Specific examples of legalism?

[Heather in Neverland]

EM,

 

I won't quote you as you asked but first I want to say that I answered the question from a Christian perspective. I am not well-versed in the intricacies of Judaism so it would be difficult to me to say what legalism is like in that faith.

 

In Christianity your goal is to go to heaven and be with God. In order to do that you must be saved. What does it take to be saved? That's the main issue. Those are the issues that are NOT part of legalism. Anything added to that list that isn't supposed to be there is legalism.

 

Judaism has a goal as well. What does your faith say it takes to reach that goal? That is not legalism. But if someone then comes along and adds a bunch of stuff to the requirements that are not ACTUALLY requirements but they try to convince everyone that they are... That is legalism.

 

The same applies to Islam, Buddhism, etc. They all have a goal.

 

A non-faith example: I am a principal. At my school there is a list of graduation requirements. It is in the handbook. If I get hired and I suddenly start telling everyone that there are other things they need to do to graduate, things I think SHOULD be in the handbook, but none of those things ARE in the handbook or approved by the board then those things are legalistic.

 

So a definition of legalism will look different to different faiths.

 

 

.

[silliness7]

Living life according to your own conscience is not necessarily legalism. Requiring others to live according to your conscience most certainly is.

[Lovedtodeath]

Galatians 3:3

How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort?

 

So basically in Christian terms, legalism is saying, "Christ died for your sins, now you need to _________ in order to earn eternal life."

 

Romans 4

When people work, their wages are not a gift, but something they have earned. But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners.

[Caribbean Queen]

Ester, I want to quote you.

 

In this thread people have posted practices they disagree with as examples of legalism. Legalism means, "a religious practice that is wrong IMHO." There is no room for differnces in interpretation of scripture. Those other guys are legalistic (wrong).

 

The L-word is never used for something new agey, hippy liberal stuff, like "Raiynbow-Lee lights a candle every morning and spins while praying for the world's helpless animals, because Mother/Father-God requires it." Legalism is a word reserved for conservative stuff. "James wears only dark neckties because he believes the Lord wants him to dress modestly." So legalism means "a conservative religious practice which is wrong, IMHO."

 

What is even more confusing is that legalism can be used for religious practices that are "correct" but shouldn't really be followed. :rolleyes: If someone consistently abstains from something, or does something to please God he is called legalistic, even by people who believe the actions are pleasing to God. They accuse the do-gooder of trying to earn their salvation and not appreciating God's grace and mercy.

[Tiberia]

EM,

Your post and questions are very interesting. My post, early on in this thread, is about Christian legalism only. I'm a Christian, so that's what I know about, to some extent.

 

My opinion of Judaism is that the "law" is a huge part of the religion, and following the law, and writing it on the heart, and passing it down to children, is part of what makes a Jew a Jew. This is not necessarily "legalism."

 

The Jews were separated, set apart, in the past because they refused to disregard the Torah laws and traditions. They often took courageous stands against injustice because of Torah laws against human sacrifice, revenge killings, and other evil laws in other cultures. The Torah also gives humanity to widows, orphans, and strangers.

 

I'm sure there are "legalistic" Jews, but it's not my call to identify or judge them. I'm an outsider looking in. I think a lot of legalism has to do with the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, whether in a religious or secular setting.

 

I feel like I'm rambling, but that's what's going through my mind right now.

[Lovedtodeath]

If someone consistently abstains from something, or does something to please God he is called legalistic, even by people who believe the actions are pleasing to God. They accuse the do-gooder of trying to earn their salvation and not appreciating God's grace and mercy.

And by doing that, they are judging!

 

I think a lot of legalism has to do with the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, whether in a religious or secular setting

:iagree: Yes, Here is a quote from an old thread with an example of legalism:

Would Christ really ask someone to remain with their spouse (or remain separated and alone for the rest of their lives) in their particular circumstance? Was Jesus addressing every possible scenario when he said that a man should only divorce his wife on the grounds of fornication, or was he addressing a certain viewpoint from a certain group of people? If we want to get picky, was he only saying that husbands shouldn't divorce their wives? If we want to make laws out of it, then yes... he said nothing about wives divorcing their husbands... so does that mean that wives can't divorce their husbands or does it mean that wives have more than one reason to divorce their husbands, while the husbands have only the one? And then we can try to define fornication and come up with ridiculous ideas about what is and is not an acceptable reason for divorce in that case, and apply them to all.

 

We run into a lot of problems when we try to apply black and white laws to every situation without seeing any shades of gray.

 

And that is a big reason why legalism doesn't work.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[elegantlion]

:iagree: The last church we were at long term told my youngest she was sinning because she planned to dress as a witch for Halloween. She came home terrified and in tears. :glare: She picked the costume because it was orange. We went back to doing church at home on Sunday for several months before trying again. So many places seem to focus on the negatives and what others are maybe doing wrong that the positive messages and the truly important things get lost or overlooked.

 

Oh yeah, we would have gotten that too.

