Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Speaking of surety

Second, obedience is liberating, because it is self-accepting; we do not have to prove our self-worth before God, or before others. We already have value because God loves us and has acted in grace toward us. God wills liberation for all; people do not have to earn the right to be free. Legalism, on the other hand, feeds on guilt and insecurity because we can never quite be sure we are good enough or that our efforts will suffice. As a result, legalism tends toward moralism and contentions which can divert attention and energy from responding to God’s will for liberation and shalom.— Shalom, page 75 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
I'm convinced that the desire for surety in things leads inevitably to legalism. What do you think?
</idle musing>

4 comments:

Marilyn Lundberg said...

There is something about this that troubles me. I distrust the use of the term "legalism" because I am never sure what is meant. Ever since I was a teenager (in the late 60s, which rather dates me), I have heard the term "legalism" thrown at anyone arguing that it was wrong, or harmful, to do something or other, usually by those who were trying to justify behavior that had previously been considered wrong. So, to take an example, the total abandonment of the concept of Sabbath. It at some point became "legalistic" to actually observe the Sabbath, and so we now have, as Brueggemann has argued, a "24/7 society of consumption." And, if one is to be obedient, is it not a good idea to have some clear idea of what that means?

jps said...

Marilyn,

I've been thinking about this all night. I think what you are referring to is more antinomialism than legalism. Antinomialism says that any kind of rules or regulations are bad. Kind of a "if it feels good, do it!" type of mentality. Bonhoeffer would call it cheap grace.

Legalism, on the other hand, is striving to gain approval. A good way to tell the difference is if you think you have to perform a certain way to gain God's approval or acceptance, it's probably legalism...

Hope that helps a bit, anyway.

James

Marilyn Lundberg said...

It helps to know how you are thinking about it--thank you. I agree with your definition. But that is not always the way it is used. I have often heard in discussions of disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees (or Paul and the Jews) that the problem with the Jews was that they were legalistic (i.e., wanted to consistently obey the law) but Jesus was more liberal and relaxed the rules. Therefore we can, too. A huge distortion and a real problem for the church.

jps said...

Marilyn,

Yes. A classic misunderstanding of what was going on; too much misreading of Reformation theology : (

And we end up with cheap grace...

James