“Pharisaical" Legalism?

[ElijahW]

With the conversation of Legalism ongoing, I’ve had a question about a certain kind of Legalism that I don’t know the word for.

What is the label for a Christian who thinks that enforcing the Law by force of government is the way to the Kingdom? Believing that obedience to the Law brings about an individual’s salvation is Legalism but what do you call enforcing the law by the government, as the solution to collective salvation? Like within Islam, implementing Sharia Law can be seen as central to solving the problems.

I ask because one of the main reasons for criticism of Christianity that I get is that we impose our morality within the political system. I try to argue they should address that issue specifically, instead of trying to argue against the existence of God or Jesus. The problem is that I don’t know what word to use that identifies that kind of thinking within Christianity.

I have before used the term “Pharisaical Legalism” that I picked up from someone online but “Pharisaical” usually is associated with hypocrisy and not enforcing the Law by force, which is what I am trying to identify. It is also derogatory, which I don’t want to be when trying to discuss the issue.

 

[WagginDog]

A Christian who wants to enforce moral code by enacting legislation is Legalistic, because they want to laws to cause correct behavior. Only mercy causes repentance. Romans 2:4 If they want a non-legalistic approach what they should do is have a law that declares something to be immoral but enforce it mercifully. Mercy is the only thing that will make the law work properly. The popular usage of Legalistic came into English probably because of 2 Corinthians 3:6 not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The best example of not being legalistic is the written law of adultery vs. the spirit of the law. In the Bible the written penalty of adultery was death, however the priests and Levites didn't go around killing people. Death was deserved but not incurred. That is where we originally get the idea that the written penalty gives death, but the spirit of the law gives life. It sounds ironic, but if you think about it an adulterer was worthy of death, but execution would defeat the whole purpose of the law since there could be no repentance from a dead man. Killing them would be 'Legalistic', making the law ineffective.

 

[Yab Yum]

Theonomy.

 

[cyberlizard]

the use of the term pharasaical is intensely misleading. There were multiple streams of Pharasaism during the second temple period and they varied greatly in their level of what we would deem 'legalism'...

for example, consider the subject of adultery. One branch considered simply burning the food as legitimate grounds for divorce. Another branch considered divorce to be only on the grounds of something unseemly, and one particular new testament rabbi ruled that divorce should only be permitted on the grounds of marital infidelity, whereas another new testament rabbi ruled that divorce was permissible if one party changed their religious convictions.

so the term Pharisaical in intensely misleading both historically, sociologically and also biblically.



Steve

p.s. so as you can see what was legalistic for one stream of Pharisaic Judaism of the biblical period was complete leniency from another point of view.

 

[Verticordious]

Who exactly is alleging that laws exist to bring people to repentance? Laws exist to restrain and punish evil people. For example, since the United States has no laws against sexual immorality the number of broken families is rampant, especially among minorities. Kids are the primary victims of the sexually immorality of adults, which is why we should have laws to protect them from sexually immoral adults. IMO, parents who have children out of wedlock should lose the child. Though I know such a law will probably never be passed, there are plenty of couples waiting to adopt who are willing to be responsible parents. Marriage and parent is about meeting the needs of kids, not the wants of narcissistic adults.

 

[ElijahW]

Theonomy.

Winner! The word doesn't have a definition I would like but the wiki says this:

"Theonomists support public policy changes in accord with Biblical principles, but see those changes as coming about as a result of, and not the cause of, conversions to Christianity. Many seek a future earthly "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They cite the numerous scripture passages referring to God's collective judgment upon unrighteous nations and God's blessing upon those rulers and societies heeding His Word as evidence that the presence or absence of Christian values may profoundly influence the rise and fall of nations."

Thank you!

 

[Erose]

And this is the problem with a relativistic society. If you stand up for what is morally right you are automatically accused of forcing your religion on others where in fact in most cases you are outlining what is morally right no matter what religion you are a member of.

No matter what religion you are part of the last seven (or six if Protestant) of the Ten Commandments apply.

We should honor our parents, we should not steal, we should not murder, we should not commit adultery, we should not bear false witness, we should not covet our neighbors wife or his possessions. I don't care if you are a Buddist, Hinduist, Taoist, Daoist, etc. these apply in all societies and are necessary to hold back anarchy and tyranny.

