What's Wrong with Legalism?

By Charles Phillips

[Page 153]

     More and more "legalism" is becoming a "dirty word" among churches of the restoration movement. If we want to discredit one who does not agree with us scripturally, a popular way of doing so is to call him a legalist. The term is very often applied to people or groups whom we do not believe legally right at all. For instance "our group" complain that the "anti-organ groups" are legalists when that is not at all what we mean. We honestly do not think they have a legal leg upon which to stand. Strictly speaking we are the legalists, for we have met every argument with a "thus saith the Lord" (at least to our satisfaction) and we are the ones who are legally right. Yet we seek to discredit these by calling them legalists.

     There is another unfortunate situation for which legalism is wrongly blamed. There are some who are diligent students of the scriptures and who are legally right a great deal of the time, but who do not "practice what they preach." This is deplorable, especially for the one involved, for "he that heareth these words of mine and doeth them not...," and "great will be the fall thereof." But this is a universal fault among Christians, although more apparent in the legalist because of his firm stand and aggressive nature. Everyone of us knowingly does things every day which are contrary to scriptural teaching. This is a very human trait which we must all fight daily. It is not to be excused but it is not peculiar to the (so-called) legalist.

     "If a man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in the mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain" (I Tim. 6:3-5). The legalist is accused of being a troublemaker by his strict adherence to the doctrine. Let us see from this scripture just who the troublemakers are.

     1. "Teacheth a different doctrine." 2. "Consenteth not...to the doctrine which is according to godliness." 3. "Consenteth not to sound words." Who is the troublemaker? Surely not the legalist, for this is a picture of the anti-legalist. True, the so-called legalist may be entirely wrong in his legalizing, but let's give him a chance with the open Bible to prove or disprove his point. In this way everyone will profit by the study.

[Page 154]

If he is right is it not possible that some restructure will be in order?

     So far all we must do to correct ourselves on this problem is to make a few minor adjustments in thinking and vocabulary. Now we come to a more serious aspect. This involves calling one a legalist as an escape when unable to meet his scriptural arguments. If one has a different view of a passage than that to which I have been accustomed, regardless of how sound his arguments are, we must not consider the possibility of his thought having merit. No! He is just too legalistic.

     Let me state a case that actually happened in a meeting of elders. A discussion was taking place. One elder presented his views. Another arose and said, "You are legally right, but..." At the end of the meeting they had arrived at no decision. Probably the subject will be quietly dropped and forgotten unless our "legalistic" elder asserts himself further. The legalistic elder was admitted legally right by all, but..." Some people would rather be wrong than legally right if it meant changing their minds on a cherished thought, regardless of how sound the reasoning. And what is even worse, as in the case just mentioned, people recognize and admit this fault, yet fail to correct it.

     Unity demands legalism! In order to have unity within the church we, as individuals, must have an ultimate authority; an unimpeachable "last word" upon which we can base our unity. Without this, we have each going his own way, responsible to nothing, resulting in utter chaos. This has been amply demonstrated in Christendom today. The very existence of such an authority demands a legalistic approach and the acceptance of this authority is legalism. If we cannot accept legalism what is our alternative?

     As I see it there are two alternatives: (1) Complete disunity, and (2) human creeds. The latter would include tradition and the "party line."

     We all agree that disunity is to be avoided, but not at all costs! Of course there are areas of Christianity which are matters of personal opinion and within these areas the opinions of one must not be forced upon another. We cannot expect to have agreement within the framework of those areas but we must maintain the unity of the church in spite of these matters of opinion. There are also areas which are matters of doctrine and within these we must have agreement. "Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent."

     Within the area of opinion there is no basis for legalism because we have no basis of authority to guide, so no one can be proven right or wrong. But in the area of doctrine one's status can be proven. We dare not continue if found legally wrong. How are we to determine if our teachings are based upon opinion and which are based upon doctrine? We must, with an open mind, turn to our completely accepted basis of authority, the Bible, and with a detailed legalistic (if you please) analysis of the Holy Writ determine what is, and what is not there. "In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity."

     If we "speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent" we are fundamentalistic. If the other fellow "speaks where the Bible speaks and is silent where the Bible is silent" he is just too legalistic. What is wrong with legalism? Do not the scriptures demand of every Christian a legalistic knowledge, so he can with confidence go teach "them to observe all things whatsoever I command you"? Note that we are not to teach all things that can be inferred from his commandments but we are to teach his commandments. Be legalistic about it! There can be no excuse for not obeying a recognized scriptural truth merely because it does not fit in with our ideas on a subject and represents a legalistic view.

     Where else can we go to resolve a doctrinal difference except to a detailed analysis of the scriptures? Putting aside personal opinions we must discover exactly what God says. A legalistic approach, if you will, but the only sure

[Page 155]

way! How can we understand baptism by immersion except through legalism? How can we understand the atoning blood of Christ and the necessity of the cross except through legalism? How can we understand any part of the magnificent Christian system except through the legalistic approach?

     Let's face it, we are all enthusiastic legalists when it suits our purpose, and perhaps that is as it should be, but let us not assume that our thoughts, our methods, or our principles are any more effective than legal truth. "Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth" (John 17:17). "God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

     Editor's Note. Charles Phillips is a member of the Christian Church and lives at 15974 Stephenie Lane, Los Gatos, California 95030.