 

As a kid my family liked to study weird things, like the paranormal, UFOs, Fringe and XFiles type stuff. We could have never told Grandma or any church for fear of being condemned straight to hell.

[LG Gone Wild]

Ester Maria, I loved your post. I really liked the part where you said a truly religious life should look somewhat rigorous (eek, I didn't quote you because you told me not to, so I'm not sure that's the word you used, LOL). There should be certain things we do, and even have to do.

 

As an Orthodox Christian, to outsiders, it might seem like we live our faith with a lot of rules, too. It might seem we have a lot of extra "trappings" and things to do. We go to church a lot. We have morning and evening prayers. We fast for more than half the year, all told (which to us means not eating animal-based foods, nor oil or wine). We celebrate the feasts a certain way. Etc. It might seem like we think we have to do these or we're not right with God, or that we're working hard to please Him, but it's not that way. Our faith is something we believe and do, and we do it with joy (or try to!) because it's how we love and know God. These things ARE part of our salvation (we're defining salvation differently than modern evangelical/fundamental thought).

 

Anyway, just wanted to comment that no, I don't see your faith practice as legalistic. In fact, ideally, I'm not looking at your plate at all (;)) so couldn't make that determination. Your walk is between you and God, as lived out in your faith community.

 

 

I am quoting you because Ester Maria asked not to be quoted. Loved her post. Living a holy life is rigorous and the rules are there to help people along the way to salvation. When I think of the holiest people living the holiest lives, they are living very strict, legalistic lives. I am thinking of Carthusian monks. I am thinking of Benedictine nuns.

 

I love me some discipline and rigor.

 

I have to admit that I don't understand the stance against extra biblical stuff. Jesus didn't write down his story for us directly. His stories were passed on down via tradition. Without extra biblical tradition, there would be no Bible.

 

Going back to the negative connotations of legalism, I really like the example of zero tolerance policies which so often, people forget discernment and judgement and simply don't know how to respond or act with any sense. You know, suspending students for having plastic cutlery because of a zero tolerance policy against weapons.

[simka2]

EM, do you know what your post made me think of? It made me think of how much we have lost when it comes to knowledge of Jewish practices...and honestly who Jesus was. How He was raised, how His mother lived, His brothers. What their world looked like, how their daily life flowed. He had a relative who was a High Priest and a mother chosen for her devoutness, and yet how little we know of what that looks like. It baffles me, truly baffles me.

 

I had someone on my FB last night saying some very ugly things about Jews and she was using the Bible to do it. In fact she was using words from the Prophets. I was so incredibly saddened by some of the things she said. Unfortunately, many Christians think it is okay to speak harshly about Jews in general, because Jesus spoke harshly in specifics. We have taken words from a specific time, place and directed at a specific individual, and apply them with a broad brush to all Jews or Jewish practices. For most this isn't a deliberate decision, but a sort of default position due to a lack of understanding for the culture Jesus was raised in (by culture I do not mean the Google version that Pastors use in an attempt to contextualize, but a deeper understanding of what it meant to be Jewish.)

 

Anyway, I just wanted to say, "Thank you," for your post.

[Scarlett]

I am quoting you because Ester Maria asked not to be quoted. Loved her post. Living a holy life is rigorous and the rules are there to help people along the way to salvation. When I think of the holiest people living the holiest lives, they are living very strict, legalistic lives. I am thinking of Carthusian monks. I am thinking of Benedictine nuns.

 

I love me some discipline and rigor.

 

I have to admit that I don't understand the stance against extra biblical stuff. Jesus didn't write down his story for us directly. His stories were passed on down via tradition. Without extra biblical tradition, there would be no Bible.

 

Going back to the negative connotations of legalism, I really like the example of zero tolerance policies which so often, people forget discernment and judgement and simply don't know how to respond or act with any sense. You know, suspending students for having plastic cutlery because of a zero tolerance policy against weapons.

 

I do better with strict rules. :D However, Christianty is a religion of principle. We are required to use our powers of reason to distinquish between right and wrong. Those powers of reason are fluid--our feelings on things will be stronger or less so depending where we are in the process.

 

The part about the legalism of the Pharisees that Jesus denounced so harshly was that they put all these requirements and restrictions on the people but were not willing to lift one finger themselves.

 

So as Christians, we would want to be extra careful to avoid the self righteousness that Jesus spoke against. However, that does NOT mean we are to turn a blind eye to sin.

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes, Simka, Jesus hated some of the Pharisees, but loved the Jews!

[silliness7]

EM,

I enjoyed your post very much and learning more about your culture. I'm glad I finished reading to the end because I almost quoted you. You said something that hit me quite profoundly and I wanted to remark on it, though it doesn't really answer the question you asked in your post.

 

You said something about the Jewish lifestyle and the rules permeating every bit of life, even those who don't practice to the fullest. To practice Judaism is to incorporate your religion into every aspect of your day to day.

