Legalists sometimes defend themselves by claiming that legalism, properly understood, is just what Paul condemned in Galatians 1: the sin of making justification conditional on some work or ceremony performed by the sinner. In other words, legalism is works-salvation. So, they say, if you formally affirm the principle of sola fide and preach that people can be saved without any prerequisite work, you can’t possibly be a legalist, no matter how many rules you make and impose on the consciences of people who are already converted.

No. Legalism is the error of abandoning our liberty in Christ in order to take on a yoke of legal bondage (Galatians 5:1). There are actually two kinds of legalism.

First is the one recognized and despised even by the fundamentalist with his thick rule-book. It’s the legalism of the Judaizers. The Judaizers wanted to make circumcision a requirement for salvation. They had fatally corrupted the gospel by adding a human work as a requirement for salvation. That is certainly the worst variety of legalism, because it destroys the doctrine of justification by faith and thereby sets up “a gospel contrary to the one you received” (Galatians 1:8-9).

But another kind of legalism is the legalism of the Pharisees. It’s the tendency to reduce every believer’s duty to a list of rules. This is the kind of legalism that often seems to surface in our comment-threads. At its root is a belief that holiness is achieved by legal means—by following a list of “standards.” This type of legalism doesn’t necessarily destroy the doctrine of justification like the legalism of the Judaizers. But it does destroy the doctrine of sanctification, and it is certainly appropriate to call it what it is: legalism—i.e., a sinful misapplication of law; an attempt to make law do work that only grace can do. Like the Judaizers’ brand of legalism, it brings people under a yoke of bondage Scripture has not placed on them.

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what Jesus said about the legalism of the Pharisees: “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4).

Pharisaical legalists are not content to live life in the power of the Spirit, cultivate discernment, and avoid things that are clearly profane or immoral; they make lists of rules that prohibit Christians from practically everything but church activities. It’s not enough to avoid gambling; they insist that good Christians will avoid card-playing altogether. They’re not content with doing things in moderation and with self-control, they make rules that call for strict abstinence from everything doubtful—and they try to impose those rules on other Christians—saddling people with a yoke that they imagine exists somewhere in the white spaces of Scripture.

You want rules? Here’s a good one to start with: When it comes to the question of spiritual duties, where Scripture stops speaking, we should, too.

The Pharisees’ sin was making rules that went beyond what Scripture actually said. For example, they read in the law that it is a sin to take God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7), so they expanded the rule to forbid the use of God’s name at all. They invented euphemisms to be used in place of God’s name (Matthew 23:22).

The Pharisees saw the stress that was laid on ceremonial cleanness in the Old Testament, so they invented all kinds of extra washings and required people to observe those as well. In fact, Matthew 15 tells how the Scribes and Pharisees tried to condemn Jesus for not making his disciples observe their extrabiblical traditions: “Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat’” (Matthew 15:1-2).

There was no biblical commandment requiring people to do any ceremonial washing before they ate. The priests were supposed to wash their hands before offering sacrifices to God, but no law required everyone to wash up before every meal.

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees was a stern rebuke: “He answered them, ‘And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?’” (Matthew 15:3). In other words, He rejected their tradition because it was not what the Word of God taught. Even though we all know that washing before meals is good hygiene, and a good idea, He flatly rejected their notion that it is “sinful” not to do it.

He said their legalism transgressed the Scriptures. Legalism always has an anti-biblical tendency. You cannot go beyond Scripture without ultimately setting yourself at odds with Scripture.

That is precisely what happened in the fundamentalist movement, and one of the major reasons that movement has failed so notoriously. Legalism diverts people’s attention from sound doctrine, so that the typical fighting-fundie legalist is doctrinally ignorant, reserving his or her “convictions” for a silly man-made system of rules. Ask the typical self-styled fundamentalist to define the difference between imputed and imparted righteousness, and he will not be able to do so. Suggest that it’s OK for women to wear pants, or for people to use another version besides the KJV for Bible study, and the same fundy will lock and load his angry dogmatism, ready to do battle or even die for some ridiculous man-made “standard.” Thus, as Jesus said, they have nullified the Word of God for the sake of their man-made traditions.

Let me say this plainly: It is a sin to impose on others any “spiritual” standard that has no biblical basis. When God gave the law to Israel, He told them, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). And, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

The same principle is repeated in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for their sectarianism, saying “I am of Paul”; “I am of Apollos,” and so on.  His rebuke to them includes these words in 1 Corinthians 4:6: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.”

