1. The new legalism
That tongue-in-cheek introduction was intended to highlight the pressure many people feel to conform to a standard of “non-conformity” and to legalistically call dressing up for church legalism. Actually, I hadn’t intended to write an article on “dressing up,” but I thought that this subject was sure to give the purveyors of the new grace and the new legalism a spiritual wedgie. I can see them getting uncomfortable already. What could be more legalistic than writing about a dress code for church!?! But honestly, it’s not about the clothes. It’s a test to see if I can make the “Scandalous Freedom” crowd get curiously testy, and to come up with rules why I should not have rules.
By the way, what is legalism? That term always gets me. It seems to be a term that is thrown around as loosely as “Racist!”, “Nazi!”, and “Chauvinist!” The abortionist down the street calls me a legalist, but so does the nice Christian across town. In the last month they must have been listening to the same tapes.
The way some people talk, one would think that legalism is obedience to the commandments of God! But Jesus calls this true love (John 14:15,21,31; 15:10). So does Paul (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; 1 Tim. 1:5), James (James 2:8); John (1 Jn. 2:5; 5:2-3; 2 Jn. 6), Moses (Ex. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 7:9; 11:1,13,22; 19:9; etc), Joshua (Josh. 22:5), Nehemiah (Neh. 1:5), and Daniel (Dan. 9:4).
Others say that legalism is conformity to the tiny details of the law. But by this definition, Jesus is a legalist, because He insisted that believers in His kingdom who demote the tiniest details of the law will themselves be demoted in His kingdom (Matt. 5:19). He had the same concern even when denouncing unbelievers. Far from denouncing the Pharisees for their preoccupation with tithing herbs from the garden, He denounced them for neglecting the “weightier matters of the law.” Jesus said of the tiny details, “These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone” (Matt. 22:23). Anyone who said that about tithing today would be called a legalist! Yet it is clear in this passage that Christ was concerned about the weighty matters and the small matters of the law.
Another faulty definition of legalism is putting expectations upon others to keep God’s commandments. These people are fine with your private belief in something, but will say that you are a legalist if you try to convince them to believe or practice the same thing. But by this definition, John, the apostle of love, is a legalist. After all, didn’t John say to others (and not just to himself), “He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4)? Doesn’t Paul say to his audience, “a bishop must be blameless” (Tit. 1:7)? Practically every portion of the Scripture puts expectations upon believers as to how they should think, talk, and live.
Others think that legalism is saying that grace enables us to keep the law,1 or defining sin by the law rather than by the Spirit’s guidance,2 or looking at man’s outward appearance rather than at the heart,3 or “neglecting the spirit of the law in order to avoid breaking the letter of the law,”4 or a refusal to break “lesser” laws in order to fulfill “higher” laws out of love,5 or seeing the absence of any fruit as evidence of the lack of salvation.6 But none of these definitions can be defended from the Bible. It appears that the term “legalism” has become a weapon that is as flexible as the term “racist” has become in some circles. Opponents are intimidated into silence with the accusation of “Legalist!” As one wag put it, “Legalism is what one calls any system which has them observe laws which they don’t agree with, and a legalist is anyone who stands theologically to the right of where you stand.”
In contrast, there are three Biblical forms of legalism:
- Trying to earn justification before God through one’s own efforts at law-keeping rather than through faith in the perfect law keeping and atonement of Christ (Gal. 2:16; 5:4),
- seeking to be sanctified in one’s own strength apart from grace (Gal. 3:1-5), and
- adding new rules to the Bible.
It is the third definition of legalism that I have in mind when I speak of the “New Legalism.” Any time one accuses another of sin, he is in danger of legalism if he cannot back up his claim from the Word of God. Legalism is a sin. Therefore, to accuse me of legalism when I can back up my practice with the word of God is ironically engaging in legalism. It is giving a new standard of behavior (“Avoid this legalism.”) without the warrant of Scripture. And it is a most insidious form of legalism, because it masquerades as grace.
For example, one person insisted that any concern about clothing in church is legalism and that “those who are concerned about their outward appearance are bordering on vanity, and I thought that was a sin.” I sure wish Paul knew that before he started throwing around emotional terms like “dishonor” and “shameful” in his discussion of outward appearance! (See 1 Cor. 11:1-16). C’mon Paul! What’s the big deal if a woman shaves her head to get attention (v. 5)! Why can’t a man wear a baseball cap to church (vv. 4,7)?! Let’s give a little grace, man! Let’s stop using language like “ought” (v. 10) and “ought not” (v. 7) when it comes to church dress styles!
Of course, we know that people don’t want to argue with Paul like this, so they either ignore him or make his sayings cultural norms (and therefore anachronistic for today). But wait! I thought the “Radical Freedom” group was against cultural norms. I thought they felt it their sacred duty to buck any legalism in the interests of everyone’s freedom.
Hmmm. If we say that Paul is imposing a Biblical norm, we are in trouble. And if we say he was imposing a cultural norm, we are in trouble. After all, Paul himself bucked cultural norms and insisted with Christ (see Matt. 15:1-9) “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). So this puts us in a dilemma. Hmmm. Maybe we could interpret Paul as saying that “if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom [as following the customs that I just gave to you], nor do the churches of God” (v. 16). Yes, that’s the solution. Be contentious over everything we think is legalistic in church, and Paul will let me get away with it.
Of course, who verbalizes any of this? Instead, they make people feel guilty without doing any Biblical exegesis. They tell us, “I detest the idea of a ‘dress code’ for church with a passion,” little realizing that they have set a new dress code. They say, “The only commands in the Bible about dress code are to dress down.”7
Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. Finally we can have a Biblical debate instead of a shouting match. So where does the Bible tell us to dress down in church? Well, [they might say] James says somewhere that a man in fine clothes shouldn’t look down his nose at a man in casual clothes. I don’t think so. It says that the church shouldn’t ignore the “poor man in filthy clothes, and… pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes” (2:2-3). But [they might say] the point is that I am wearing ratty Jeans and a t-shirt so that a poor man won’t feel uncomfortable amongst all of these suits and ties. Ah. That is noble of you. But wouldn’t it be much more noble to follow James’ advice and buy the poor man some other clothes rather than making him sit in his filth, relative “nakedness” and shame (see 2:15-16)? Now don’t start judging me! [they might reply] I’m not. I’m just trying to find out the Biblical basis for dressing down.
I’m already so sick of that argument. It seems really stupid to debate. Since there isn’t a biblical command to dress up to church, shouldn’t it be based on your personal conviction?8 Well, that’s the point of this book, isn’t it? To determine if the Bible is at all concerned about the outward appearance of His people in church. I’m willing to dress down if that’s what the Bible commands, and I’m willing to stop talking about the subject if that’s what the Bible commands. In fact, I’m all into liberty. I love the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25; 2:12). But before we discuss the bounds of liberty, there are more myths that need to be exploded.