The problem with the new Western society is that there is a concerted effort by Satan and his minions to turn right into wrong and wrong into right and because we as Christians don't want to be accused of pushing our religion on others we are allowing it to happen.

All of us know that if someone takes a baby out of a crib and smashes its skull and tears it apart that we are committing the most evil of crimes and that person should receive the worst of punishments. Yet it happens all of the time in this society, yet instead of a crib they are doing it within the mother's womb; and society has turned a blind eye to it and made it a virtue.

Society has made sex the paradigm of virtue yet we all know that happens when sex is abused don't we? We all can easily see the evils the sexual revolution has done to our society (high divorce rates, single moms, children being molested and abused, high abortion rates, AIDS and other stds running rampant, normalization of homosexual activities, all the sick fetishes out there, porn addiction, higher levels of rape, drug abuse, etc). Can anybody safely say that any of these results of the sexual revolution has improved society? No I don't think you can. But we as Christians have a better system of morality. It is the best system and as such I think we should push for that system when possible. I am not saying imposing the 1st three (or four if Protestant) Commandments on all society, but we should be fighting for the inclusion of the last 7 (or 6 if Protestant) commandments. Because when these are part of human society that society can truly say that it is a free society.

The whole reason why the United States is the country that it is has been due to the Christian foundation of our system not to secularism. We have been free for a long time in this country due to the Christian foundation layed out by the founding fathers. Not secularism nor being politically correct. You want to see what atheism does to a country go to Russia or China and see how those people are treated. That is what atheism and secularism does for you.

Nothing wrong with legalism if applied correctly.

 

[ElijahW]

[FONT=&quot]

Nothing wrong with legalism if applied correctly.

True but the question then should be, is empowering government leaders to control morality, the correct way to apply it? I think the criticism would be that you are empowering the princes/rulers of the world to impose morality instead of God. The devil is most personified in our rulers and that is who Theonomists are turning to for controlling society’s morality. Is this effective and rational or are the results not worth the criticism and people the Church loses due to this kind of thinking defining our religion?
[/FONT]

 

[Erose]

That is the primary function of any secular government. It's function has always been to establish laws for it's people to obey in order to keep some level of peace and order. Laws establish moral boundaries for the people in a society and it is absolutely necessary to have these boundaries in place to assure peace and order are kept.

 

[from scratch]

With the conversation of Legalism ongoing, I’ve had a question about a certain kind of Legalism that I don’t know the word for.

What is the label for a Christian who thinks that enforcing the Law by force of government is the way to the Kingdom? Believing that obedience to the Law brings about an individual’s salvation is Legalism but what do you call enforcing the law by the government, as the solution to collective salvation? Like within Islam, implementing Sharia Law can be seen as central to solving the problems.

I ask because one of the main reasons for criticism of Christianity that I get is that we impose our morality within the political system. I try to argue they should address that issue specifically, instead of trying to argue against the existence of God or Jesus. The problem is that I don’t know what word to use that identifies that kind of thinking within Christianity.

I have before used the term “Pharisaical Legalism” that I picked up from someone online but “Pharisaical” usually is associated with hypocrisy and not enforcing the Law by force, which is what I am trying to identify. It is also derogatory, which I don’t want to be when trying to discuss the issue.

Eh don't worry it is coming and there is nothing that one can do to stop it. There is no difference - legalism is legalism. They will get outward compliance by force and fear. It is said that the Muslim population will be the majority ehtnic group by 2035 in the USA. You will start seeing more fences for protection.

 

[from scratch]

And this is the problem with a relativistic society. If you stand up for what is morally right you are automatically accused of forcing your religion on others where in fact in most cases you are outlining what is morally right no matter what religion you are a member of.

No matter what religion you are part of the last seven (or six if Protestant) of the Ten Commandments apply.

We should honor our parents, we should not steal, we should not murder, we should not commit adultery, we should not bear false witness, we should not covet our neighbors wife or his possessions. I don't care if you are a Buddist, Hinduist, Taoist, Daoist, etc. these apply in all societies and are necessary to hold back anarchy and tyranny.

The problem with the new Western society is that there is a concerted effort by Satan and his minions to turn right into wrong and wrong into right and because we as Christians don't want to be accused of pushing our religion on others we are allowing it to happen.

