Specific examples of legalism?

[Lovedtodeath]

What you are saying is that by not saying the rosary or participating in liturgical ceremonies, then I am missing an *aspect* of the religions that do those things. That isn't the same as saying my faith lacks the same depth. Those are very different implications.

:iagree:

 

if you don't do x you are missing out on the depth of Christianity,

 

Right, this is not acceptable. Someone saying this would have no clue how close I am to God or what I have experienced in my walk with Him.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Ester Maria]

I would like to thank everyone who responded to me - your responses were so kind and interesting to read. :) I hope you do not mind if I do not reply to every person specifically, but there were a few things more I wanted to comment / ask about.

 

First, I was really impressed by Heather's analogy:

Legalism is turning a rib issue into a spine issue. Spine issues are those that affect your salvation... Like the deity of Christ. If you say you do not believe Jesus was/is God's son then you are not a Christian. Period.

 

A rib issue would be like head covering. It is a PERSONAL conviction... Not a salvation issue but some people/churches/denominations take a rib issue and blow it out of proportion until it becomes a spine issue.

But then something rubbed me the wrong way about it - again, coming from a non-Christian standpoint, it may be due to my lack of some fundamental understanding of Christianity, I may be missing some fine points, so feel free to correct me (and yes, you may quote me from now on ;))!

 

So here it goes: I was taught that there is no "gradation" of commandments, strictly speaking. That some commandments we can process rationally (for example, it is quite easy to rationalize why there is a prohibition to kill), but there are other commandments which we cannot process rationally (such as some food requirements - we can perhaps rationalize some of them by saying they are inherently more healthy, but not all of them). IOW, at the end of the day, it boils down to accepting the whole framework as such, not only the commandments we are personally okay with or we can access rationally. So, in some crazy way, on some crazy spiritual level, eating pork is as bad as killing (NB: I was never taught these things are "equal", only that there is no "gradation" we can make), in some crazy ways which we cannot understand, but the point is not even to understand or to "historically rationalize", but to simply accept and DO it (or, in this case, do NOT do what one was commanded not to do). I was taught that this is an instance of "humanizing" the divine law, reading our logic into it, and that there are very precise ways of deriving commandments from the Bible, and then even further of applying them to the later historical context (= rabbinical "extensions"), but that we should not just "discard" some things due to their perceived non-importance.

 

Which begs a question, how do we know which issues are spine issues and which issues are rib issues? At a first glance, I thought it was a brilliant description of things at hand, but it does imply that one draws some lines... so how does one draw those lines? Church tradition? Is there a system of deriving commandments and knowing which ones are secondary, which ones are "cancelled" by Jesus, and which ones are really to be followed? Or is to each individual's own conscience?

What is even more confusing is that legalism can be used for religious practices that are "correct" but shouldn't really be followed. :rolleyes:

This tends to confuse me too.

 

I do get that some things are extra-Biblical and people have an issue with that - but even in those cases, some things are *derived* from previous rules by analogies and principles, I think. So for Jews, even if the only Biblical thing is no fire on shabat, one derives what would be modern / equivalent "fire", why electricity is problematic and how it, as a phenomenon, relates to "fire", why is it problematic to start an electric circuit ("make a fire") rather than simply have it going ("have a fire"), etc. These things are extra-Biblical, strictly speaking, but Jewish law adapts to modern life by transferring principles (and ask me no further about how that works, because I am pretty ignorant of the nitty gritty details :tongue_smilie:; what I do know, however, is that in spite of the rules being *elaborate*, they are not *random*).

 

Headcovering thing for married women is derived from some verse, I think - something about punishing an adulteress by taking her headcovering away, which is then read as an implication that a married women had a headcovering and was punished "measure for measure", or something like that?

 

So is the heart of legalism in rules being random, not textually backed up, yet still applied across the board as a blanket standard? Or is it about textually backed up, legitimate interpretations of the law, but applied as a blanket standard also to those people who may not hold to those interpretations? Or is it primarily about attitude one takes - for example, one can be nice and loving and accepting of other people's walks with God even if one personally does not consider their practices "full", so to speak? I know many people who cannot tell me I am "okay" while remaining intellectually honest - because they do not think that is okay or "enough" - but they are still very kind and warm people and one does not feel pushed away by them. So, while they do leave other people's practice to their own conscience, disrection and their own growth, they still have a definite opinion on some of these things.

I do better with strict rules. :D However, Christianty is a religion of principle.

I found this to be a really interesting statement. Do you mean that, technically speaking, there are no "lifestyle rules" in Christianity - only general "principles" (those would possibly be things that would be spine issues, non-negotiables?), and that it is to each individual's conscience and discretion how they lead their life, allowing thus a lot of equally valid options? (Even in rabbinical Judaism there is room for differences and taking on some additional things individually and going differently than some people due to different customs, but there is still a very elaborate spine, LOL).

