DYSFUNCTIONAL CONSEQUENCES
OF LEGALISTIC TEACHING
Obert Henderson

It appears to be a valid assumption that most people who devote self and time to any work of teaching about spiritual things have a sincere desire to see others fully committing themselves to Jesus. Yet, our teaching often fails to motivate people to so commit themselves. In spite of the fact that we are genuinely desirous of encouraging Christians to become more zealous and fervent in service to God, we often see them characterized by the observance of some outward forms but lacking in evidences of real devotion to the Lord. The thesis advanced here is that this result is, in many instances, directly traceable to the kind of teaching which we do.

In support of this thesis, we are borrowing a term from management theory and applying its concept to our teaching. The word “dysfunctional” is a medical term and signifies the improper functioning of an impaired organ. This term was borrowed from medicine by management theorists, especially those concerned with the area of human relations in business organizations. A fairly common use of the term by these men is to describe the unexpected and undesired consequences that at times result from certain decisions or actions by the manager.

The idea is roughly this: a manager takes a certain action, aiming to achieve a planned response (an expected, desired consequence) from the people affected by his action, but instead of the planned response, his action results in a different response (an unexpected, undesired consequence). Because of this, the organization, or that part affected by his decision, does not function properly, or as the manager desires. This unexpected, undesired result is the “dysfunctional consequence.” Note particularly that it arises directly from the manager’s action.

Carrying the idea further, it is sometimes pointed out that the manager often does not see that the undesired consequence arose from his action, but instead attributes it to something else. He reasons that perhaps he failed to communicate clearly, or that others failed to understand or that perhaps it was just perverseness on the part of others. At any rate, he doesn’t associate the undesired result with his action. With this view of the situation, he may then conclude that what is necessary to achieve the desired result is just to make the original action stronger or more emphatic than it was before. So, he reinforces the original action with the result that the dysfunctional consequence arising from it is likewise reinforced. The more emphatic he makes the action, the more emphatic is the dysfunctional response.

Since management theorists borrowed the term from medicine, we have no hesitation in borrowing it from them. It is an idea that we can apply with profit in understanding why our teaching often fails to achieve the desired results. Specifically, it is contended here that a legalistic approach to teaching results in consequences that are dysfunctional. Instead of legalistic teaching motivating Christians to real devotion, commitment and service (the expected, desired consequence), it usually motivates only to a bare minimum of outward observances (the unexpected, undesired consequence). It doesn’t accomplish what we want to accomplish. But we, failing to see the connection between legalistic teaching and these consequences, usually become harder and more grim in our legalism, hoping this will achieve the desired results. But what happens is that the original undesired consequences are simply reinforced, in most cases.

By “a legalistic approach to teaching” is meant the approach which makes the content of the teaching a set of legal demands concerning outward observances, with the idea presented that if a person conforms to these, this conformity creates righteousness and acceptance by God. These “legal demands” generally derive from a particular interpretation placed on the New Testament writings which view them as a set of legal codes which must be discovered somehow to be binding through a process of determining which statements, commands, examples and necessary inferences must be accepted as a part of “the law,” Certain things, by this process, become a part of the code (e.g., the “five items of worship”) , while certain other things are omitted from it (e.g., the holy kiss). What is included in such a code varies from teacher to teacher, depending on a number of factors which influence his particular interpretation. But, this point is not particularly pertinent here, and further, has been adequately covered in other articles in this journal, so we leave it here and get back to the thesis.

One frequently observed dysfunctional consequence of legalistic teaching is that it motivates the disciple to do only what he thinks is the minimum essential to “get by.” Legalism has no power to motivate one beyond this point. It can never lead men to full, free, complete devotion to the will of God. This is seen in the case of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were meticulous about outward observances, but never devoted themselves to God, as reflected in their omission of the weightier matters with which the Law also dealt. Legalism leads men to the performance of rites and ceremonies, but not to true sacrifice and service.

Our approach to teaching has been largely and traditionally legalistic. We have tended to lay down a code of laws relating to outward forms, with the implication that if people perform these, they will have made themselves righteous and so have reached a state of acceptance by God. What results, if a person is really convinced of this, is the tendency to be very meticulous about the outward forms, but very much unconcerned about the values of faith in Jesus, or about the idea of full and freehearted devotion of one’s whole self to God.

This is an undesirable situation. We feel the need for Christians to be more devoted. But, we are often totally unaware of the fact that the lack of commitment or genuine service is really the direct result of the type of teaching that is done. Lacking this insight, we then usually conclude that the undesired consequences are the result of the failure of Christians to understand what we have been saying. So, we decide that what is necessary is to make the teaching stronger, and more grim. Believing legalism to be the answer, and being unable to find more “legalistic demands” in the scriptures, we usually wind up piling a set of legal codes of our own devising on top of our legalistic interpretations of the word of God. We hope by this means to generate the motivational power to set Christians off to full, free service. But, what happens is that the dysfunctional consequences persist,’ and are themselves reinforced by the strengthening of that which give rise to them in the first place.

It is true that the point where different ones place the minimum essential for a person to establish his own righteousness varies from individual to individual. One may have many more “laws” to which he attempts to conform than does another. But legalism always sets a minimum of law keeping somewhere, and says that when one has met this, he has then become righteous, and so is saved. Free, full, devoted commitment to Jesus is never the result of legalism; it provides no basis for such a relationship.

Once we recognize that the dysfunctional consequences that are manifested are not due to the failure of people to understand what we’re saying, nor of perversity on their part, but that they are really resultant from the legalistic approach to teaching, then we are in position to change the teaching and the basis of the appeal we make. But, what kind of appeal should be made?

As an answer, notice the appeal that Paul made when he wanted to encourage Christians to present their bodies to God as living sacrifices. In Romans 11:29-36, he magnifies the fact that our salvation is by God’s mercy. The greatness of this concept is indicated by this tremendous exclamation: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” Then shortly thereafter follows the moving exhortation: “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice . . . “ (Rom. 12:12). The appeal is not based on the idea that there is a legal demand which we meet and so merit approval but that a recognition of God’s mercy should lead to such a full response of dedication to God. Once a man fully realizes that he is a sinner saved by mercy (Rom. 11:32), and that his only claim to salvation is found in his response, by faith, to the grace of God (Eph. 2:8-10), then the instruction as to how God wants him to live is sufficient.

Dysfunctional consequences result when people accept the ideas of legalism. A legalistic appeal can never motivate people to the level of real service, genuine devotion or meaningful commitment to Jesus and his life. It is only as we recognize the grace of God, and the love on which that grace is based, that we have within us the motivation to full, wholehearted commitment to Jesus. “The love of Christ controls us . . .” — 3117 Sheridan, Loveland, Colorado 80537

_____________

Obert Henderson is Assistant Professor of Business at Colorado State U. He is a graduate of Harding College and took his doctorate at University of Oregon. He has ministered extensively to Churches of Christ, but is not now the minister to any congregation.