Certain Hope

Ramblings and Writings of Mark Bates, Senior Pastor of University Presbyterian Church, Orlando.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Legalism

I was talking to pastor/friend the other day (yes, pastors have friends!). We were discussing how, in our emphasis on grace, some people seem to be despising the law of God. We are so anti-legalism that it can sound like we are anti-law. Indeed, I think that some of what is written on grace these days certainly approaches this.

Sidebar – For those of you who are students of theology, I think this is one of the beauties of the Reformed Tradition. Following Calvin’s lead, I think the Reformed tradition offers a proper, biblical understanding of law and grace that is missing in other traditions. Dispensationalism tends to dismiss the law as part of the old era. Luther sets the law and the gospel into such an antithesis that the law is practically evil. Calvin and those of the Reformed tradition, though, maintain what is called the third use of the law. The first use of the law is called the civil use. Here, the law is used to restrain evil behavior. The second use of the law (also known as the pedagogical use) is the law shows us our sin and our desperate need for a Savior. The third use of the law is it is an instruction on how we are to live as believers. Luther rejected this third use and, on a practical level, so do the Dispensationalists. That is why most of the non-Reformed writers on grace seem to minimize the seriousness of sin. As much as I enjoyed theses authors’ books on grace, they talk about grace without calling us to see the absolute horror and ugliness of sin, nor do they call us to radical obedience. That in turn leads to a cheap grace.

Because of the heavy emphasis on grace these days, anytime someone says anything about keeping the law, he will be accused of legalism. I think this is one of the reasons why some dismiss me as a legalist when I talk about the Sabbath. To say that we should not work on Sundays, shop on Sundays, or give our lives to organized sports on Sunday, sounds legalistic. It certainly is counter-cultural. To say that God’s people ought to gather together every Sunday for the sacred assembly sounds even more legalistic. That is because, to most contemporary evangelical Christians, to make any claim that we should obey the law smacks of legalism.

Yet, here is the irony. Just a few years ago, Evangelicals were outraged because Judge Roy Moore of Alabama was forced to remove the Ten Commandments from the courtroom. Christians have been outraged that we can’t post the Ten Commandments in schools, courthouses, libraries or any other public space. They see this as robbing us of our Christian heritage. Yet, at the very same time, most Evangelicals regard the Fourth Commandment as an option. Maybe we should get a new version of the Ten Commandments with the fourth one scratched out.

If asked, most Christians would say that the Fourth Commandment (Remember the Sabbath Day) does not apply today. Some might even say, “I agree that worshiping on Sunday and not working on Sunday is a good thing, but I don’t want to be legalistic about it.”

Here is where we have our misunderstanding. Obeying the law is not legalism. If you obey the law so that God will love you, then that is legalism. If you add a bunch of rules to the law that are not in the Bible and say that Christians must follow these extra-biblical rules, then that is legalism. If you think that God will like you more if you obey the law, then that is legalism. However, saying that we ought to keep the law or that God is honored by keeping the law, is not legalism. The law of God still defines sin for us. Without the law, we would not know what sin is (see Romans 7:7, 13). Breaking the commandments is still sin, even under grace. If you love God, then why would you want to sin against Him?

Again, if you seek to keep the law so that God will love you, then that is legalism. However, if you seek to keep the commandments because God loves you, then that is grace.

The Ten Commandments provide for us a summary of the law. As such, we are not free to pick and choose which ones we want and which ones we do not want. They stand and fall together. All the Ten Commandments are rooted in the character of God and the nature of creation. If you break them, they will break you, not because God is harsh, but because the Ten Commandments are built into the fabric of the universe. If you try to disobey the law of gravity by jumping off the roof of your house, you will get hurt. That is not because God is cruel and trying to keep you down, but it is just the nature of the universe. The same is true for the moral laws. God doesn’t say, “Do not commit adultery” because he wants to rob you of joy, but because He wants to increase your joy. The same is true of the Sabbath, coveting, idol worship, etc… The commandments are not just good, they are good for you. Furthermore, these laws are not just good ideas, or helpful suggestions. They are laws of God.

I certainly don’t want to return to the legalism of my past. This rediscovery of grace has changed my life. But this message of grace is not a call to disregard God’s good commandments and engage in a life of self-indulgent living. Grace, properly understood, leads to a greater desire for holiness. It actually empowers us to live in a godly way that legalism cannot (those of you who hear me preach regularly know that is one of my reoccurring themes).

So, be done with legalism, but don’t throw out the law of God with it.

Labels:

8 Comments:

Blogger M. Flexibilis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:56 PM  
Blogger M. Flexibilis said...

Good post.

It's hard to strike a balance between grace and law, and one can certainly go off in the weeds on either side. I like that 1 John 1-2 brings grace and law together in tension but doesn't try to resolve the tension -- perhaps because it's something that is impossible to resolve this side of glory.

I wonder, however, if you could tease out your understanding of what is required of us in keeping the Sabbath. (I have long held a view that is somewhere in between Calvin and the Westminster Standards regarding the Sabbath, and while the Reformed tradition has a long history of "Sabbath keepers" from the Puritans down to John Frame, I have found myself largely alone in my immediate community and family in trying to apply that commandment in a practical way.)