All of us know that if someone takes a baby out of a crib and smashes its skull and tears it apart that we are committing the most evil of crimes and that person should receive the worst of punishments. Yet it happens all of the time in this society, yet instead of a crib they are doing it within the mother's womb; and society has turned a blind eye to it and made it a virtue.

Society has made sex the paradigm of virtue yet we all know that happens when sex is abused don't we? We all can easily see the evils the sexual revolution has done to our society (high divorce rates, single moms, children being molested and abused, high abortion rates, AIDS and other stds running rampant, normalization of homosexual activities, all the sick fetishes out there, porn addiction, higher levels of rape, drug abuse, etc). Can anybody safely say that any of these results of the sexual revolution has improved society? No I don't think you can. But we as Christians have a better system of morality. It is the best system and as such I think we should push for that system when possible. I am not saying imposing the 1st three (or four if Protestant) Commandments on all society, but we should be fighting for the inclusion of the last 7 (or 6 if Protestant) commandments. Because when these are part of human society that society can truly say that it is a free society.

The whole reason why the United States is the country that it is has been due to the Christian foundation of our system not to secularism. We have been free for a long time in this country due to the Christian foundation layed out by the founding fathers. Not secularism nor being politically correct. You want to see what atheism does to a country go to Russia or China and see how those people are treated. That is what atheism and secularism does for you.

Nothing wrong with legalism if applied correctly.

Morally I find no difference with the church people than the world. Has become just another important social club for contact purposes both immoral and business.

No thanks.

 

[Harry3142]

I believe that the word you are looking for is a form of the word 'theocracy'. Under that form of government the State carries out and enforces the laws of a particular religion, such as Islam.

 

[ElijahW]

That is the primary function of any secular government. It's function has always been to establish laws for it's people to obey in order to keep some level of peace and order. Laws establish moral boundaries for the people in a society and it is absolutely necessary to have these boundaries in place to assure peace and order are kept.

I couldn't disagree with this more. I think the government is people coming together to take care of the needs of the people, that we can't take care of working individually. My parents and upbringing establishes the moral boundaries for me. The idea that any person or group of people can impose their will on me goes against that upbringing that I am free and there aren't any living rulers above me because of the ruler who died for me.

 

[ElijahW]

Eh don't worry it is coming and there is nothing that one can do to stop it. There is no difference - legalism is legalism. They will get outward compliance by force and fear. It is said that the Muslim population will be the majority ehtnic group by 2035 in the USA. You will start seeing more fences for protection.

Come on now. Lets not act defeated before the majority even realizes their is a problem. Once it becomes an active topic in our society, there is no reason to think we can't modify the democratic process, to not allow for kinds of legislation, that will lead to that.

 

[ElijahW]

I believe that the word you are looking for is a form of the word 'theocracy'. Under that form of government the State carries out and enforces the laws of a particular religion, such as Islam.

I think the difference between "theonomy" and "theocracy" (from one person's perspective atleast) is that in "theonomy", the church and state are separate, the church just wants the state to force biblical law onto the citizens. Theocracy wants the church to be the state. It's wanting to take over (theocracy) vs outsourcing work you don't want to do to the government sector (theonomy).

I've just started to look this up so I'm still learning. It's a relatively new thing it seems but it still may be traced back to a Church Father. I don't know really when in our history we had the option of establishing laws like we do now, to even begin questioning if establishing biblical laws in the government sector is rational or empowering the tyrants of the world.

 

[Erose]

I couldn't disagree with this more. I think the government is people coming together to take care of the needs of the people, that we can't take care of working individually. My parents and upbringing establishes the moral boundaries for me. The idea that any person or group of people can impose their will on me goes against that upbringing that I am free and there aren't any living rulers above me because of the ruler who died for me.

So you are saying that you are against the government in establishing laws to prevent and/or punish you or someone else that decides they want to kill or rape another individual? I never heard of a Christian anarchist before. Hear of something new every day.

 

[ElijahW]

So you are saying that you are against the government in establishing laws to prevent and/or punish you or someone else that decides they want to kill or rape another individual? I never heard of a Christian anarchist before. Hear of something new every day.

”All things are lawful to me,”

I think the courts and jury system works fine. I think it works without there being any established laws by politicians and enforced by the government. I think when you allow for that role in government, you run the risk of turning the government against the citizen and the citizen against the government, when government should be where we come together collectively to take care of our group needs.

