We’ve been here before; the discussion of legalism. Legalism is the catch word now days meant to tear down any shred of conviction or standards in the believer’s life. Something came to me that I wanted to share…
I’ve noticed a common tendency, one I think is a big problem, among the legalist-accusing folks. ALMOST always, when I hear someone accuse another of legalism, the accuser asserts that “the legalist” is keeping rules or standards because he thinks it will make him more godly, and he expects others to keep his rules also. This last assertion is almost always an assumption. I’ve personally never heard anyone who is a “dresses only” lady tell others they must stop wearing pants to avoid being in sin. And I know quite a few.
As Mr. Phillips pointed out in the last post, some of the issues of ethics (birth control, education, etc) warrant careful study of the Scripture and may have definitive lines in a Christian’s life. I’m not even talking about those subjects here.
I’m using “modesty” for illustration purposes, since that’s one of the most common areas of disagreement among Christians. This thought can be applied to any topic.
I am defending those who are accused of legalism. But hear me…I’m not defending it because it is so personal to myself. I love dresses, I love femininity, and I wear a lot of dresses. But we do not have a strict, “dress only” code in our home. Just want you to understand that so you can see that I speak from a less biased starting point than you may think.
Everyone agrees that the Bible says “dress modestly”. What we don’t agree on is the definition of modesty.
So when one family decides to “err on the side of caution” as a reader pointed out in the last post, why are they so prone to be called legalists? (By the way, dresses have as much to do with simple femininity as they do modesty for those who wear them…)
For illustrations sake, consider the command: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Again, agreed.
I know many couples, including my husband and me, who “err on the side of caution” in this area. Barring an impossible situation, we’ve just made some RULES, across the board, to keep us above reproach and temptation. Stuff like not allowing ourselves in the position of being alone with someone else, not having exclusive friendships with members of the opposite sex, etc.
These RULES are not written in Scripture. They are our own standards to protect from potentially harmful consequences. They still do not make us immune to sin, but they represent a deep honor and desire to do all we can to remain faithful to our vows.
I submit that many “dress only” families subscribe to a similar concept. Would you call me a legalist because I purposely avoid being together, alone with another man? Why not? Isn’t that a “man-made” rule?
Could I remain faithful to my spouse if we didn’t have those rules? More than likely, yes. So the rule in itself is not where my trust is. The rule is simply a visible guideline that keeps us from creeping, accidentally over into forbidden territory.
And if a lady wears dresses only simply for the sake of feminity, how tragic the act of being called a legalist! It would be the same as being called a legalist because you choose to only wear “warm” colors after the beauty consultant told you those were the most flattering.
I would hope that those of you who have different standards of modesty would reconsider your thoughts of legalism toward others. Understand what legalism is, and understand that you cannot, under most conditions, accurately label someone a legalist.
In Scripture, if someone had a higher standard about something not explicitly written, the “lower standard” people were to submit to the others for the sake of not offending a weaker conscience.
Just something to think about 😉