 

I LOVE this picture, because it helps me to wrap my head around the sermon I heard Sunday night. It was a unique sermon the theme of which was that the Gospel ought to permeate all of our life. The assumption being that many Christians don't do this well. I don't think *I* do it well (so I was not offended) because I don't know exactly what that looks like. Unfortunately the preacher did not get very specific on the details, and I've been pondering on it all day.

 

I believe that OT law was a teacher, was necessary, was a picture of what God is like and what He wants His people to be like. But not actually putting it into practice I don't really have an appreciation for how invasive Judaic law is. I do not say that negatively. But I do think it's helpful for me to understand, for example, that you can't cook without being affected by your religion. The preacher basically said that I shouldn't cook without being affected by the Gospel. I'm fairly certain he was not alluding to the fact that I am not to use alcohol in my cooking or that I am to make lists of banned ingredients. No offense to people who do. I'm just 99% sure that was not what he was getting at. But what was he getting at? What does Gospel-permeated cooking look like? I have no idea. But this is what I'm mulling around in my head and I'm afraid that doesn't answer your question. What do those who don't believe in legalism think about Jews? I'm not sure how to frame an answer. The ideology of Judaism does not appeal to my conscience, if it did, I would convert. :001_smile: But I do not look down on people who practice it. I do not think I am better than you. Does that make sense? And I really think you are spot on in your observation that your religion affects the most basic aspects of your life more than mine does. But it should not be that way. Thanks for your post.

[Parrothead]

No association with people in "known religious cults" <--I'll leave their definition out

 

 

Hey, we know who we are. :lol::lol::lol:

[Parrothead]

when i think of examples from the bible, legalism is apparent when the pharisees get angry with jesus for healing on the sabbath. they were so caught up in the rules that they couldn't see anything good in what he had done. this constantly occurred with them.

 

milovany, i think you nailed it when you said legalism is focusing on how others live out their faith instead of focusing on themselves. it comes back to the speck in a brother's eye when there is a telephone pole in your own.

:iagree:

[Parrothead]

Most sentences that end with "or you will go to hell" are usually a form of legalism. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

.

Gotta love that. :D

[milovany]

Yes, Simka, Jesus hated some of the Pharisees, but loved the Jews!

 

:001_huh: Jesus hates no one. He's God, He is love. He's merciful and compassionate. I believe when he was railing on the Pharisees, it was out of compassion, not hatred. He longs for them, just like the prodigal son, to turn back toward Him.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am rearranging your post a tiny bit to make it easier to respond. I am sorry, I hope you don't mind.

 

In this thread people have posted practices they disagree with as examples of legalism. Legalism means, "a religious practice that is wrong IMHO." There is no room for differnces in interpretation of scripture. Those other guys are legalistic (wrong).

 

Legalism is a word reserved for conservative stuff. "James wears only dark neckties because he believes the Lord wants him to dress modestly." So legalism means "a conservative religious practice which is wrong, IMHO."

 

What is even more confusing is that legalism can be used for religious practices that are "correct" but shouldn't really be followed. :rolleyes: If someone consistently abstains from something, or does something to please God he is called legalistic, even by people who believe the actions are pleasing to God. They accuse the do-gooder of trying to earn their salvation and not appreciating God's grace and mercy.

 

This is not how I used it at all. If a person abstains from seeing rated R movies or swearing or drinking wine because they feel a personal conviction from God about it, then that is his/her business and it is fine. If Bob believes he will go to hell for drinking wine or swearing or seeing rated R movies, then that is legalistic. If Bob thinks abstaining from those things makes one a better Christian than the people who do them, then that is legalistic. It has nothing to do with what a person decides to do for themselves because they think it is a good practice.

 

The L-word is never used for something new agey, hippy liberal stuff, like "Raiynbow-Lee lights a candle every morning and spins while praying for the world's helpless animals, because Mother/Father-God requires it."

 

This is not called legalism because it has nothing to do with the Christian Bible.

 

Let me take a non-religious example. Sue may be a fervent juicer. She might feel it is imperative to good health to do a juice fast once a month. She might feel other people are not in good health because they don't juice.

 

John might run 5 miles a day and believe that it is imperative for good health and that you cannot be in good health without running.

 

Sam might run and juice, but believe that one can be in good health without running or juicing. She might even feel that a juice fast can be harmful for some people.

 

Do you see the difference?

[silliness7]

Let me take a non-religious example. Sue may be a fervent juicer. She might feel it is imperative to good health to do a juice fast once a month. She might feel other people are not in good health because they don't juice.

 

John might run 5 miles a day and believe that it is imperative for good health and that you cannot be in good health without running.

 

Sam might run and juice, but believe that one can be in good health without running or juicing. She might even feel that a juice fast can be harmful for some people.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

This brings to mind the recent hotdog bashing threads. I feel so judged. :lol:

[8circles]

I think legalism can also look like conformity. It doesn't allow for people being different. It says my way is the only way. It doesn't even have to go so far as to say you won't be saved if you don't do x but x is the only way to grow close to God, if you don't do x you are missing out on the depth of Christianity, if you don't do x then you just want to make your own rules and have issues with authority.