That is a good guideline for how we should exercise our Christian liberty: Don’t go beyond what is written in Scripture. Don’t make rules to impose on others; don’t devise rituals and forms of worship that are not authorized; and don’t speak on such matters where God has been silent. That’s the whole principle of Sola Scriptura applied to Christian living. If we really believe Scripture is a sufficient rule for the Christian life, then we don’t have to add anything to it.

If we add rules that Scripture doesn’t make, —especially if we try to impose our man-made rules on other people’s consciences as a standard of spirituality —we are guilty of the same sin as the Pharisees and worthy of the same harsh rebukes Christ leveled at them.

Thanks to Phil Johnson at TeamPyro

Is There A Difference?

Introduction

Pastor Robert Smith is facing a hard decision. Another Bible-believing pastor in his town has asked him to participate in a joint youth outreach emphasis. The difficulty is that Pastor Smith has some significant differences with the other church in terms of ministry philosophy and the practice of youth ministry. Although he does not wish to throw stones, he does not feel comfortable participating in the event. Pastor Smith is sure that some of his church members believe that he should publicly separate from the other church. Other members would see nothing wrong with participating, given that the gospel is more important than a church’s “parochial interests.”

Although there are times when a church must unequivocally separate itself from individuals and ministries, many times a pastor is faced with a situation like the one above. He does not believe that he has clear enough Scriptural warrant to publicly declare another ministry or minister to be “in sin,” but he does not think it prudent to involve himself too closely with that ministry or a particular project. The question is whether he has the leeway to limit his participation without officially separating from the other ministry. Are there such things as prudential limits on association that are different in nature from Biblical separation?

Theological Basis for Prudential Limits on Association

There are many issues about which we can and should be dogmatic because the Bible speaks plainly concerning them. There are other issues that we disagree on due to personal preference. Candor requires us to admit, however, that there are also disagreements that are neither clearly matters of right or wrong nor clearly matters of personal preference or opinion. These may involve ministry philosophy, theological systems, prudence, and personal or group standards.

There are many examples that fall within this third area. A believer may decide not to participate with fellow believers in certain amusements or other activities because he does not think they are wise or God-honoring. Christian parents may place restrictions on their children that are not placed on other children in their church. Church leaders may feel the need to caution their members against the potential dangers associated with a certain Christian movement, however well-meaning it may be. For those responsible for the care of others, whether parents or pastors, such practices make common sense. The question remains, however, whether they are Biblically justifiable. Two principles commonly called Baptist distinctives form the basis for personal and ecclesiastical liberty in this area.

The principle of soul-liberty and the importance of conscience

Soul liberty is the belief that the individual believer’s conscience is not bound in matters of faith by the opinions or dictates of others. Soul liberty is sometimes misunderstood to mean that a Christian has the freedom of conscience to believe whatever he or she wants to believe without consequence. This is not the case. Where the Scriptures are clear, all believers must submit. Neither does soul liberty mean that believers are not to be subject to the rule of legitimate authorities in practical matters. It does mean, however, that a Christian’s conscience is answerable to the Word of God, not the dictates of men.

One implication of soul liberty is the fact that we owe respect to one another when we disagree. One responsibility that comes with soul liberty is that believers must seek to live according to their convictions.  Paul makes this point very clear in his discussion of dietary restrictions and special holy days (Rom. 14). Since the Old Testament dietary restrictions no longer applied to the believer, the brother who retained compunctions about such things was “weak” in the faith in that he lacked a mature understanding of New Testament theology. Nevertheless, in the case where the brother is incorrect in his assessment, Paul insists that he not be pressured into violating his conscience, because to do so would be sin.  If conscience is so important even when it is not fully informed, how much more should it be respected when based upon an arguably valid ethical or prudential concern?

Related to the concept of soul liberty is the Baptist distinctive that a local church is a voluntary association of regenerated persons. Although a believer has a spiritual obligation to join himself to a local assembly, he is not assigned to one as in a parish system. He, therefore, has the liberty to make this choice based on his conscience and the degree of accord between the ministry in question and his sincere Biblical convictions.

What is true of individual Christians is also true, in varying degrees, of those who are in authority over others. Parents, pastors, and Christian school administrators have an obligation not simply to enforce explicit Biblical commands but also to practice Biblical wisdom when it comes to those under their charge. This authority varies according to the relationship between the persons involved. Pastors are not parents of their members. Neither do they have the right to bind the consciences of those under their authority apart from clear Biblical precept. Nevertheless their shepherding responsibility does give them authority in the church.

