The Legalist/Sectarian Spirit

By Harley Pinon

Introduction

 

             Those who know me very well know that I am a member of the Church of Christ, and I have been for almost 60 years.  I have stated in another article Why I am a Member of the Church of Christ, and you may want to read that article as well, that I believe the Church of Christ, as I know it today, is the closest to teaching what the Bible says on most issues.  Many of my brethren in the Church of Christ like to write church of Christ.  When they do, they're trying to say that those of us who are members of the Church of Christ make up the church of Christ.  If you were not paying attention to my capital “C’s” and lower case “c’s,” then you missed what I just said.  When I refer to the Church of Christ, I am referring to the body of believers who use this name to distinguish themselves from other believers with whom they disagree on matters of doctrine, and, of course, the name they have chosen to identify themselves.

 

              In this article, I’m addressing what I consider to be a problem of some members of the Church of Christ.  That’s because I am a member of the Church of Christ.  I am most familiar with our problems, and most concerned about our problems.  There are many religious groups which have a very sectarian spirit.  I think some groups are much worse than the Churches of Christ.  Jehovah’s Witnesses are very sectarian, and very legalistic, and I find these to be two different ideas, but they usually go together.  I don’t know of many sectarians who are not legalists, or vice versa.

 

So What's Wrong with Legalists?

 

            What do I find so objectionable about the legalists, or the sectarians?  The legalists are often "splitting hairs" over what we can and cannot do in life and in the church.  I taught school in Texas for 33 years.  I remember when we went through the “dress code” issue.  There was a time when the rule was that a girls skirt had to come to her knees, or it was too short.  How could this be determined?   Have the girl get on her knees.  If her skirt touched the floor, it was long enough.  If it didn’t, it was too short.  The policy caused a lot of problems, and was eventually given up.  Not everything is that easy to determine.  Now it is just our judgment as to which skirt is too short, and which one is okay.  Once we lose the standard:  drop to your knees, "If your skirt touches the floor it is okay," then it becomes my judgment as opposed to someone else's.

 

            Sometimes in the church, we adopt similar concepts.  Sometimes what we have adopted as “law” is little more than tradition, or perhaps a matter of judgment.  Let me suggest the invitation song as an example.  We have come to conclude that every service must conclude with an invitation song.  It just wouldn’t be “scriptural” to end a service without extending an invitation song.   Scriptural?  Where in scripture is there a mention of an invitation song?  If my memory serves me correctly, it was the Wesley’s of the Methodist Church that came up with the idea of the invitation hymn.  It worked so well that Campbell and others in the Churches of Christ adopted it.  My problem with the legalistic spirit is that it becomes judgmental, based on what we have always done, as much or more than being based on scripture.

 

            But what if we refined things a bit, and we decide that we will be “good legalists.”  A “good legalist” is defined as one who bases doctrine on scripture.  Now have we clarified everything?  Hardly!  Why?  Well, the answer is pretty simple:  the New Testament is not a renewed or revised Old Testament.  It is not a manual on how to conduct our worship services, or the exact order of our personal lives every day.  We are not even told how many times we need to pray each day.

 

            We are not told in scripture whether or not we should have Bible School.  As a result, some “Churches of Christ” refuse to have “Bible School” before or after morning worship on Sunday morning because the “law of silence” means there is no command for it, so we cannot have it.  The legalists says, there is no command to build orphans homes, and there is no example of orphans homes in the New Testament, so no orphan’s homes.  The Bible is not clear on whether or not we can have multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper, or should we just have one—well, maybe one for each side of the auditorium.  What about women Bible school teachers?  At what point does a boy become a man?  When is it that a woman can no longer teach a boy because he is now a man?  Maybe it is when he is baptized, but where is this spelled out in scripture?  Oh the life of the legalist!

           

            The Lord had many, many differences with the legalists of His day.  Were they good legalists?  Well, let’s review one legalist’s prayer:  "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. {11} "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men; extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. {12} 'I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' {13} "And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' {14} "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."  (Luke 18:10-14 NKJV)  Please note the opinion of the Pharisee as he extolled his virtues.  It’s interesting that the Lord was not favorably impressed. 

 

            Maybe this is a good place to pause and try to clarify what it was about the Pharisee's that made Jesus so upset.  In one word, it was attitude!  Look at the prayer I just cited.  It is all about "me."  Count the "I"s  and look at the focus.  It is all on himself and how good he is.  That's the problem!  It's the problem of the Pharisee, the sectarian, and the legalist.  It's interesting how when we see this spirit it others, it is very offensive, yet some will even say, "I am a legalist and proud of it."  Therein is part of the problem as well.  "I'm proud of it," is part of the problem.  The Pharisees and the legalists become proud, arrogant, and self-righteous.  That is the problem.  It is a problem of attitude.