 

Legalism can ignore the fact that the Holy Spirit can move inside people and convict them to worship/express/live out their faith in non-traditional ways.

 

EM, as a Christian I don't think I can have any judgement on Judaism and legalism. It can't be looked at through the same lens. However, I do see the value in the lifestyle you described.

[Mrs Mungo]

This brings to mind the recent hotdog bashing threads. I feel so judged. :lol:

 

I think tater tot casserole sounds icky, but I won't judge you for eating it. Mostly because I would have to take care of the giant telephone pole habit of soda drinking before I was in a position to judge anyone for their eating habits. Fair enough? ;)

[*Inna*]

I think that legalism can be in any religion or even not connected to religion at all. If you do (or don't do) X, Y and Z you are not a true ... (fill in the blank- Christian, homeschooler, good mother, whatever).

[Chelli]

My preacher husband defines legalism this way:

 

People who love to preach you into hell, but never want to talk about the grace to get out.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think that legalism can be in any religion or even not connected to religion at all. If you do (or don't do) X, Y and Z you are not a true ... (fill in the blank- Christian, homeschooler, good mother, whatever).

 

And that makes sense. But, you can't really say that someone is being legalistic about the whackadoodle religion that they made up, kwim?

[Peaceful Isle]

Growing up in a legalistic home , it is a very touchy subject for me. A lot of pain involved. I try so hard now to show my children the love that Jesus brings to us, instead of all the rules you must follow to be "accepted" as good. I am so grateful that it did not turn me away from the Lord, instead it made me stand firm on his grace, instead of the "list we must follow". When you are brought up with guilt, and rules to follow, or God will never be able to "use" you, it takes time to heal from that. It also has made me more compassionate to others trying to "work" their way to God. Alot of people that are legalistic truly believe in what they are doing which is sad. My God says...my yoke is easy, and my burden is light... Just my thoughts on the matter. :)

[mommaduck]

Demanding/expecting that others hold to your own personal standards/preferences/beliefs/views and discerning/judging/determining their status/salvation/how "good" they are based on those comparisons.

 

I wear a headcovering. I used to be skirts only (still am skirts mostly). And a few other things. We were accused of legalism over it. We attended church with many that did not feel like we did, but it didn't bother us. It bothered some of the though...and yet, they accused US of legalism. "What's wrong with my wife's pants?!" Uhm, nothing, did we ever say there was something wrong with it? "No, but your wife is always wearing skirts; doesn't that set a legalistic example?" Nooo, it's something we've chosen...specifically my wife (me) for herself, for our own reasons, and has nothing to do with anyone else. "Well, you know, it doesn't really matter what you wear!" I agree, so why did you call me and why are we having this conversation? (this was all part and parcel of a 2hr long phone conversation my husband had with someone that called him...the man went on and on about how *I* dressed!) This causes me to believe that legalism can go to the other extreme also. Demanding that others *fit in* to make *you* comfortable.

[elegantlion]

 

 

This is not how I used it at all. If a person abstains from seeing rated R movies or swearing or drinking wine because they feel a personal conviction from God about it, then that is his/her business and it is fine. If Bob believes he will go to hell for drinking wine or swearing or seeing rated R movies, then that is legalistic. If Bob thinks abstaining from those things makes one a better Christian than the people who do them, then that is legalistic. It has nothing to do with what a person decides to do for themselves because they think it is a good practice.

 

 

:iagree: I probably should have said this in my post, but I believe in personal conviction. I don't believe these are salvation issues.

 

I grew up thinking many of these things were salvation issues, not necessarily from my parents, but other family and churches. They only served to move me away from God, not closer.

[Lizzie in Ma]

I think that this means extra-biblical teachings/instructions/dictates, but with the myriad of interpretational possibilities over the Bible, what really counts as legalism?

 

I don't really want a debate over it, but I do want to understand exactly what people are calling legalistic. So, to that end, what are specific examples that YOU consider legalism, even if another denomination may disagree.

 

Things that have bothered me in the past and present that stem from legalism...

Telling me the Bible doesn't approve of my daughter dying her hair.

Telling my daughter that she can't wear a modest one piece bathing suit without a t-shirt over it because her cleavage shows while the same persons daughter wears a skimpy bikini.

Telling my daughter she can't read Harry Potter because it has witches or Twilight because its (whispered in that voice of horror) BAD!

[Scarlett]

Another thought on this....things that are WRONG as opposed to UNWISE.

 

For example---(IMO of course)

 

1)Going to bars/clubs without ones mate--Unwise. Not a Sin.

2)Committing adultery--A Sin

 

So I think in an effort to help/guide/instruct many people mis-categorize activities. And people naturally rebel at this. Especially inexperienced people who do not understand how quickly an unwise decision can turn into an actual sin.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Let me give an example from a different context to explain what I think of what you have shared, which is that it is observant and reverent practice for you. But not legalism, because I don't think you condem me because I don't observe the same. (For example, while you don't want a guest to mess up your kitchen observance, you are willing to let them, a non-observant person, help as long as they don't violate your practice.)

