As promised, I saved the best for last. I saved this for last, because it is my observation that this definition is the one that people most often have in mind when they use the term legalism, but the Bible in no way describes strict adherence to God`s Word as a bad thing. So, if legalism is really de rigueur (which it is not), then call me a legalist, call Jesus a legalist. Consider two main reasons why I say this. Needless to say, tone legalism is the most difficult type of legalism to identify. Often, those who engage in this kind of legalism defend their services on the grounds that «I am only pointing out the sin of men.» It is legalism wrapped in orthodoxy. Global jurists believe that a world government is not possible for the foreseeable future, but that without a world government, international law can nevertheless solve or greatly improve global problems of collective action. International law, normally considered as an object of governmental interest, becomes the subject: it evolves, it expands, it restricts. And it develops in a way, embracing states, forcing them to act outside their interests, pushing them to cooperate more and more, and thus solving the global problems of collective action. As is clear from the previous discussion, legalism is a complicated and ambiguous concept, and any attempt to reduce it to a definition is dangerous. Nevertheless, several common elements can be identified. Legalism is not just about trust in judges; it also involves belief in the law – for example, the belief that a vague document written in another era, such as the United States Constitution, can provide guidance for today`s policy, or that the common law provides a basis from which correct answers can be drawn, or that laws have inherent meanings.
These views have been fiercely attacked in law schools for nearly a century, but the public seems to be stronger than ever. It may be that people internalized the legal profession`s self-conception – exemplified by mantras such as «judges discover the law instead of making it» – because legalistic nations were relatively free and prosperous. It may be that legalistic thought appeals to ordinary habits of mind. Or it may be that people prefer the rule of judges to that of politicians, but have not been able to reconcile this favoritism with the ideological appeal of democracy. Either way, legalism is a powerful force. Distinguishing between three types of legalism is very useful. There is no such thing as «good legalism.» Good works spring from a heart that is redeemed by Christ. The works in which we walk are an act of the Holy Spirit within us (Ephesians 2:10).
Faith without works is dead, but everything that is done without faith is also sin. Faith is a gift from God, and true faith will produce good works. Denying our own efforts and turning to Christ for His righteousness is the only way. Paul was also very aware of this form of legalism. In Romans 14, he wanted to make sure that Christians would not judge each other on «contentious matters.» Some Christians ate meat, others did not (verse 2). Some Christians followed certain holy days, others did not (verse 5). Some Christians drank wine, others did not (v. 21).
In the West, too, legalism has always had its detractors. In the United States, critics argue that legalism, and in particular the obsession with rights, has corrupted national debate, interfered with democratic autonomy, imposed decisions on judges for which they are unsuitable, and led to excessive litigation. In Europe, legitimate pride in the development of effective supranational institutions goes hand in hand with a deep unease with the so-called democratic deficit – the European public`s apparent lack of interest in European politics and a distrust of supranational institutions over which it has little control. Fundamentally, legalism involves abstracting God`s law from its original context. Some people seem to be busy in the Christian life following rules and regulations, and they see Christianity as a set of do`s and don`ts, cold, deadly moral principles. It is a form of legalism that consists only of keeping God`s law as an end in itself. Regulate. Laws are rules that are enacted before the conduct they regulate. They are not always accurate, although legalism favors precision over vague standards.
But the key point is that the rules are set in advance so that people are informed. Rules take precedence over power. Thus, in the legalistic spirit, the right to abortion is governed by the US Constitution and should not be determined by the religious and political forces that exercise it in the political arena. Similarly, smoking policy is better determined by courts that apply common law principles than by legislative bargaining. Legalism is a set of assumptions about how the world works. He places great confidence in the power of law and legal institutions to solve problems. The dominance of legalistic thought in the United States is an old topic first addressed by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. Tocqueville did not care about the role of legalism in international relations; His discussion of legalism focused on its national variant. Of this version of legalism as it existed in the United States at the time, he said, «There is almost no political question in the United States that is not sooner or later resolved into a legal question.» He said Americans expected laws and legal institutions to resolve moral and political disagreements that were resolved in other countries by political, religious or community institutions. Tocqueville captured an important truth and seems to have predicted the future strangely.
Liberal legalism. There are other elements of legalism, but the discussion so far should be enough to give it a taste. But there is another important aspect of legalism, and that is its long-standing association with liberalism – in the classical sense, which emphasizes individual freedom. The rule of law, for example, is seen as both a liberal and a legalistic virtue: it refers to the idea that people should not be subject to the whims of rulers, as this is incompatible with freedom and autonomy. While it is true that legalism prohibits arbitrary governance, it does not literally prohibit illiberal laws – such as laws against freedom of conscience and expression. But in practice, legalists tend to be liberals, and at least in the United States, liberals tend to be legalists. Legalists do not believe that laws enacted by dictators are really compatible with legalism, and so they usually insist on democratic institutions, and for democratic institutions to work, there must also be open debate, freedom of speech, and so on. Liberals could potentially advocate unfettered direct democracy, where everything is determined by politics, as long as the public itself thinks liberally. But in practice, liberals insist that judges must protect the liberal order on the basis of a largely liberal constitution, at least as these judges have interpreted it. So legalism tends to be liberal, but it doesn`t have to be that way.
Closely related to the former, Sproul says that legalism «obeys outward appearances, while the heart is far from any desire to honor God, the intention of His law, or His Christ.» Legalism separates obedience from our relationship with God. But there are other ways to define legalism. Another form of legalism is also common in Scripture, when believers are told that they must follow man-made rules rather than (or incidentally) God`s rules. Not only does our fallen human nature tend to defy God`s law, but we also tend to make our own laws. It remains to be seen whether legalism can prevail and benefit people in countries without legalistic traditions. If one limits one`s attention to the vast developing countries, there is perhaps nothing more impressive than the distance between their legalistic ideals and the behaviour of governments. Many countries have ambitious and generous constitutions that grant important rights – to education, to health care – that simply will not be enforced. Judges can write satisfactorily and impressively about the importance of these rights and the government`s obligation to respect them, but they cannot enforce their judgments. Most often, the judiciary is corrupt or incompetent, or controlled by the government; People may stand in line in court, but don`t expect a verdict for a decade or more.
To understand the second type of legalism, we must remember that the New Testament distinguishes between the letter of the law (its external form) and the spirit of the law. The second form of legalism separates the letter of the law from the spirit of the law. He obeys the letter but hurts the spirit. There is only one subtle difference between this form of legalism and the one mentioned above. Let me first say that God did not change the fourth commandment. He doesn`t care about the day you go to church, what the day AFTER he told him to rest while he rests. Second, legalism has nothing to do with it. It is a man-made doctrine against Torah observance (instructions) that people call God`s law. Just read Matthew 5:17-20, 1 John 3:4 and Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 (to name a few) and tell me that the Father`s commandments have nothing to do with walking a believer. They do not understand that the Pharisees, like the Church today, invented their own teachings and traditions that the people among them had to follow.