The principle of the autonomy of the local church

A central feature of congregational polity as practiced by Baptists and others is the independence of the local church. The local assembly retains the right and responsibility to manage its own affairs free from the control of any other ecclesiastical body. Local churches may cooperate in various ways to advance the Kingdom. However, each church is free to participate or not as it understands its responsibility to the Lord.  Churches must decide what missionaries to support, what activities to become involved in, and what colleges to recommend to their young people. In some cases these decisions are mandated by Bible precept. In other cases they are matters of prudence. In such cases the church can and should make distinctions based on its understanding of Scripture and its sense of its mission and convictions.

The Fundamental Difference between Separation and Limited Participation

This article is neither a defense nor a comprehensive explanation of the doctrine of separation from a professing believer. Nevertheless, one must observe some basic tenets of the Bible’s teaching on that subject to distinguish it from prudential limits on association.

Several Bible passages form the foundation for the practice of separation from a fellow believer. This article will assume a basic familiarity with the passage and will also assume without argument that the texts genuinely teach the requirement to separate from a fellow believer in appropriate circumstances.  The passages in question are Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, and Titus 3:8-11. These passages embody several central principles concerning separation from a disobedient Christian—principles which stand in stark contrast with the concept of limited participation.

Separation demands a clear Scriptural justification

The first pertinent characteristic of these passages is that they all require a clear Biblical basis for separation. In each case there is clear, Biblically-defined wrongdoing on the part of the offender. In Matthew 18 Christ says that if a brother sins we are obliged to go to him privately to try to resolve the matter. The process of taking one or two witnesses, bringing the matter before the church, and finally expelling the offending brother also implies that the sinfulness of the brother’s action is not in doubt. In 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul commands the church not to keep company with a professing Christian who is “a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner.” The behaviors listed here are violations of clear Biblical norms for Christian living. II Thessalonians 3:6 commands us to withdraw ourselves from every brother who “walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received” from Paul. It also mandates that we refuse to keep company with those who do not live in accordance with Paul’s word in the epistle (v. 14).

Another important passage in this regard is Titus 3:8-11, in which Paul instructs Titus to constantly affirm teaching that promotes good works on the part of the believers. By contrast he is to avoid “foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law.” In this context Titus is further to reject a “heretick” after warning him once or twice. In this context, the term “heretic” appears to refer to someone who contentiously causes divisions over pet doctrines and interpretations.  For present purposes, whatever the particular problem, Paul affirms that the basis for withdrawing from such a person is our knowledge that he “is subverted” and is sinning (vv. 11-14).

These passages, as well as the overall teaching of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, mean that we may separate from a brother only if he is doing wrong as determined by the application of clear Biblical statements or principles. Mere disagreement, however sincere, as to the wisdom of a course of action or practice does not justify separation. On the other hand, Christians and churches alike regularly decide for reasons of prudence or conscience to avoid participating in certain activities, supporting certain ministries, or promoting certain emphases. Similarly one may be very uneasy with the direction of another believer or ministry. Many times one cannot say with certainty that such concerns can meet the standard of proof required for Biblical separation.

Separation is obligatory

If there are Scriptural grounds for it, then separation is not optional. In each of these passages, the instructions to the believer are given in the form of imperatives. To fail to separate in such cases is itself disobedience to the Word of God. There appear to be variations in the process. In the case of an individual dealing with a sinning brother, he must go to him before proceeding to further steps of discipline, because the passage emphasizes the desire for restoration. In the case of a leader confronted with a contentious, divisive member, he should warn him once or twice before rejecting him. If a professing believer is living openly contrary to the commands of Scripture and Christian purity, then the church is to withdraw fellowship from him and put him out. In all cases, however, the responsibility to separate in appropriate cases is not left to preference or opinion. Separation from a Christian brother in case of clear, willful, and persistent disobedience is not optional; it is mandatory.

By contrast the decision to participate or not to participate in something that makes me uncomfortable is an individual decision. Two brothers or two churches might come to different conclusions about the matter.

Separation aims to bring the wrongdoer to repentance

Given that a brother or sister is in clear violation of God’s Word, the most loving thing that we can do is to work for his or her restoration. Restoration in such cases demands repentance. Therefore, both our words and our actions must communicate, however kindly, “You are in sin, and you must repent.” There is no room to “agree to disagree” or simply to avoid talking about an unpleasant situation. Restoration is at the center of Christ’s instructions in Matthew 18 (”thou hast gained thy brother”). Paul also makes it clear that the result of the withdrawal of fellowship is that the erring brother should “be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14) and presumably repent. In 2 Corinthians 2:1-11, Paul instructs the church regarding restoring a repentant brother who had been disciplined by the congregation.