 

Many years ago, I attended a women's Christian conference at a good sized hotel with several big ballrooms. There were women there from about a dozen different churches. Some were affiliated non-demoninational churches, but there were also churches represented that were from denominations. There were also several Mennonites, in their long dressses and head coverings.

 

The registration night was Friday. A couple hundred women were coming in, getting room assignments, conference packets and attending the first two sessions.

 

Did I mention that there were several ballrooms? We were using the largest. But another ballroom, right at the top of the stairs, had been reserved by a group of college men for a social event. They were drinking, smoking cigars and enjoying a stripper as entertainment. All of the women at the conference had to walk past the groups of men loitering outside their ballroom to get to our registration table. The manager came and appologized for the scheduling conflict, but couldn't just shut them down, because they had also paid to rent the space and were not in violation of the contract.

 

At one point, the stripper was in the hotel restroom with a bunch of women from the conference, including this older Mennonite woman. It was sort of uncomfortable.

 

At the next session, there was an opportunity for women to come up to the front and make comments and offer up prayers. The Mennonite woman stood up after a while. She had had a long conversation with the woman who was the stripper. She knew her name, the name and age of your young daughter, and what she hoped to do with her life. They had shared phone numbers so the older woman could be of help to her.

 

You could have heard a pin drop in our ballroom. The woman who might have been expected to turn her back on someone very unlike her had been the only one who bothered to see the young stripper as a person - as a child of the God we were all there to glorify. She was both personally observant to her own understanding of her faith, but also loving toward another woman in need.

 

Ester, you've posted so many posts about education and languages. They have been loving and helpful. But I've never gotten the sense that you hold others in contempt if they don't share your belief or practice.

 

To me, that is the heart of legalism. Not just the observance, but the judgement of others. It's a tightrope that I find I have to walk myself. I find that while I have no doubts in my faith, that I do not hold to a young earth creation worldview. But while I don't agree with that interpretation of the evidence that is around us, I have to make sure that I'm not judging how much God loves those who have come to different conclusions.

 

Hope this helps.

[goldberry]

The Mennonite woman stood up after a while. She had had a long conversation with the woman who was the stripper. She knew her name, the name and age of your young daughter, and what she hoped to do with her life. They had shared phone numbers so the older woman could be of help to her.

 

You could have heard a pin drop in our ballroom. The woman who might have been expected to turn her back on someone very unlike her had been the only one who bothered to see the young stripper as a person - as a child of the God we were all there to glorify. She was both personally observant to her own understanding of her faith, but also loving toward another woman in need.

.

 

What a great story - love that!

[Caribbean Queen]

If a person abstains from seeing rated R movies or swearing or drinking wine because they feel a personal conviction from God about it, then that is his/her business and it is fine. If Bob believes he will go to hell for drinking wine or swearing or seeing rated R movies, then that is legalistic. If Bob thinks abstaining from those things makes one a better Christian than the people who do them, then that is legalistic. It has nothing to do with what a person decides to do for themselves because they think it is a good practice.

I still don't get it.

Some people (I don't have you in mind) posted rules they do not agree with as legalistic. They did not say anything about the person being self righteous, or thinking keeping the rule will keep them out of hell. They just posted

 

do not watch "R" rated movies

women cover heads in church

no skirts above the knee

 

See, nothing about the person's motivation there.

 

Let me give another example of something that is an extra-Biblical rule and yet will not be called legalistic because it is too happy-hippy : Every Mother's Day the men in a local church give the women flowers and serve them lunch. Oh, how lovely! that is nice. Now, here is something which is (arguably) Biblical, that people would call legalistic. Every few Sundays couples in a local church take turns washing each other's feet. Oh, how weird and unnecessary. Why are they trying to add to their faith with man made rules? 　Again, there is nothing in those actions which says they think you'll go to hell if you don't wash your husbands feet once a month. There is nothing there to say they feel all the non-feet washers are pond scum compared to them.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Caribbean Queen

[Mrs Mungo]

I still don't get it.

Some people (I don't have you in mind) posted rules they do not agree with as legalistic. They did not say anything about the person being self righteous, or thinking keeping the rule will keep them out of hell. They just posted

 

do not watch "R" rated movies

women cover heads in church

no skirts above the knee

 

See, nothing about the person's motivation there.

 

 

I actually went back through the thread to check and I don't see very many posts like that.

 

Onceuponatime gave a list with things like, "No women wearing pants to worship services," but even that statement implies an extra-Biblical rule being imposed upon the congregation. That isn't discussing a personal conviction.

 

People said things like, "I went to a church with a bunch of extra-Biblical teachings as requirements such as ____" or "believing that behaviors are required for salvation such as ____" or gave examples of statements that implied judgment.