Edited January 18, 2012 by Ester Maria

[Ipsey]

I haven't posted earlier, but I've been following this with great interest.

 

Anyway, here's an example I just had a friend share with me.

 

Friend goes to a church where one is not to drink coffee. She has several mugs she likes to drink from at work; she does _not_ drink coffee or tea from them. A co-worker, of the same church, approached her and told her she should not drink from them because they typically hold coffee and people will get the wrong impression and it will cause people to not respect her faith. Friend brushed it off. Several days later her mug disappeared.

 

Even if the co-worker didn't take the mug, the attitude just seems "legalistic" to me.

 

I don't really have a pony in this contest, I just wonder if this might be an example everyone could agree on.

[simka2]

Esther Maria, at the end of your original post on this thread you ended it with a statement about healing on the sabbath. That life takes precedence. I think that is an example of a spine issue compared to a rib issue. I hope that makes sense. I apoligize for the brevity of this as I am out an about on my phone, and wanted to give this a bump. :)

[sunflowerlady]

Ok, I have not read the whole thread but I have what I think is a good example.

 

Several years ago, our church was nominating deacons. My dh was nominated. The pastor gave him a long questionnaire that gave the scriptures that discuss the qualifications of a deacon. That's great. If the church only went by just what the Bible said, he clearly was qualified.

 

But.

 

There were two pages of questions regarding things that were not part of the Bible's requirements for a deacon. Personal things. For many of the things, we knew we could not answer in the way the church wanted us to. It's been several years , so I do not remember all the questions.

 

I think he had to agree to be at ALL church services and activities unless "providentially hindered." So that would be Sunday school, Sunday morning service, Sunday evening service, Wednesday evening service and any other things that were planned. Also, they asked about if we were up to date on paying our bills or had financial problems. Well, we pay our bills but sometimes they are a little late. Nothing serious. But,still -good grief.

 

Oh, and he had to commit to tithing regularly.

 

That's not all. The list went on and on. We weren't sure of anyone who could pass that test. Anyway, dh turned it down. Interestingly, the church did not get any new deacons. Wonder why.:001_huh:

[TravelingChris]

Well, for Reformed Christians, the spines are in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, along with the Ten Commandments. Now I can understand some church being behavior oriented for Sunday observance and the entire day. So if a church was telling people not to go to movies on Sunday and not to go to ball games or watch sports, I wouldn't consider this by itself to be legalistic since I can see legitimate differences in opinion as to how to honor God on Sunday. But if you take that same proscriptive and change it to never watch a movie or see a ball game, I would want to know where in the Bible does it say we can't have any fun? That is the same reason I feel that restrictions against any drinking, playing games, dance, and so on are not specified against in the Bible. On the other hand. disallowing fortune telling or Ouija Boards can very easily be found in the Bible,.

 

Many of the things that we call legalism is putting on cultural standards as Biblical standards.

[Heather in Neverland]

Hi EM,

 

The difference is comparing Judaism which is law-based to Christianity which is based on grace. It is new covenant vs. old covenant. And the difference between rib issues and spine issues is the matter of SALVATION (from a Christian perspective).

 

Anything that a Christian tries to "tie" to salvation that was not meant to be "tied" to salvation is legalism. The other matters in the bible are guides for Christian living but do NOT determine our salvation.

 

It is also where the holier-than-thou tradition springs.

 

Suppose you follow all of your food preparation laws perfectly. Then suppose your friend who is of the same faith says she not only follows these laws perfectly, BUT ALSO refuses to associate with anyone who does not and that makes her a BETTER Jew than you! And if you were REALLY a true Jew then you would do what she is doing (even though Judaism does not call for it). She has taken the laws of Judaism and put her own spin on it then insisted that others do it too.

 

That's the best I can do with a Jewish analogy. I realize it is not that great. :D

 

 

.

[Ester Maria]

Anything that a Christian tries to "tie" to salvation that was not meant to be "tied" to salvation is legalism. The other matters in the bible are guides for Christian living but do NOT determine our salvation.

Thanks for explaining this.

Suppose you follow all of your food preparation laws perfectly. Then suppose your friend who is of the same faith says she not only follows these laws perfectly, BUT ALSO refuses to associate with anyone who does not and that makes her a BETTER Jew than you! And if you were REALLY a true Jew then you would do what she is doing (even though Judaism does not call for it). She has taken the laws of Judaism and put her own spin on it then insisted that others do it too.

