By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors
The term “legalistic” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Current English as “adhering excessively to a law or formula.” Liberals are quick to apply the “legalist” label to anyone who upholds the cause of Christ, particularly to fundamentalist Christians.
How can we define “excessive” in relation to our adherence to the Bible? In reality we cannot call any level of adherence to the Bible excessive. However, when people distort what God has written, and extrapolate from disconnected Bible verses their own “made-up” rules and regulations, even a minimal adherence to such artificial rules is excessive.
As Christians, we must judge all of our actions from Scripture. Scripture gives us a number of excellent role models in the New Testament church. Jesus Christ Himself is the model of perfection; we are to strive to be like Jesus in all of our ways, however, perfection is not possible for us in this world, regardless of what some sects may claim. As a fallible person, this leads me to look to the example of the faithful apostles and disciples in the first century church.
The apostles were very dedicated and holy people, but not without accidental sin throughout their lives, and not without Christian growth. Jesus did not need to grow in faith, but the rest of us are not perfect to begin with, and we sometimes need to stumble around a bit and battle personal problems in our Christian walk. I would say that Peter endured the most correction of any of the apostles, and yet he was plainly recognizable as one of the foremost leaders.
Therefore, my personal rule of thumb is that any religion that promotes rules that would make either Jesus Christ or the apostles unacceptable members of a church is a legalist religion.
I received a list of qualifications for church workers published by an American independent fundamental Baptist church that has the distinct flavor of legalism. This is a fairly comprehensive list of actions that the church considers sins worthy of stripping Christian workers of their duties in the church. It is not as comprehensive a list as could be taken from other denominations that are much more legalistic.
The list for both sexes included not tithing, failing to attend church or being late for church, watching movies that are not G-rated, listening to country-western, rock, rap, or contemporary Christian music, using tobacco, alcohol, or non-medicinal drugs.
For men, the list goes on to include wearing shorts; having hair that falls below the collar or is not cut above the ears; wearing an earring or a necklace; going without a shirt; wearing “unisex” fashions; or failing to trim your mustache or sideburns. (Beards were not mentioned; I do not know if they are allowed at all.)
For women, the list includes wearing shorts or pants; having short hair; wearing a skirt that does not completely cover the knees; wearing a skirt with a split hem; wearing a blouse with a low neckline or any sort of see-through clothing; and wearing heavy makeup.
A person breaking any one of these rules would either have to “repent of these sins” or resign their post. (Please note, this is their wording; there can be no question that the pastor of this church considers all of these actions to be “sins”.)
Jesus Himself would not qualify as a productive worker for this church because He was a self-confessed user of alcohol. In Matthew 11:19, Jesus pointed out, “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”
Yes, Jesus drank wine, as He pointed out in this verse. Was He a drunk? No, of course not, because that would mean Jesus sinned. It is critical to the Christian faith to know that Jesus Christ Himself did not sin, and that is how He can present us sinless before God in Him. Drinking wine in moderation is not a sin.
Fundamentalists require a non-literal interpretation of Scripture to justify their claims that even drinking alcohol in moderation is a sin. Because Jesus never sinned, they must attempt to prove that the wine Jesus drank was merely grape juice; otherwise, He would have sinned to their flawed reasoning. These alterations run to the degree of saying that Jesus turned the water into grape juice at the wedding at Cana. (See John 2:1-10)
One has to ask, if “wine” means “grape juice” in the New Testament, how come one of the qualifications of deacons is that they are not given to much wine? (1 Timothy 3:8) Would drinking too much grape juice be a reason to reject a deacon? Of course not; but at this point, fundamentalists are typically willing to revert back to a strictly literal interpretation of the word “wine”. This is inconsistent, and inconsistency is a sure sign of bad doctrine. I’ve read the Bible four times now, and I can personally testify that it is perfectly consistent.
Our popular imagery of Jesus pictures Him with a beard and long hair. I find the long hair questionable, personally, because Paul wrote condemning long hair on a man. 1 Corinthians 11:14 says, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?”