I read your post below on the Sabbath and I remember that sermon that you link to (I just wished the tape of the following sermon on the subject hadn't been lost!), so to avoid redundancy, let me be a tad more specific: if, according to the commandment, we, our family, our servants, our beasts, and the alien within our gates are to rest, is it generally permissible to go out to eat after church or to buy hot Krispy Kremes for a Sunday school class since both of those require others to work on Sunday (cf. Neh. 10:31; 13:15-22)? I like the idea of feasting, but how does that square with the prohibition given to the Israelites not to even gather Manna on the Sabbath? Should meals instead be simple and prepared in advance if possible?

2:27 PM  
Blogger Mark Bates said...

Mattaeus,

I would be closer to Calvin than the Westminster standards. When I was ordained, I took exception (as almost everyone does) to that portion of our doctrinal statement. I believe it is far more limiting than Scripture is. In fact, if my memory serves me, the Scots have the most narrow view of the Sabbath of any in the Christian community. I do not believe any other tradtion approaches their narrowness on this issue. I believe this is why John Murray got in trouble with his church in Scotland. A woman was taking public transportation to church and Murray said that was okay. The church did not look fondly on Murray's position! All that to say, I believe the Scottish Presbyterian tradition (as seen in Westminster)goes beyond Scripture and even takes away some of the blessings of the Sabbath.

At the same time, I wrestle with the proper application of the Sabbath today. I will admit to being very inconsistent in my application of it. For example, I will go out to lunch, but I won't shop. That is inconsistent. Part of my rationale for going out to lunch is my value for community. Usually when we go to lunch, it is so that we can go (often spontaneously) with friends. I want people to get together for a leisurely lunch on Sunday. I think that is the spirit of the command--slow down, enjoy God's blessings, trust God enough not to keep working seven days, etc...

For the Jews, the Sabbath was a feast day, but, as you mentioned, they did most of the preparations the day before.

10:52 AM  
Blogger M. Flexibilis said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Mark.

I say that I am to the left of Westminster because I would also have more leniency than Murray's buddies and would allow for more recreation than the Puritans. I am to the right of Calvin because I don't think the Sabbath is abrogated (compare the arguments made in Calvin and the Sabbath by Gaffin and this sermon by Hugenberger). It seems to me that the spectrum of Sabbath-keeping is not accurately represented as a totally continuous spectrum since there seems to be a quantum leap or discontinuity between those who think the Sabbath should (somehow) be kept practically and those who, like Calvin, think it is kept only spiritually under the New Covenant. In saying that you are "closer to Calvin," I presume you mean that, like me, you are to the left of Westminster but not across the "abrogated" gap.

I have the same experience with friends going out to eat spontaneously after church, but I have historically taken the opposite tack of declining if the meal is at a commercial establishment. (Actually, a few times, I have gone along for the social interaction but have not ordered food or drink. How's that for splitting hairs?) Still, I am also very inconsistent in my practice since I don't always use that time for rest and recreation well even if I am not active in regular commercial activity.

I'm a little confused about your example of eating out and shopping. Do you mean that you see the value of community as trumping the command not to make others work (in a similar way that pulling an ox out of the ditch or healing someone trumps it)? If not, can you explain your rationale for that distinction? (Or are you saying that you're living inconsistently with what you think you ought to do?) Would you object if someone found the same level of community in shopping with others?

Clearly, the question all we Sabbatarians must struggle with is how the command can be applied in the modern world. To be sure, there are plenty of sticky issues akin to your public transportation example. Should we partake of entertainment such as TV and radio that causes others to work on Sunday? Should we fly home from vacation on Sunday just because it's significantly cheaper or more convenient? Should we buy gas on Sunday (what if it's pay at the pump)?

I once asked John Frame about the going out to eat issue, and he responded thusly:

"We usually avoid eating out on Sunday, on the principle that we shouldn't ask others to work for us on that day. But we have made exceptions to that. In one instance I preached at a church away from home, and I was cared for that weekend by an elderly couple who were happy to have me in their home,
but no longer felt they could cook for guests. They took me to a restaurant, and I raised no objection. My reasoning: (1) When you get right down to it, there's no significant difference in Sabbatarian theology difference between preparing food yourself and paying others to prepare it for you. (2) It would probably be better if fewer restaurants were open on Sunday. But some should be available, for travelers, people without other alternatives. I can't micro-manage that issue by any biblical principle. So I don't think that in the abstract it's wrong to open a restaurant on Sunday.

"So I guess what it boils down to is that we try not to avail ourselves of restaurants, so as not to encourage the general cultural attitudes toward the Lord's Day, but we don't make an absolute principle of it."

I think his practice demonstrates faithfulness to his (and my) understanding of what is required and yet has leniency for practical complications.

12:34 PM  
Blogger Mark Bates said...

Matthew,

In the part where I confused you, I was just admitting confusion myself. However, I like the information you gave from Dr. Frame. I think I will adopt that as my answer:-)

11:17 PM  
Blogger M. Flexibilis said...

So does that mean you won't go out to eat this Sunday if a friend spontaneously asks?

8:01 PM  
Blogger M. Flexibilis said...

FYI, John Frame's chapter on the 4th commandment from his Doctrine of the Christian Life has just been published online for free.

3:21 PM  
Blogger M. Flexibilis said...

FYI redux, Frame has three chapters on the Sabbath in his book:

28. Views of the Sabbath
29. The theology of the Sabbath
30. The Sabbath in the New Covenant

All are (or will soon be) available at http://reformedperspectives.org

11:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home