 

Let me give another example of something that is an extra-Biblical rule and yet will not be called legalistic because it is too happy-hippy : Every Mother's Day the men in a local church give the women flowers and serve them lunch. Oh, how lovely! that is nice. Now, here is something which is (arguably) Biblical, that people would call legalistic. Every few Sundays couples in a local church take turns washing each other's feet. Oh, how weird and unnecessary. Why are they trying to add to their faith with man made rules? 　Again, there is nothing in those actions which says they think you'll go to hell if you don't wash your husbands feet once a month. There is nothing there to say they feel all the non-feet washers are pond scum compared to them.

 

One, how in the world is foot washing extra-Biblical? It was an act of service that Christ did for his disciples. Now, if Bobby Sue starts believing that she's a better Christian than Janet because Bobby Sue is in the foot washing ministry and Janet isn't taking part or that Janet is going to hell for not participating, then Bobby Sue would be acting in a legalistic manner. If a church *required* its members to wash the feet of each other, then that would be legalistic. Rules and attitudes are what I see being addressed, not personal convictions.

 

 

Can you link or quote posts from this thread where you felt people acting on personal conviction and *not* imposing those convictions on others were being bashed? Because I don't see it.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[elegantlion]

I still don't get it.

Some people (I don't have you in mind) posted rules they do not agree with as legalistic. They did not say anything about the person being self righteous, or thinking keeping the rule will keep them out of hell. They just posted

 

do not watch "R" rated movies

women cover heads in church

no skirts above the knee

 

[/size]

 

Well I was the one that posted about the skirt above the knee. This was brought up to my mother because I wore a skirt that was above my knee. I was about 7 or 8, maybe 9, it was the 70s, it was the style. It wasn't a mini skirt on a 7 year old, it was a homemade dress by my mom, that had a full skirt that happened to be above my name. My mother was made to feel shameful because I was allowed to wear such garments. That was an awful church that lots of other issues too, including questioning my salvation because I preferred to sit with my mother in the adult service instead of attending children's church. Yup, ugh, I'm feeling sick even thinking about some of them. Not at all biblical.

 

Again, if you (rhetorical) feel led to give up something, not do something, not wear something because of your journey, great, but don't make it a salvation issue for others.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well I was the one that posted about the skirt above the knee. This was brought up to my mother because I wore a skirt that was above my knee. I was about 7 or 8, maybe 9, it was the 70s, it was the style. It wasn't a mini skirt on a 7 year old, it was a homemade dress by my mom, that had a full skirt that happened to be above my name. My mother was made to feel shameful because I was allowed to wear such garments. That was an awful church that lots of other issues too, including questioning my salvation because I preferred to sit with my mother in the adult service instead of attending children's church. Yup, ugh, I'm feeling sick even thinking about some of them. Not at all biblical.

 

But, again, your post *did* mention that these were things being imposed upon others. It was not just a list.

 

Not reading certain books, certainly not mythology. Classical homeschooling would be akin following Satan. Owning or reading religious texts of other religions. Certain people in my family would have a fit if they knew I owned a Qur'an.

 

Your post was about other people imposing judgments upon you. Therefore, it was clear to me that it had nothing to do with a person's personal convictions.

 

I can see Sputterduck's point that some people go over board. Person A doesn't want Person B wearing a head-covering because it makes Person A feel judged (which, I think it weird). But, I don't see that happening in this thread.

[elegantlion]

But, again, your post *did* mention that these were things being imposed upon others. It was not just a list.

 

 

 

Your post was about other people imposing judgments upon you. Therefore, it was clear to me that it had nothing to do with a person's personal convictions.

 

I can see Sputterduck's point that some people go over board. Person A doesn't want Person B wearing a head-covering because it makes Person A feel judged (which, I think it weird). But, I don't see that happening in this thread.

 

Thanks, I didn't go back to read, and wasn't sure exactly what I had said. The things I listed were absolutely things I was led to believe were part of my continued salvation, necessary to keep me out of eternal ****ation.

[pdalley]

 

Again, if you (rhetorical) feel led to give up something, not do something, not wear something because of your journey, great, but don't make it a salvation issue for others.

 

:iagree: That's pretty much how I feel. If one tries to impose their personal convictions on others it becomes legalistic - not if they decide to do those things for themselves.

[mommaduck]

Okay, I have to add:

 

extremism that leads to name-calling and false accusations. aka if someone doesn't agree with your extreme, then accuse them of being the other extreme.

 

Today's example from my FB post:

I'm apparently a goddess loving, wymmen, because I don't think that ONLY a male should be allowed to teach in a woman's Bible study. Any question that may be of a personal nature (aka childbirth, health, women's relationships) or women that need a "safe zone" (those that have experienced rape, abuse, etc) should ONLY be able to go to an elder and should be comfortable having a male elder lead the women's Bible study. I got defriended for asking why the person was taking it to such an extreme

 

I guess some of ya'll have been a "bad" influence on me ;)

[simka2]

 

Again, if you (rhetorical) feel led to give up something, not do something, not wear something because of your journey, great, but don't make it a salvation issue for others.