The long hair imagery I believe comes from an erroneous connection between Jesus and Samson, who really did have long hair. Samson had taken the vow of a Nazirite, which meant that he did not drink alcoholic beverages or cut his hair. (See Numbers 6:1-9; Judges 16:17) Jesus was a Nazarene, a resident of Nazareth. We can be certain Jesus was not a Nazirite because He drank wine. Nevertheless, I think some artistic decision was made that confused the terms Nazarene and Nazirite, and hence we have our long-haired image today.
The beard, however, is extremely likely, as beards were certainly in vogue in the Jewish community in the first century (and all prior centuries). The fundamentalist sin list would lead us to question, was Jesus’ beard always kept neatly trimmed? According to the list, an untrimmed mustache is a sin. It would be highly unlikely that Jesus’ beard was always kept neatly trimmed; trimming His beard was probably the least of His concerns during His forty days and nights in the desert fasting and being tempted. (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:9-12; Luke 4:1-13) If not, was having an untrimmed beard a sin? It could not be.
Peter would not qualify, because he is known to have gone without a shirt while fishing. John 21:7 records, “Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’ Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea.”
Paul could not qualify either, because he approved of drinking wine and even recommended it to Timothy. He wrote to Timothy, “I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure. No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.” (1 Timothy 5:21-23) Paul obviously did not consider drinking wine in moderation to be a sin, because he suggested it immediately after telling Timothy to keep himself pure by not sharing in other people’s sins.
We could probably go into other examples, but I think you get my point. This fundamentalist “sin” list is seriously crippled with unscriptural requirements and the workers in this church are functioning under a mighty yoke that Jesus never gave them to carry.
Different groups have different reasons for legalism, but what it all ultimately comes down to is a need to elevate themselves at the expense of others. Legalists need to have measurable, visible signs of their own Christianity, and they need them in abundance when compared to other people. They are given to despise other people and groups for their lack of “holiness”, based on their own external criteria. In this, they are dangerously like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time on earth.
Luke 18:9-14 gives an example of this. “Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: ‘Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, “God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.” And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.'”
Finally, their legalism enables them to overlook big spiritual problems in their lives; if they begin to have a trouble area, they can simply point to all the other areas of legalism in which they excel, and rationalize that they aren’t doing badly at all.
For example, a lot of fundamentalists have a clear propensity to fast, angry reactions, including some of their pastors. How does this gibe with Titus 1:7-9? “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”
In the face of such a Scripture, the usual fundamentalist tendency would be to point to other artificial areas in which their “holiness” is unquestionable, for example, not going without a shirt. Imagine the audacity to elevate a man-made rule found nowhere in the Bible to the same level or higher as a God-given, Biblical rule!
It is really funny how they can skip past “not quick-tempered” right on to “not given to wine” and make a monumental rule out of the easy one. Especially when they claim that wine means wine here, but when Jesus drinks it, it means grape juice.
But there is another truly unfortunate reason for legalism, and that is many people have given up seeking God for themselves, in their own lives. They won’t try to understand the Bible, so they adopt a church and follow legalistic rules instead of continuing the search. Let’s hope that there is true, saving faith in many of these brothers and sisters.
There are legalist cults with false theology like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists. Their legalism is used as a lure to attract new faithless, legalistic converts. The legalism is really necessary to sell the weird theology these religions espouse.
Cultic legalists use very small things to cast doubt on very big things. They use these small points to show how “right” they are, and how “wrong” everyone else is. A good example is the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Jehovah’s Witnesses take very small things and successfully make a very big deal of them with undiscerning people. As an example, I offer a relatively insignificant error in almost all Christian churches concerning the nativity scene. They frequently depict the three wise men as being present shortly after Jesus’ birth, while He was still in the manger.
In fact, a careful examination of Scripture quickly reveals that Jesus was really between one and two years old and living in a house by the time the unknown number of wise men showed up. The number “three” itself has no Scriptural backing; the Bible is not specific about how many wise men there actually were.
The proof can be found by reading over Matthew 2. Note these particular verses. Matthew 2:7 points out that Herod knew the exact time the star appeared. “Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared.”
Later, when Herod knew the Magi had gotten wise to his scheme to kill Jesus, he knew that it was just less than two years since the star had appeared. Matthew 2:16 says, “Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.”