I think I am starting to get... Not this specific example, but yes, I can think of... things. Many things indeed. Actually, I have no idea why did I not associate that with this thread from the beginning. Yep, there is an equivalent I can think of, in the form of stringencies (many of which absurd to begin with) being treated as core requirements. So while there IS a very elaborate set of core requirements, there are also all kinds of crazy things pushed as "standards" and used as a yardstick for how religious you are.

 

Anyhow, thank you for your patience with me. I enjoyed this thread. :001_smile:

[Ester Maria]

Esther Maria, at the end of your original post on this thread you ended it with a statement about healing on the sabbath. That life takes precedence. I think that is an example of a spine issue compared to a rib issue. I hope that makes sense. I apoligize for the brevity of this as I am out an about on my phone, and wanted to give this a bump. :)

Life does take precedence, but I am not sure that it makes it a spine issue as opposed to a rib issue... more like, it is two spine issues "clashing" :lol:, so one spine issue is preferred over another spine issue, but that other spine issue in and of itself is still a spine issue and still has a pivotal religious importance. IOW, one cannot violate sabbath unless there is an immediate danger / life issue / etc. - one cannot say that sabbath is lesser in importance overall and that one can freely decide to opt out of it because there are some exceptions in some cases. So, what I do by not observing sabbath is not simply not following some unimportant rib issue, but actually violating one of the major tenants of faith without any "excuse". The fact that sometimes, under some very specific conditions, one can violate sabbath, does not turn it into a secondary thing which one can adhere to or "cancel" at one's will - it only means the law is flexible enough to differentiate between a standard situation and some exceptional situations which may arise... but it is still no excuse for not adhering to the standard procedure in the standard conditions.

[simka2]

 

My life is a vessel for kedusha, for holiness - that is the ultimate purpose of the boundaries by which I live.

 

The laws of Shabbos are themselves the material that creates a space for the special kedusha of Shabbos... a "cathedral in time" as R Heschel wrote.

 

When strengthening one wall would weaken, or damage, or destroy another... it isn't about which 'wall' is most important, most central, it's about how to best preserve the structure as a whole.

 

...part of that reasoning, is that we are given the mitzvos so that we can live our lives by them... to do that we have to stay alive! ...but even for that, the reasoning isn't 'life is more important than Shabbos, or religious observance in general'... it is that the ultimate purpose of life, and Shabbos, are best served by preserving life.

 

I just don't think Heather's lovely metaphor can be applied to Judaism. (though it perfectly conveys some Protestant concepts that I have struggled for years to envision)

The above brought tears to my eyes. Thank you. Converting to Eastern Orthodoxy has not been a walk in the park for me. When the legalism threads come up it gets even more tricky, but in a way that is very difficult to describe. I know that many Christians would see EO as very legalistic. I know I did. Now I could not define it that way...it's just "other."

[Ester Maria]

Ester Maria,

 

I think we don't have an equivalent to a 'spine', unless one called the Torah itself the spine with minhagim and chumros as 'ribs'.

 

...but that analogy doesn't facilitate discussion of the pulls between and amongst various halachos.

 

My own mental image is of a really complex multi-dimensional weaving... there's a framework and a process, and we're given a basket of threads... and we choose from that basket and weave the pattern of our lives.

 

...can we abandon the framework and process and make a free form tapestry? ...or use our own instincts and pick an choose which things we'll use.

 

Absolutely.

 

...but I believe that we'll fulfill our own deepest potentials if we utilize the framework we've been given... and, as with many complex arts, I believe that attention to the 'details' has an enormous impact on the final product.

You are right on all counts, yes.

 

Big sigh as to the latter part. :(

Edited January 19, 2012 by Ester Maria
no

[Lovedtodeath]

Big sigh as to the latter part. :(

Wow. That is exactly where I was.

 

Carmen

[Tiberia]

The above brought tears to my eyes. Thank you. Converting to Eastern Orthodoxy has not been a walk in the park for me. When the legalism threads come up it gets even more tricky, but in a way that is very difficult to describe. I know that many Christians would see EO as very legalistic. I know I did. Now I could not define it that way...it's just "other."

 

Simka, I have read about your journey and have been inspired- not to become EO, but to really find meaning and beauty in my faith, and not just go through the motions.

 

Unfortunately, the more ritual-oriented denominations tend to get accused of legalism more than the progressive, modern ones. Those who have dress or behavior standards get accused of it also, often without justification. Sometimes it is true; there are legalistic people in these denominations, as in all others.