 

 

I agree with this, but it begs the question...What about legalism outside of Salvation issues. An earlier poster mentioned that "It doesn't even have to go so far as to say you won't be saved if you don't do x but x is the only way to grow close to God, if you don't do x you are missing out on the depth of Christianity, if you don't do x then you just want to make your own rules and have issues with authority."

 

Although, I agree that the first example is Legalism and the last is just plain Judgmental, the middle one is more of a gray area. Can someone not say, "that by not doing something a person is missing a specific type of depth?" That is not saying they are not in a deep spiritual state, or do not have their own depth, but I think the whole reason we have different faith practices is that we are drawn to a specific things that bring us to a desired depth. To say that someone is missing out on something specific, is not the same as saying they are shallow or lacking in some way.

 

For example: I am not RC, an RC person could say that since I do not pray the Rosary I am missing out on a certain depth of Christianity. They would be right, I am. An Evangelical could say that I am missing out on a depth of worship since I do not participate in Praise and Worship, they would be right. That is not a judgement, just a fact. It is not legalistic for them to state a fact. :confused:

 

I think it gets confusing. I wonder if their has to be another component for it to be legalism? Maybe, the power to enforce/manipulate/shame others into following your standards.

 

Just thinking out loud. ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

Okay, I have to add:

 

extremism that leads to name-calling and false accusations. aka if someone doesn't agree with your extreme, then accuse them of being the other extreme.

 

Today's example from my FB post:

[/b]

 

I guess some of ya'll have been a "bad" influence on me ;)

 

If people on both ends of the spectrum think I'm a bad influence, then I'm probably doing something right. :lol:

 

I agree with this, but it begs the question...What about legalism outside of Salvation issues. An earlier poster mentioned that "It doesn't even have to go so far as to say you won't be saved if you don't do x but x is the only way to grow close to God, if you don't do x you are missing out on the depth of Christianity, if you don't do x then you just want to make your own rules and have issues with authority."

<snip>

 

For example: I am not RC, an RC person could say that since I do not pray the Rosary I am missing out on a certain depth of Christianity. They would be right, I am. An Evangelical could say that I am missing out on a depth of worship since I do not participate in Praise and Worship, they would be right. That is not a judgement, just a fact. It is not legalistic for them to state a fact. :confused:

 

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.

[Caribbean Queen]

I actually went back through the thread to check and I don't see very many posts like that.

 

Onceuponatime gave a list with things like, "No women wearing pants to worship services," but even that statement implies an extra-Biblical rule being imposed upon the congregation. That isn't discussing a personal conviction.

True, many posts are not like that.

 

I don't believe that the Holy Spirit will deal with each of us as individuals, so no man has a right to tell another what to do. If a preacher believes God wants women in skirts, it would make sense to preach it. You call that legalism because you think the rule is wrong.

[simka2]

If people on both ends of the spectrum think I'm a bad influence, then I'm probably doing something right. :lol:

 

 

 

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.

 

That is true. I guess that was how I read the post and it got me thinking. It is somewhat semantical (if that is a word ;)).

 

Yes that is my point, it is not legalistic to point out that someone is missing out on an "aspect" of a particular religion. :D

[Mrs Mungo]

If a preacher believes God wants women in skirts, it would make sense to preach it. You call that legalism because you think the rule is wrong.

 

No, I call it legalism because it is imposing a man-made rule upon *someone else.*

 

Yes that is my point, it is not legalistic to point out that someone is missing out on an "aspect" of a particular religion. :D

 

Right, and I think we can all agree to that.

[mytwomonkeys]

I agree with this, but it begs the question...What about legalism outside of Salvation issues. An earlier poster mentioned that "It doesn't even have to go so far as to say you won't be saved if you don't do x but x is the only way to grow close to God, if you don't do x you are missing out on the depth of Christianity, if you don't do x then you just want to make your own rules and have issues with authority."

 

Although, I agree that the first example is Legalism and the last is just plain Judgmental, the middle one is more of a gray area. Can someone not say, "that by not doing something a person is missing a specific type of depth?" That is not saying they are not in a deep spiritual state, or do not have their own depth, but I think the whole reason we have different faith practices is that we are drawn to a specific things that bring us to a desired depth. To say that someone is missing out on something specific, is not the same as saying they are shallow or lacking in some way.

 

For example: I am not RC, an RC person could say that since I do not pray the Rosary I am missing out on a certain depth of Christianity. They would be right, I am. An Evangelical could say that I am missing out on a depth of worship since I do not participate in Praise and Worship, they would be right. That is not a judgement, just a fact. It is not legalistic for them to state a fact. :confused:

 

I think it gets confusing. I wonder if their has to be another component for it to be legalism? Maybe, the power to enforce/manipulate/shame others into following your standards.

