and the family.

This call to live understandingly with the wife parallels the Biblical emphasis in the commands to husbands as it relates to marriage. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ sacrificially loved the church (Eph. 5:25). They are to love them as their own bodies, love them “as yourself” (Eph. 5:28, 33). Husbands are to love their wives and “not be harsh with them” (Col. 3:19).

B. Rationale for Considerate Leadership.

1) The wife is the “weaker vessel”.

This means, most basically, that she is vulnerable to being taken advantage of. In the context, she has a lesser role (not lesser importance, mind you) with regards to leadership. She is also physically weaker, and she has emotional vulnerabilities (hinted at in vs. 6). Emotional sensitivity is a great strength, but it opens one up to a likelihood of being “hurt deeply by conflict within a marriage or by inconsiderate behavior” (Grudem). Since the wife is vulnerable both in light of her position as under the husband, as well as her physical makeup, such a strong call for husbands to be considerate, and to show honor is needed.

2) The wife is a joint heir with her husband in the faith.

In Christ we are all one, there is no “male or female” even as there is no “Jew or Gentile”. Hence we should live together considerately, and men should treat their wives honorably.

3) This matter is vitally important and affects our prayers.

Prayers are hindered if the husband harshly treats his wife. Prayers are helped if he gives her honor. God cares about our marriages, and maintaining a healthy and godly marriage is very important — it pleases God.

C. Qualities of Considerate Leadership.

1) Consideration and Kindness for the wife. — living with her “in an understanding way”.

2) Honor for the submissive wife.

Husbands should not just be considerate, they must actually go out of their way to bestow honor on the godly and submissive wife. The word for “woman” is used only here in the Bible and refers to the idea of “feminine one” — a woman in tune with her godly femininity. This woman is the one worthy of honor.

3) Prayerful direction of the family.

Vs. 7 makes it seem that husbands should be praying and that prayer if vital for families. We should pray for our families and lead them from our knees.