The word "legalism" is thrown out a great deal these days. We know it's bad. We know it is something to avoid. We know we are prone that direction. But can we actually define what it is? In his careful way, J.I. Packer addresses legalism:
Taking God's law as our rule must not be confused with legalism. Legalism, we know, is a mistake Christians must avoid. Legalism means two things: first, supposing that all the law's requirements can be spelled out in a code of standard practice for all situations, a code which says nothing about the motives, purpose, and spirit of the person acting; second, supposing that formal observance of the code operates in some way as a system of salvation by which we earn our passage to glory or at least gain a degree of divine favor that we would not otherwise enjoy.
In the first instance, then, a legalist is one who conceives of the practice of holiness as merely a list of rules which can be followed or broken. Such a man or woman ignores the heart. How might we see this brand of legalism today? Such an attitude crops up in teaching that is quick to tell us what a Christian must do but never why he must do it--this kind of legalism, at least today, is often referred to as moralism.
In the second instance, a legalist is one who draws confidence in the measure of his or her performance. He either thinks that obedience to a particular command makes him a Christian or, and I think this is most likely, his spiritual confidence is inextricably linked to the quality of his religious works. A "good" day, for the legalist, might be a day where he keeps his eyes pure, or she avoids gossip, etc. You might reply, "But isn't it good not to sin? Isn't God pleased when we are holy?" Yes and yes! And so we ought to rejoice when we traverse the narrow path. But when we start to place our confidence in ourselves and not the Lord (who, after all, is the one equipping us for every good work) we fall into the error of legalism.
Packer, who published those words in 2005, argued that evangelicals are more likely to be tripped up by the first kind of legalism than the second. We are, he insists, too well-trained to think that we can earn God's favor. But we are quick, he insists, to hamper the Christian liberty of others by imposing a list of rules upon them that are unbiblical, arbitrary, and unsympathetic to what is going on in the heart.
From where I sit, however, the second brand of legalism is, in fact, more common. It's not that we think that doing good works save us. Packer is right, most of us are too well-taught to assert this. However, we easily and often fall into the trap of grounding our confidence in our obedience rather than Christ's achievement on our behalf.
What about you? What brand of legalism are you tempted to adopt? Are you more likely to set up rules that aren't in Scripture but that nonetheless make you feel holy, or you are more likely to think that your obedience has won some divine blessing from the Lord?
Comments