 

Just thinking out loud. ;)

 

good thoughts & lots to ponder over. i think the line is when we takes something beneficial & beautiful and create unholy dogma out of it. so often we take scripture and use it to measure others, but the bible tells us that human judgement cannot produce the righteousness of god. some things aren't legalistic, they are just facts, i agree. but even then, i've always felt there were some very biblical black and white teachings (thing i don't need to pray about, as His will is very clear). but when i see these topics discussed, i realize what is very black and white to me is totally interpreted differently by another believer. i think legalism creeps in when i can no longer love the other person because they refuse to see things my way or live them out as i would (especially when both parties are of the same faith). like mother teresa says, to be a christian is so simple but that doesn't make it easy. so true.

[Princess Peach]

True, many posts are not like that.

 

I don't believe that the Holy Spirit will deal with each of us as individuals, so no man has a right to tell another what to do. If a preacher believes God wants women in skirts, it would make sense to preach it. You call that legalism because you think the rule is wrong.

 

Not sure why the examples given in other posts are a problem, since that is what the OP asked for.

 

I have only seen legalism in conservative Christian circles, mainly IFB circles, of which I was a part for many years. It has taken me a long time to get out from under that oppression. All that to say, that is the vantage point from which I view legalism.

 

That being said, legalism (IME) means extra-Biblical rules practiced by a group of people that purport to follow the Bible alone. Therefore, a preacher preaching that women should only wear skirts (which is not found in the Bible) is being legalistic. Furthermore, it has been my experience that when this issue is brought up, said pastor will deny that it is a requirement. He will call it a conviction.

 

That is because legalism is a heart issue at its' core. Legalists will say that they only have convictions for themselves, but deep down, they will see themselves as more godly than someone who does not follow the same rules. They will probably not admit this, however. I have seen this firsthand. It is extremely hurtful.

[Nakia]

True, many posts are not like that.

 

I don't believe that the Holy Spirit will deal with each of us as individuals, so no man has a right to tell another what to do. If a preacher believes God wants women in skirts, it would make sense to preach it. You call that legalism because you think the rule is wrong.

 

If that preacher preaches that "rule" as necessary for salvation or by saying you aren't a good enough Christian if you don't wear a skirt, then yes, it is legalism.

 

Anther example: Our pastor talks about tithing (rarely but it does come up, of course). Tithing is biblical, and God promises a blessing if we tithe. My husband and I feel that God wants us to tithe and that we are being obedient in doing so. Our pastor does not say "If you don't tithe, you aren't a real Christian" or "If you don't tithe, you will go to hell." If he did, I wouldn't be going to church there.

 

That is an example of what is legalistic and extra-biblical. It is a man-made twist on scripture and turns an obedience issue it into a salvation issue. Jesus paid the salvation price for us. Nothing we can do can earn it. We will never deserve it.

 

Should we tithe? Yes. Should we go to church and fellowship with other believers? Yes. Should we refrain from getting drunk? Yes. All because it's biblical and Jesus encouraged it.

 

Are those salvation issues? No.

[elegantlion]

I

 

Just thinking out loud. ;)

 

I agree there is a lot of grey, especially in areas I used to view as black and white.

 

I also think people are ready to step in (or out) of the grey at different times. But you don't shove people into the deep end of the pool, and then refuse to help when they are drowning either. Which is where I've been a few times.

 

I really think God is looking down, shaking his head, and telling us we are making this whole thing way too complicated.

 

And that's my non-biblical, probably non-spiritual, take on it all today. :tongue_smilie:

[8circles]

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.

 

Exactly.

[8circles]

:D

I really think God is looking down, shaking his head, and telling us we are making this whole thing way too complicated.

 

And that's my non-biblical, probably non-spiritual, take on it all today. :tongue_smilie:

 

Couldn't agree more. Except I don't think its non-biblical or non-spiritual.

[TravelingChris]

I also think it has a lot to do with motivations and with results. LIke we are hearing all these stories how people are hurt be these legalities, not brought closer to God. I was friends with a chaplain's wife in one place I lived. She was a lovely Godly woman and there was nothing flamboyant or particularly worldly about her. But you could see the hurt on her face when she described how the church she grew up in forbid make-up and jewelry and pants and cards and tv and movies and on and on. See all these rules just make people feel inadequate and undeserving. There is nothing loving about such rules. It leads people to think they are BAD because they want a nice hairstyle or want to watch a movie.

 

I also noticed over the years that churches which deny all types of activities and pleasures often have participants overindulging in other allowable pleasures like overeating. It just doesn't seem healthy to me either emotionally or physically.

[SnowWhite]

Speaking as a former legalist here. In practical terms it would look like someone putting rules/standards above loving people, but it boils down to the belief that doing good things will put you in right standing with God. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone acting like a legalist who didn't have that belief.

 

This is close to my thinking, but I would adjust it slightly. I'd say it boils down to the belief that NOT doing these "good" things will put you OUT of right standing with God.

 

The church we recently left goes so far as to say that you cannot receive the Holy Ghost (be sealed for Christian service, completely converted) until you are Totally Sanctified, and at this point you will no longer even be tempted by any of your prior vices, up to and including addictions such as cigarettes. It is often said that if anyone struggles with sins or shortcomings they have not "fully surrendered". The implication is that they might not be among the Chosen, perhaps not even intended for salvation.