FOUR CONSEQUENCES OF LEGALISM
OBERT HENDERSON

The purpose of this article is to point out four consequences of legalism: human pride, anxiety, spiritual paralysis and disputes among Christians. These four consequences are clearly undesirable so far as one’s spiritual welfare is concerned. However, from the standpoint of some who teach (we call it “preach”) one of the consequences-human pride and the resulting party spirit-appears to be desirable, that is, this is a result they strive to achieve through their teaching.

Human Pride

If one holds to a legalistic view of justification and also considers himself righteous, pride and arrogance result. The reason is that legalism is a system in which one depends on himself for righteousness rather than upon God — righteousness achieved through law keeping is a righteousness of one’s own self (Phil. 3:9). Thus the legalist who thinks himself to be righteous must consider this to be the result of his own merit. When one views the source of his righteousness as being in himself, the result can only be an arrogant spirit.

Growing out of this pride is legalism’s manifestation of itself in a party sprit. One who thinks he is righteous by his own doings will believe that only those who are just like him are also righteous. Only those who think as he thinks, who do only what he does and who interpret just as he interprets can possibly be accepted by God. Legalism stresses that justification is achieved only through infallibly correct understanding and practice (since one mistake condemns). Therefore, it follows that if a legalist thinks himself saved, he must also view as saved only those who are just like him. This means, to him, that the party with which he is associated constitutes the “loyal church”, and only those in that party are Christians.

This particular consequence of legalism, as mentioned above, seems to be desirable so far as many preachers are concerned. They want those whom they teach to believe the party they represent is the equivalent of the body of Christ. For instance, I heard a preacher complain recently that a certain percentage (I think he said 10 percent-and I wonder how he got his statistics) of the members of the Church of Christ actually thought that there were Christians outside their group. Though from men’s standpoint a party spirit may be desirable, from God’s standpoint it is far from it, since the party spirit is classed along with other “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21).

Anxiety

Another undesirable consequence of legalism is that it may be the source of tremendous anxiety and fear among those who accept its dogmas. If one fully recognizes the implications of legalism, and yet accepts it, it is not difficult to see how the result can be anxiety, tension and insecurity.

Justification by law requires perfect law keeping, with no mistake at all being allowed. If Christianity is a system of legalism, this means the Christian who falls short is doomed. But we do fall short-“if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8). Now, if one accepts legalism, and recognizes his own personal imperfections, the resulting conflict which he experiences may well lead to frustrating anxiety and shattering tension. This anxiety, fear, tension can be a cause of emotional disturbance. It has been pointed out by others that there is a high correlation between legalistic religion and mental illness. Robert Meyers has made brief reference to this (“The Rising Tide,” Mission Messenger, May 1962). Norman Parks has also written about this problem (“The Attack on Mental Illness,” Gospel Guardian, Sept. 6, 1962). Lest there be any misunderstanding, it should be emphasized that the Guardian did not editorially endorse Parks’ article. Instead, Robert Welch wrote a strong denial of its implications (“The Mental Illness Attack Gains Momentum” in the same issue.)

The reason for the relationship between legalism and mental illness may well lie in the fact that the legalist may be characterized by strong guilt feelings. He knows he does not keep law perfectly, and so feels the guilt of sin. Legalism provides no consciousness of continual cleansing by the blood of Jesus (l John 1:7), therefore provides no basis for a recognition of true forgiveness. As a result, the guilt one feels may become oppressive. The impossibility of reconciling the conflict between knowledge of his own imperfection, and the idea that he must earn salvation through perfect law keeping, may be more than the individual can handle.

One way in which some try to reconcile this conflict is to attempt to do enough good works to offset their shortcomings, so that on net balance, the scales tip in their favor. Their lives are a continual round of frenzied activities as they try to earn their salvation. In its extreme, this response goes to the point of one’s manufacturing laws for himself (and perhaps trying to bind them on others too). One becomes an expert at weaving a fabrication of new laws from the sheerest of threads, even invisible ones. A case in point is the man I once heard of who slept with his head hanging off the bed since “the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head.” The “example” of Jesus became a law! Of course, we can smile indulgently at his hobby, but are some of our laws not woven of similar thread?

What is being said here does not mean that God does not want active service from Christians. He does. We are to “try our hardest” (2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:5-NEB). And this involves, as Jesus said, self-denial, cross-bearing and even losing our lives (Matt. 16:24-26). But, it must be emphasized that there is a great difference between one’s frantic observance of outward forms and his “trying his hardest” which manifests itself in one’s losing his life to the will of God!

A difficulty with the approach to Christianity that results in this frantic frenzy is that the motivation for such frenzy reflects an absence of assurance, peace of mind or hope. The concept which causes one to be worried that he hasn’t quite done enough to tip the scales in his favor robs the word of God of the promises that assure the believer of salvation (John 1:16; 1:24). It overlooks the confidence that we can have in Jesus (1 John 1:7; Rom. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:5-11). One characterized by this frenzy can never really feel free from fear, nor can he say “It is well with my soul.” In contrast, John writes, “So our love for him grows more and more, filling us with complete confidence for the day when he shall judge all men for we realize that our life in this world is actually his life lived in us. Love contains no fear-indeed fully developed love expels every particle of fear, for fear always contains some of the torture of feeling guilty. This means that the man who lives in fear has not yet had his love perfected” (l John 4:17-18, Phillips).