Today, we can attribute the popular belief that the three wise men were present at the nativity scene to carelessness and a general failure to validate tradition against Biblical authority. Originally, I suspect it was a dramatic method used to simplify telling the story of Jesus’ birth to small children through drama. Rather than stop the play and narrate that nearly two years had passed, the wise men were to simply show up for the manger scene to keep the story uncomplicated.
Ultimately, it was not a wise move, because it gave openings to cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses to say, “Look how careless the churches are! They can’t even get the nativity scene right! How can they possible be right about the Trinity, hellfire, etc. They obviously all have false theology!”
It is quite a leap from a trivial error of convenience to a major error in theology, but Witnesses fabricate this connection and more people convert to Jehovah’s Witnesses than any other denomination every year. This whole argument on their part is a logical fallacy. Suppose you passed in a math test with one answer wrong, and you received a zero on the test because all your other answers must have been wrong, too. This logical fallacy is called the “all-or-nothing mistake”.
The Seventh Day Adventist church is the same. They hinge their belief on whether you are Christian or not on whether you keep the Saturday Sabbath, and it is a major selling point for them. They claim (very incorrectly) that the day of worship was always Saturday, it remained Saturday in the first church, and that the “mark of the beast” is worshipping on Sunday. (This assertion is easily disproven by Acts 20:7: “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” The Lord’s Supper and a sermon were scheduled for the first day of the week, Sunday. However, if you read this whole account, you’ll find that Paul preached past midnight and the breaking of bread did not actually happen until Monday. So much for having legalistic rules concerning days; it just isn’t important. As Paul wrote in Romans 14:5, “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.”)
Of course, if you avoid the cults, you can still find yourself in a theologically correct Christian church that is nonetheless legalistic in its outlook. Does that present a problem or not?
Fundamentalists put on these severe burdens in an attempt to make their churches “most like” the first century church, but this is not accomplished in practice. I have already demonstrated that the leaders of the first church would not have been considered adequately holy to even teach Sunday School by the average fundamentalist.
As well, the early church benefited from Scriptures in modern language that everyone could understand (Koine, or “common”, Greek), while many fundamentalist churches and organizations claim that it is a sin to use any Bible version other than the King James Version. This certainly impedes their witness to unbelievers, who largely cannot make out the King James Version. It almost certainly impedes the growth of the majority of the Christians in the congregation who cannot truly understand Shakespearean English, and hence cannot personally study the Bible and grow as Christians.
Fundamentalism also impedes the growth of Christians in that they either become disheartened that they cannot meet the artificial standards they have been given, or they become proud that they can. “Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)
I also think there is a problem with doing something that really isn’t a sin, if you believe that it is a sin. It takes a spirit of rebellion against God to do something that you think is a sin, even though it is not.
In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul states that there’s nothing wrong with eating food that has been sacrificed to idols, because idols are nothing and there is only one God. But note this very interesting statement from 1 Corinthians 8:7: “However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.”
The same is true with legalism. Although there is nothing wrong with a woman wearing a skirt that does not “completely cover” her knees, because the woman believes this is a sin, her conscience is weak and is defiled, because she wears it as if it were a sin.
I truly believe that we have to mind our own walk with Jesus very carefully, to gain the maximum of what Jesus can give us. Sin blinds us in all sorts of ways, robbing us of the maximum potential we have in Christ. I think that fundamentalism results when people get so tired of monitoring their own sin that they set up an artificial standard, hold others up to that artificial standard, and justify themselves by the other person’s supposed lack of holiness in comparison.
We must not grow weary and resort to such techniques. Yes, we must uphold the truths that are taught in the Bible, but we are not to create our own truth and judge ourselves according to it. God will not be judging us according to our own rules, but according to His rule, the Bible. And as 1 Corinthians 8:7 points out, it is not right to “err on the side of caution.” We need an accurate knowledge of God’s true requirements to be truly free in Him, and to not cause others to stumble in their journey to Christ.
What Is a Legalist? is Copyright © 1998 by Compass Distributors
All Scripture quotations taken from The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville,
Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.), 1982