 

            On another occasion, Jesus put it this way, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. {24} "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Mat 23:23-24 NKJV)  I think verse 24 says much about the legalistic spirit.  It's straining at gnats that creates the problem.  The sectarian/legalist not only strains for gnats, he tries to make camels of them.  They become huge issues.   All the while, it is his attitude that is so deplorable.  The problem is pride and arrogance.  Jesus said, "And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."  (Mat 23:12 NKJV)

            It is all too easy to fall into the trap of legalism.  The legalist figures out the “moral code” that you  must live by, and if you don’t live by that code, then you will be doomed to live with the devil and his angels.  The legalist doesn’t have much room for tolerance for codes that differ in the least from his.  The legalist is not too concerned about mercy, yet James says, “For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (James 2:13 NKJV)  I think Paul was describing the legalist when he said, "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. {10} Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, {11} knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:9-11 NKJV)   Paul wrote a similar warning to Corinth,    "For I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I wish, and that I shall be found by you such as you do not wish; lest there be contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits, tumults;" (2 Cor 12:20 NKJV)  All of these attitudes show themselves at various times among legalists as the "contend earnestly for the faith."  Charles Hadden Spurgeon was a Baptist preacher, but he had these words of great wisdom, "Just be sure we don't contend with the devil's weapons!"  Too many times we do just that.  We have the wrong attitutude.
    

What is a Sectarian or legalistic Spirit?

 

        What is a Sectarian Spirit?  It's hard to define.  The dictionary is not of much help, so let me try to explain what I mean by a legalistic or sectarian spirit.  Maybe some similar expressions would be helpful:  I have used the expression, legalist.  It has been described as a party spirit.  It is sometimes characterized by the statement, or at least the thinking, that we are members of the only church that is right with God.   I think there are several churches who either have that spirit, or some of their members do. Was the spirit present in New Testament times?  What did Jesus think of it?  Does it really matter if we are sectarian?  What can we do about it?  So how can we define the legalist, or the sectarian?  Let's just use so synonyms to help:  self righteous, proud, arrogant, self centered, conceited, closed minded, and having a party spirit.

 

        How can you define it?  I was born in Kansas.  Being born in Kansas, I thought I was a Yankee.  My definition of a Yankee was one born and raised north of the Mason-Dixon line.  I was proud of being a Yankee.  I thought that was a good thing.  After all, that meant my state was on the right side in the Civil War.  When I later moved to Texas, I found that Yankees were often looked upon with disrespect because of the attitudes that some of them had.

 

        When I was twelve, my parents moved to Carlsbad, N.M. for my health.  When I was in high school, I worked in a service station, and I waited on may Texans.  In New Mexico, Texans are not thought of favorably.  They are thought of as arrogant, braggadocios, and often complaining, at least about the price of our gasoline.  So what am I saying?  I'm saying that the dictionary definition of a legalist does not give the flavor or feeling that most people have for legalists any more than it would help define a Texan.  I'm sure the dictionary would define a Texan as one from Texas.  It would define a "Yankee" as one north of the Mason Dixon line, yet these dictionary definitions carry none of the feelings that people have about these two words.  The same is true of the "legalist."  The dictionary definition sounds very noble, but people are understandably repulsed by the spirit and attitude of the legalist, or sectarian.

 

Was the Legalistic Spirit Present in New Testament Times?

 

        The first instance that comes to my mind is found in (Mark 9:38-40 NKJV) Where John said, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." {39} But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. {40} "For he who is not against us is on our side."  I think of this is a case where John had a sectarian spirit, and Jesus is correcting him as He says, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. {40} "For he who is not against us is on our side."  This was clearly a case of someone wanting to do good, and even doing it in Jesus name, but that was not good enough for John because they were not part of their group.  That was John's thinking, but it clearly did not meet the approval of Jesus.

 

        I know those of my brethren who would not have been too happy with Jesus answer.  It would have been, "But Lord, how do you know what they are teaching for doctrine, and if they are right on all their teaching?"  Obviously, there is reason for concern about these matters, but I believe that what Jesus was condemning was their harsh judgmental attitude toward these people and their missing the point that they were doing good, and doing it in Jesus name.

 

        The Case of Corinth:  The church at Corinth had a very divisive, party spirit.  In 1 Cor 1:11-12 (NKJV), Paul says, "For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. {12} Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ.""  Nothing in this passage or the context suggest anything good about any of these groups.  Some have immediately questioned this, and asked the question, "Well what about those who said, 'I am of Christ'?"  How can they be wrong?  Good question, simple answer:  They had the wrong attitude!  They had the sectarian spirit!  Why do I say that?  Well, look at the passage and the context.  If they were correct, don't you think Paul would have admonished them to get with the "I am of Christ" group and learn how to be like them.