 

But, just because someone worships this way does not mean they are legalistic. Their choice of worship or clothing is not in itself legalistic. In fact, to accuse them of legalism based on behavior alone is a little legalistic itself. (I know, it becomes a never-ending cycle. This is why Paul preached so much grace to the Galatians.):)

 

No one can really know the heart of the worshipper except God. I believe many people find deep, meaningful worship and connection with God in ritual and tradition; I believe others are going through the motions. I believe many people find deep, meaningful worship in contemporary worship music; I also believe others are going through the motions. I trust God to work on the hearts of his people, no matter what denomination they are in. I have more experience with legalism in progressive, modern Christianity. Sometimes I feel bad that the conservative/traditional Christians get all flack. It's in us all.

[Spy Car]

 

This is normative halacha, routine in my little universe.

 

From a Protestant perspective, it would be insanely legalistic (within their own practice/observance).

 

 

You remind me of some of the funny events I witnessed while working with a Lubavitcher hasid who I'll call "Mendy" (as that is his name).

 

Despite having a semicha Mendy never called himself "rabbi" unless he was making restaurant reservations, when he felt the title paid off. Mendy was, of course, strictly observant—but in a "just in the nick-of-time" kind of way.

 

I used to say: Mendy, it's getting to be noon, have you wrapped tefillin?

 

He'd say: No, no, no, I've got time. Two o'clock, same thing.

 

"Bill, I've got till sundown" he'd try to convince me despite my looks of incredulity.

 

This went on daily. Just before sunset most days (as on occasion he actually did his morning rituals in the morning) he'd fly into motion and perform the mitzvah.

 

One day, however, when he'd once again put off wrapping till quite late in the day he discovered—to his horror—that he'd left his tefillin at home.

 

He was panic stricken, which wasn't funny, but it did make me smile that while he finally found a yid who had tefillin he could borrow, he still remained quite concerned that the tefillin had not only the "right" (for him) Askenazic wrap but that the scrolls inside the Tefillin were arranged in order according to Rashi, rather than Rabbeinu Tam (as some of the more pious Lubavitchers wrap both). And an interrogation had to take place in those precious remaining moments of sun before he was satisfied.

 

From an outsider perspective I'm thinking he should be thanking HaShem that he found any tefillin in time, much less be worrying about whether the exactly-identical scrolls inside the box (that you can't see) are arranged according to the order of one ancient religious authority or the ever-so-slightly different order of another. What's it matter? But to him it did.

 

And why not wrap Rabbeinu Tam? "I'm not that religious" he tells me :lol:

 

Bill

Edited January 19, 2012 by Spy Car

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I think that legalism has less to do with what rules you choose to follow and more to do with how you (or a religious authority ie church, pastor, etc.) judge those who don't follow the rules.

[Lovedtodeath]

I haven't posted earlier, but I've been following this with great interest.

 

Anyway, here's an example I just had a friend share with me.

 

Friend goes to a church where one is not to drink coffee. She has several mugs she likes to drink from at work; she does _not_ drink coffee or tea from them. A co-worker, of the same church, approached her and told her she should not drink from them because they typically hold coffee and people will get the wrong impression and it will cause people to not respect her faith.

Wow this is a great example and I missed it the first time.

[Ester Maria]

Wow. That is exactly where I was.

 

Carmen

What do you mean?

[Lovedtodeath]

...but I believe that we'll fulfill our own deepest potentials if we utilize the framework we've been given... and, as with many complex arts, I believe that attention to the 'details' has an enormous impact on the final product.

Big sigh as to the latter part. :(

I was here, sighing over my inability to follow the guidelines set forth in order to improve myself. The problem was partly with me and partly with the guidelines.

 

I should have stated these were my own feelings being raised in a legalistic household with a legalistic religion, and not compared, as we really don't know what others experiences and feelings are, and assumptions can be offensive.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Scarlett]

 

Originally Posted by Scarlett

I do better with strict rules. However, Christianty is a religion of principle.

 

I found this to be a really interesting statement. Do you mean that, technically speaking, there are no "lifestyle rules" in Christianity - only general "principles" (those would possibly be things that would be spine issues, non-negotiables?), and that it is to each individual's conscience and discretion how they lead their life, allowing thus a lot of equally valid options? (Even in rabbinical Judaism there is room for differences and taking on some additional things individually and going differently than some people due to different customs, but there is still a very elaborate spine, LOL).

 

 

 

 

Yes. Mostly. Of course there are the big ones. Idolatry, Murdering, stealing, adultery, lying, coveting.. All of which can be covered in the new commandment (s)to love God with our whole soul, mind, heart and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Those two commandments sum up the principle of Christianity.

 

 

Many activities aren't a 'sin', but rather very unwise if you want to continue living a holy life and avoid sin. It is easy for imperfect humans to err on either side of balancing that....being either too rigid or to lax. Many times rigid people snap under their own standards (which they often feel were imposed by religious leaders) and go to the extreme in the other direction. Personally, I've been to both extremes. :D