By contrast, in cases that are not Biblically definite one might find a brother’s course of action unwise and admonish him to that effect. Nevertheless, such cases do not warrant an insistence that the brother repent. One might say or think, “I think you are going down a wrong road, and I cannot in good conscience go with you. Nevertheless, we all have to give an account to the Lord Jesus, and I pray that He will guide you in His will.”

Separation is public

In at least some cases, the process of discipline begins in private, and the circle of exposure expands only insofar as necessary to bring about the desired repentance. Nevertheless, if the brother is stubborn, then the command is to tell it to the church, with expulsion as the next step. Once the matter has come to the point of separation, the entire congregation knows about. It is, at least as far as the Christian community is concerned, a public matter. A response that allows brethren to simply part ways while keeping the reason for the breach personal is inconsistent with the purposes of separation—the restoration of the believer through group admonition and the protection of the public testimony of the assembly.

Separation involves significant disassociation

Although there may be some variation in the degree to which we avoid a person from whom we separate, it is clear that the break that we must make is very significant. It involves treating him “as an heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17); “put[ting] away” the person (1 Cor. 5:13); not eating with him (1 Cor. 5:11); rejecting him (Titus 3:10); and refusing to keep company with him (2 Thess. 3:6).

By contrast, the decision not to participate in an activity or not to join an association, for example, is limited in scope. It does not prevent personal fellowship or mutual encouragement. Neither does it necessarily imply that believers or ministries who disagree about certain things cannot participate together in other areas. One is certainly not entitled in these cases to treat the brother with whom one disagrees as an unbeliever or even to insist he is disobedient. In fact, one may need to take pains to indicate that, while there is a strong disagreement, there is still mutual esteem as fellow servants of Jesus Christ.

The above distinctions show that the kind of limited participation being discussed in this article is not simply different in degree, but it is also different in kind from Biblical separation. Separation from a disobedient brother must be based on clear Biblical commands or principles, is mandatory, is public, is significant, and is designed to bring about repentance. On the other hand, nonparticipation arises from personal convictions or conscience, is based on prudence, may be limited in scope and public exposure, and often allows the disagreement to remain.

Examples of Nonparticipation

Two examples, one Biblical, and one historical, help illustrate the principles being discussed. Luke records that Paul and Barnabas had a serious falling out over John Mark. Although there are various views on who was right in the underlying dispute, I believe that both Barnabas and Paul had a point. John Mark should have been accorded a chance at rehabilitation in the missionary task. Later on, Paul states that John Mark had become useful to him in the ministry—this not to mention John Mark’s authorship of the second Gospel. On the other hand, the journey that Paul had planned probably was too demanding for the young man. What would have happened to John Mark if he had abandoned the work a second time? Moreover, the Lord led Paul to Timothy, a man perfectly suited to be his protégé. In any case, Paul and Barnabas’s pointed disagreement as to ministry philosophy and practice led them to go in separate directions. Although it does not serve the Spirit’s purpose for Luke to settle the disagreement, the result was the advancement of the gospel through the formation of two mission teams in place of one.

Church history also supplies an example in the case of Adoniram Judson. Commissioned as a Congregational missionary, Judson came to the Baptist position on believer’s baptism while studying the Scriptures on his sea voyage to the field. Being a man of integrity, he wrote the Congregational mission board to offer his resignation and sought the sponsorship of the Baptist agency. Judson was no “hyper-separatist”; however, he understood that his Congregationalist supporters had sent him out as a Congregational missionary and had the right to expect that he would in that capacity plant Congregational churches.

Dangers Associated with Limited Participation

There are several dangers involving the misapplication of the principles that we have discussed. The first two come from blurring the line between separation and prudential limits on participation. First, in an attempt to avoid difficult or awkward situations a pastor might decide just to avoid interacting with a sister ministry, when in reality loving confrontation and, if necessary, separation are Biblically mandated. A church might think and affirm that it is practicing Biblical separation when in reality it is simply avoiding the other ministry and not fulfilling its Scriptural duties. A second danger is separating from a brother or ministry without clear Scriptural warrant. Although there may be latitude to limit participation with another ministry due to a good-faith disagreement or matters of wisdom, publicly separating in such cases would be schismatic.

Other dangers arise from a failure to discern correctly when one should limit participation. Parents can be overly protective on the one hand or negligent on the other in regulating the associations of their children. Individuals can be either overly rigid in personal practices at the expense of fellowship with other believers, or they can fail in their responsibility by always going along with the group. Finally, churches, through their leaders, can sometimes be overly scrupulous or nervous about associations while at other times ignoring their responsibility to maintain in good faith their doctrines and practices. In the end, as in other areas of practical theology, decisions must be arrived at through the application of Biblical principles and spiritual discernment.

Thanks to Sharper Iron