 

        All three of these groups are grouped together.  None are exonerated.  Why not?  We've all attended school.  We've all shouted for our team.  We may have all shouted at one time or other,  "We're Number One!We're Number One!"  Well, I guess that's okay when we are talking sports.  Even in sports it can turn ugly, but in our religion, it gets even worse.  Not only do we say, or think, "We're number one,"  We add a second thought, "And more importantly, the only one!" 

 

What did Jesus think of it?

 

          What did Jesus think about it?  We've already touched on it, but just to review,   'But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. {40} "For he who is not against us is on our side."  (Mark 9:39-40)  It was a different situation, but on another occasion, Jesus wanted to pass through Samaria in order to get where He was going.  The people of a village in Samaria did not want Him passing through.  It really upset James and John, and here is the account:  "And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. {53} But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. {54} And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" {55} But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. {56} "For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village." (Luke 9:52-56 NKJV)  Yes, I know, not everyone with a sectarian spirit would go this far, but I do know of those who feel that everyone who does not believe just like them will be lost, and many don't seem to care, or if they do it isn't enough in many cases to show love for them, and to try to help them see the truth.

 

Does it really matter if we are sectarian?

 

        So we ask the question, "Does it really matter if we are sectarian?"  Put another way, "What's wrong with being legalists?"  Isn't it good to be a legalist?  Well, let me try to define a "legalist" again.  To me, a legalist often has a poor to bad attitude toward others.  He often has the attitude of the Pharisee.  The Pharisee was the ultimate legalist.  He knew the law, and likely kept much of the law, but in his "righteousness," he became obnoxious to God, and our Lord.  If you don't think Jesus was displeased with the Pharisee, read the 23rd chapter of Matthew:  the chapter of woes.  If you still don't get the point, read the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15, starting at verse 11.  I know of one man who totally missed the point of the story.  He was admiring the elder brother for being a wonderful son.  I'm not kidding--I wish I were.  The point of the story should be obvious.  Was the elder brother more "righteous" than his younger brother whom we call the prodigal son?  Well, by many standards, yes, he was.  That's the whole point, but there is another very important point:  it's the whole point of the story.  In the end it's the prodigal son who accepts the father and whom the father accepts and they embrace and love each other.  It's the older brother's "legalism," his "righteousness" that comes between him and his father, and his younger brother.  Jesus is the master story teller.  The best I can do is to repeat the story.  As I've already said, I know one man who missed the story that Jesus was telling.

 

So what about Legalism? or Sectarianism?

 

        Sometimes when I speak against legalism, some totally miss the point.  I'm not suggesting that we throw out the teachings of the Bible or the New Testament.  What I am saying is that Jesus and the Pharisees seemed to have almost nothing in common.  If you write all the things for which Jesus commended the Pharisees, I don't think you are going to have a very long paper.  It isn't that Jesus did not want us to be law abiding citizens.  He did!  He wanted us to obey the laws of God and the laws of the land.  He put it simply:   "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."  (Mat 22:21 NKJV)

He put it another way, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him; the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." (John 12:48 NKJV)  

 

        In no way do I mean to suggest that we ignore or treat lightly the word of God.  What I do see happening is people adopting the attitudes of Pharisees and their becoming judgmental of their fellow human beings.  I believe that Jesus taught we were to have tolerance for other people.  One simple illustration from my life.  Sometimes I talk to myself, and in some of those conversations, I say things like, "How could you do something so stupid!  I can't believe you did that!"  Within limits, I think it is okay for me to say things like that to myself, but I think they are generally off limits when we are dealing with other people.  In our frustration we might say something similar to our children, but we need to be very careful what we say and how we say it, and what the circumstances are.

 

        When I was in high school, my physics teacher arranged for me to spend my study hall hour in his office to be his assistant.  He was trying to get a little electric motor to run and he kept turning up the voltage until he reached 24 volts, but it still would not run.  He said, "How about we plug it in the outlet?"  I pleaded with him not to do it because I said it would burn it up.  He did it anyway.  The big puff of smoke reminded me of the TV commercials making fun of the "do it yourselfers."  He was so embarrassed, but I did my best to be nice, even when he handed it to me and said, "Harley, will you re-wind it for me?"  I did, and it ran, but it always seemed strange how I got to fix the damage when I didn't do the damage, and told him not to do what he did.

 

Scripture quotations marked "NKJV™" are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Bible Study with Harley