Another quite different response to the tension that arises from legalism is for one to limit his application of “binding law” to a relatively few outward observances and forms. He reduces Christianity to a set of laws that can be kept. Then he keeps these, and so feels justified. For instance, he will say that the “laws” concerning baptism, the Lord’s Supper, attendance at certain assemblies, dropping something in a collection plate each Sunday, and similar things are important. He makes salvation dependent on observing these. But, the “laws” concerning perfection, idle words, thoughts, love, patience, and similar things to these are held to be unrelated to salvation. The New Testament writings are thus divided into two sets of “laws”, one set relating to outward observances deemed to be essential to salvation—in fact, a set by means of which one can earn salvation. The other set, relating to the spirit, the inner man and self-crucifixion, is considered to be unimportant. Since these things constitute a different “law”, failure to keep them is regarded as insignificant and not detrimental to one’s approval by God. By making this two-way split, it is possible for one to rationalize his shortcomings as being in an insignificant area, and point to his observance of the important “laws” as proof of his righteousness. He is thereby able to solve the conflict which legalism otherwise poses. By limiting the application of legalism to a few “laws” which can be easily kept, he can relieve the tension and frustration that others feel in the face of legalism. I suppose that so far as mental health is concerned, this has some value. So far as spiritual health is concerned, it is a highly questionable approach to Christianity, to say the least!

Spiritual Paralysis

A third undesirable consequence of legalism is what we may call “spiritual paralysis.” By this is meant the condition in which the Christian becomes inactive with respect to God’s service. In fact, we may say that he is psychologically unable to be active, he is paralyzed. This paralysis grows out of one’s recognition of his utter incapability to merit salvation. Legalism says that a man must do this, by his own works and strength. What appears to happen is that some, accepting the dogma of legalism, simply give up trying. They know that the situation is hopeless, if legalism is true! The attitude is one of despair: “Why invest in a hopeless cause?”

I know a man whom I consider to be a fine Christian who has testified to his own experience in this regard. He had been taught that he must earn his salvation by his own merit. But, he came to realize he could not do it. Recognizing the hopelessness of the situation, he simply quit trying. As a result, he was for a time, “unfaithful.” It was not until he realized that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by law through merit, that he again became an active Christian. When he understood that he is saved by the merits of Jesus’ blood, he had hope. And seeing the relationship of serving God to his salvation-that he serves because he belongs to God he was motivated to activity and service.

We often hear references of one kind or another to the number of people who used to be Christians but who are no longer faithful. I wonder how many of these have become discouraged and have given up because they realized the utter hopelessness of the legalism which they were taught. How many have been spiritually paralyzed in this way? And how many of these might be restored to active service and commitment by an appeal based on God’s grace and the merits of the blood of Jesus as the means for their salvation?

Conflict and Disputes

The last undesirable consequence of legalism which we consider here is that it often is a source of disputes and wrangling among brethren, as well as the occasion for hair-splitting. The question of attending assemblies can provide us with an illustration.

Based on a misconception of Hebrews 10:25, legalism makes attendance at assemblies a law, the keeping of which helps one earn his salvation. But, legalism inevitably faces a question arising Out of this: “How many assemblies must one attend in order to fulfill the law. Must he attend all assemblies, or only the one of Sunday morning?”

I can recall past experiences when this question came up in Bible classes. Invariably, there was much hair-splitting as we tried to distinguish between assemblies—to differentiate the Sunday morning meeting from the one on Sunday evening, or from the midweek meeting. We were trying very seriously to arrive at an answer to “what does the law require?”, being unaware that it wasn’t a matter of law to begin with. I remember that I was always dissatisfied with the answers that were given, and it bothered me that I had no satisfactory way to deal with the questions. Now, recognizing it is not a matter of law, the questions pose no problem.

This same question of “how much attendance” is often the occasion for conflict and disputes among Christians. This conflict is often seen in preacher-member relationships. Legalism always sets a minimum somewhere, and says that when one has met that, he is then righteous. Disputes arise when one person tries to set the minimum for someone else. When a preacher attempts to set the minimum attendance for members of the congregation, he often runs into opposition and criticism from those who want to set it for themselves at another (lower) point. The preacher usually sets the minimum attendance essential for one to be saved at three meetings a week (unless there is an evangelistic meeting in progress). The reason for three is that the congregation usually holds meetings on Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night.

It seems to me that much of this sort of dispute could be eliminated if we would talk about devotion to God, self-denial, seeking to build up our brother, and such things as these and less about “law”.

Conclusion

So far as the cause of Jesus Christ and the spiritual welfare of Christians are concerned, all the consequences mentioned are undesirable. They are traceable, everyone of them, to legalistic teaching. This being true, then a long step toward healing these troubles and solving the problems would be taken if we would abandon a legalistic approach and instead, preach and teach God’s grace, and man’s response by faith, as the basis for our salvation (Eph.2:8-10).

The one who fully recognizes that he is a sinner saved by grace, and who realizes the implications of this truth, will commit himself wholly to Jesus. His entire life will be devoted to the love for God which arises out of this recognition. “We love him because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19)

The answer to legalism is a recognition of grace. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) . When one realizes that salvation is by grace through faith, and not by merit through law keeping, then he can have hope, peace, assurance and a motivation to full service arising out of love prompted by understanding something of God’s love. And there can be freedom from the paralyzing and spiritually deadening results of legalism!

Fortunately, many who are exposed to legalism rise above it, and conduct themselves as those who realize they are sinners saved by grace. But, so long as legalism continues to bind others to fear, pride and factionalism there is a need for emphasis of the fact that “the Spirit (we) have received is not a spirit of slavery leading (us) back into a life of fear, but a Spirit that makes us sons …” (Rom. 8:15, NEB). And there is need for the clear proclamation of the truth that “Christ set us free, to be free men” (Gal. 5:1) .—117 Sheridan, Loveland, Colo.