In this situation we not only run the risk of turning people against the government but also turning people against the Church and Christ.

 

[Erose]

I think the courts and jury system works fine. I think it works without there being any established laws by politicians and enforced by the government.

What do you think the courts and jury system is suppose to do? In this country (USA) their purpose is to uphold the law of the land. This law is established by the government.

I think when you allow for that role in government, you run the risk of turning the government against the citizen and the citizen against the government, when government should be where we come together collectively to take care of our group needs.

In this situation we not only run the risk of turning people against the government but also turning people against the Church and Christ.

I think (and hope) that we are not talking about the same thing here. Are you saying that all civil laws are bad or is it bad for a religion to impose its morality upon the secular government?

 

[ElijahW]

What do you think the courts and jury system is suppose to do? In this country (USA) their purpose is to uphold the law of the land. This law is established by the government.

Settle disputes and establish if someone is a threat that needs to be separated from the community. These disputes and decisions should be made my members of the community and what they think is wise. They shouldn't be made by following an algorithm, established in a Congress, that is completely unfamiliar with the current situation.

I think (and hope) that we are not talking about the same thing here. Are you saying that all civil laws are bad or is it bad for a religion to impose its morality upon the secular government?

I think it is detrimental to the cause of Christianity, to try and use the modern equivalent of Rome, to impose morality, by force, on the citizens of this country. I think this is going the opposite direction down the road to the Kingdom of God and is continuing to empower the Kingdom of Men and their ruling over other men.

I think that this is an idea that doesn't come from Christianity itself but comes from politicians who want the people to think that they have something to offer the voters and they can fix things if elected. Passing laws that tell people how to live is easy work to a politician that validates their authority over the people; versus having to actually manage the needs and resources of the country. It is much easier to act like your job is to tell people how to live, then it is to serve and take care of the people. Also, you have the added bonus of being able to blame the problems in the world on voters not doing what they are told, instead of politicians not utilizing our resources properly.

 

[Erose]

Settle disputes and establish if someone is a threat that needs to be separated from the community. These disputes and decisions should be made my members of the community and what they think is wise. They shouldn't be made by following an algorithm, established in a Congress, that is completely unfamiliar with the current situation.

Settle disputes based on what? You need a baseline and that is what the law gives. If not then we become dependent upon the Judges to determine morality. You don't see that as being something to avoid? You don't see the insanity behind that? There must be a baseline. An established moral boundary for all citizens to live withing. If not you get anarchy and even though anarchy sounds nice for many young people who believe that anarchy gives them ultimate freedom it has been proven throughout history, most recently in some African countries, that what rises out of anarchy is tyranny.

I think it is detrimental to the cause of Christianity, to try and use the modern equivalent of Rome, to impose morality, by force, on the citizens of this country. I think this is going the opposite direction down the road to the Kingdom of God and is continuing to empower the Kingdom of Men and their ruling over other men.

In the United States, we have had freedom for as long as we have had because of those Christian morals that our Bill of rights is based upon. The reason why you are starting to see more repression of rights in this country is due to the slow removal of religious freedom and the full secularization of our society.

Our society is loosing its moral compass and because of that we are loosing or rights as citizens and you are seeing a warping of what is righteous and what is taboo. It is righteous for a woman to have an abortion, but it is taboo for a woman to pray in public.

I think that this is an idea that doesn't come from Christianity itself but comes from politicians who want the people to think that they have something to offer the voters and they can fix things if elected. Passing laws that tell people how to live is easy work to a politician that validates their authority over the people; versus having to actually manage the needs and resources of the country. It is much easier to act like your job is to tell people how to live, then it is to serve and take care of the people. Also, you have the added bonus of being able to blame the problems in the world on voters not doing what they are told, instead of politicians not utilizing our resources properly.

I agree that the government is starting to become oppressive forcing laws upon us that are slowly taking away our freedoms. I do agree that the government is overstepping its boundaries and have ceased to follow the Constitution to the letter. Heck look at what they are doing now, spending our country into bankruptcy. We need to go back to a small government that does what its suppose to do which is defend our land, protect its citizens with fair and concise laws and law enforcement, and get out of our way.

But I do not believe you can have a society without laws. That is just insane to think you can. If the government doesn't establish the boundaries of living someone else will and that person will by a tyrant.