|
|||||
|
|||||
| The Questions to Consider - The Church Backslides - How Legalism Corrupts Grace | ||
|
||
| Comments by Larry Fisk | ||
| Philip Yancey entitles this session “Grace Avoidance” or “The Church Backslides:
How Legalism Corrupts Grace”. What he means by legalism is the manner in
which we struggle to assure ourselves of security, and in religious or
spiritual terms, guarantee our own salvation (wholeness). From Simon Stylites
sitting on his 60 foot three-metre square pillar for 40 years preaching
“the Gospel”; to the self-flagellation of Martin Luther, the obedience
of the 635 intricate laws of Judaism by the religious teachers even of
Jesus’ day, to the secular niceties and decorum of modern churches, we
follow rules and practices in search of both social and Divine approval.
If “grace abuse” – the presumption that one can “always get away with immoral
or indecent behaviour just one more time” is one end of the spectrum of
behaviour by churches and their adherents; toeing the line, heeding the
rules, self-sacrifice and whatever it takes to please God, serves as the
opposite end; a range from license to legalistic severity. As one Congregationalist
minister recently put it: “Strange man Simon Stylites, and yet he stands
firmly in the equally strange tradition of zealots who believe that one
cannot be comfortable and still be a true Christian. The church’s first
millennium is filled with examples of people who believed they had to make
themselves uncomfortable, in fact in pain, in order to subdue the desires
of the flesh and please God. Wear a hairshirt, sleep on rocks, whip yourself,
extreme fasting, binding tight ropes on the flesh – these were ways of
defeating the power of sin within you.” LINK. What makes legalism so attractive might well be summed up in the prudent and insightful statement of neo-orthodox theologian Reinhold Niebuhr when he observed: “man [sic] can neither know the truth fully, nor avoid the error of thinking that he [sic] can”. While we may be quick to parody and scoff at the legalism rife in others and other religious persuasions, legalism is, as Niebuhr reminds us, fully a part of our own lives, our own human predicament. Both forbidden behaviours and proscribed beliefs and attitudes fit the definition of legalism. In the video share of this particular session we watched segments by evangelical leader Tony Campolo who claimed: “I think we have a bad rap. I think evangelicals are not as bad as their reputation. But their reputation is very bad”. Campolo’s conclusion about evangelical Christian persuasions is surely as equally true of mainstream Churches. Yancey in his book cites scores of picayune prohibitions (rules against miniskirts, makeup, jewellery, dancing, swimming, bowling, movies, wearing long hair, growing facial hair, or holding hands in public) which he observes were intended to “please God” and somehow guarantee Divine favour and Grace. Yancey draws the conclusion that legalism constitutes a kind of “structured shame” and that in a world of ungrace such built-in shame “has considerable power”. “Yancey continues: “But there is a cost, an incalculable cost: ungrace does not work in a relationship to God. I have come to see legalism in its pursuit of false purity as an elaborate scheme of grace avoidance. You can know the law by heart without knowing the heart of it.” The video segments with Tony Campolo also raised the question of the evangelical linkage with contemporary politics. Campolo thinks that “the evangelical community has been so seduced into conservative politics that they have confused their political beliefs with the biblical message.” It can be argued that such political positions as a “strong defence and increased defence spending”, “a nuclear deterrent”, “the advancement of democracy by the wars which are ostensibly designed to enable its construction”, “opposition to abortion and homosexuality”, “promotion of capital punishment”, “making the world safe for a ‘free market economy’”, positions against divorce, science, critical movies or candid literature, may all be a half-blind biblical literalism and small-minded legalism which has little to do with the Unconditional Love and Generosity of a Life-Giving Spirit witnessed in the life of Jesus. Christian political realists like Niebuhr remind us that it is “Man’s [sic] capacity for justice [which] makes democracy possible, but man’s [sic] inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary”. What we require is both a hard-nosed political realism--an intelligent balanced consideration of this worldly politics--plus the idealism or vision that the prophets of old called forth. We are to be, as Jesus said: “wise as serpents and innocent as doves”. Niebuhr entitled his major work on democracy “The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness”. If we are truly to be the “children of light” then we must conjoin in our political and social life, on the one hand, vision, idealism, confidence, and hope; and on the other hand intelligence, objectivity, checks and balances. Idealism without political realism is naïve, while political realism without idealism results in cynicism. Once again we are part of a human predicament in which our politics is also a form of legalism. But our potential to respond to the larger freedoms fathomed only in the undeserved, “unplanned” Grace, Mercy and Love of God makes some improvement possible. It is undoubtedly relevant that today there is a new understanding of how American politics was most successful (during and just following the Second World War with the Marshall Plan) when American leaders knew they could not act alone and would have to embrace a form of political humility which reminded them of their own limitations. Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr was one of the most cogent thinkers influencing American politics in the WWII and early Cold War period. His position in “Christianity and Power Politics (United States: Archon Books, 1940), p. 9, sums up his balanced view of politics and legalism: “Those of us who regard the ethic of Jesus as finally and ultimately normative, but as not immediately applicable to the task of securing justice in a sinful world, are very foolish if we try to reduce the ethic so that it will cover and justify our prudential and relative standards and strategies. To do this is to reduce the ethic to a new legalism. The significance of the law of love is precisely that it is not just another law, but a law which transcends all law. Every law and every standard which falls short of the law of love embodies contingent factors and makes concessions to the fact that sinful man must achieve tentative harmonies of life with life which are less than the best. It is dangerous and confusing to give these tentative and relative standards final and absolute religious sanction.” Finally, Tony Campolo led into the scriptural consideration for this session: Matthew 23: 1-15 and 27-8 where Jesus vehemently voices his disgust with the religious leaders and teachers of his day. Campolo’s observation applies to all political and social life: “We are all in a sense like the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees of old that take the Scriptures and they begin to spell out what that means in detail, and then we begin making very strong judgments about anybody that violates our understanding of the rules.” For a chance to see Tony Campolo on extensive free video selections, one an interview by Mel White and the other a video sermon on “Wild Hope”. Philip Yancey’s final comments in the video portion of Session 8 relate to his visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous session with a long-standing friend. Yancey comments on this Grace-filled gathering of total acceptance: “As I listened to those twelve steps [of A. A.], they seemed to me to boil down to two big steps. One was radical honesty….The second step was radical dependence.” One of our group suggested that the friend in question may have been Brennan Manning: the renowned author of “The Ragamuffin Gospel”, a former Franciscan priest cum divorcee, alcoholic, transformed evangelical witness to Unconditional Love. Manning in a manner similar to Yancey sees A.A. in a context of what he calls “healthy guilt”. The context is one in which: “The all-surpassing love of God makes itself felt in the acceptance of human beings by each other, in the dismantling of prejudices and social barriers, in new unrestricted communication among men [and women], in brotherly [and sisterly] warmth and the sharing of sadness and joy.” (German theologian Walter Kasper). You can see evidence of the friendship between Brennan Manning and Philip Yancey in a recent essay carried in the weekly Christianity Today. Session Eight also encouraged substantial debate and thoughtful consideration of the comfortable pews of many churches, different as they are from many inner city churches. The latter often serve breakfast to the poor, conduct clinics and therapy for the people of the street or host many practical groups, training and workshops for the disadvantaged and homeless. Yancey’s use of Alcoholics Anonymous groups helps to illustrate the capacity to welcome the stranger or latecomer with great excitement (he or she may have mustered their courage at the very last moment and overcome the deep-rooted hunger for an alcoholic drink, in order to attend a meeting). By contrast being “nice people” has all too often become the hallmark of our own congregational “set structure” where we are way more likely to praise ourselves for our punctuality compared to another, than we are to reach out to welcome the latecomer at Sunday worship. We were reminded that Jesus actually said a great deal about legalism. His paramount attention was to issues of spiritual pride, social and religious injustice, and the burden of legalistic practices. By comparison, the peasant prophet had very little to say about “sexual transgressions”, something much more eminent in modern sermonizing.. The image of living through “the belly of the whale”, analogous to Jonah, was used to describe what seems to be the spiritual experience required for so many to overcome the iron bars of legalism. Our churches have become museums for saints and saintly artefacts and practices, rather than a hospital for the unwholesome, the ragamuffin, or the transgressor. Many group participants acknowledged the need to know or experience God, and this as a forerunner of the intent to follow Jesus’ example more closely. The rules and prearranged practices of culture and church seem a peculiarly unnecessary and heavy burden without that realization or experience. Perhaps, argued others, this is why we witness in many non-Christians a life lived in graciousness and gratefulness. Here, totally outside the church, we often observe rare and beautiful persons and communities which live in relatively germane goodness, intelligent love and confidence, largely without soul-destroying regimentation. Such folk have managed to remain free of the cramped existence of legalism. Perhaps their distance from manipulative institutions (including unfortunately many churches) has enabled rather than closed off their buoyant spirit. Others, it was argued, when faced with grey areas are prone to making up even more rules to cover those uncertain portions of their lives and thus retain their self-designed prison-like cells of security. However, there are others who are basically confident even while living with the insecurity of not fully knowing. Instead, such individuals are content to trust God to lead where one needs. In some persons uncertainty is a God-given and welcome challenge, a gift to invigorate curiosity, wonder and awe. For those who feel loved or know they are loved, the uncertainties and grey areas are reduced to a creative tension, a large sense of freedom which, umbrella-like, shelters them somewhat from the full-forced rain of more unwelcome circumstances of life and living. Uncertainty becomes worshipful awe providing deeper meanings to those unplanned circumstances. Such a confidence may release a person from the need to control life and others, and thus provide greater space for personal spiritual growth. “I belong to somebody or something greater than myself.” This is, if you like, the radical honesty which allows the release of control of others and of life. Brennan Manning in one of his latest books: “A Glimpse of Jesus: The Stranger to Self-Hatred” has commented that in his 28 years of pastoral care he has found self-hatred to be the predominant mood of his many years of counselling. Manning sees three major components contributing to self-hatred. The first he calls projection, or what Blaise Pascal has light-heartedly noted: “God created man [sic] in His Image, and man [sic] has returned the compliment”. In short, we ascribe all kinds of odd attributes to God, as if he were busy counting all the transgressions of a myriad rules, regulations, doctrinal edicts, and trivial practices designed to please him. One is reminded of a newspaper cartoon in which a Heavenly Angel Receptionist outside God’s office is reading the morning paper which announces that the Anglican Church is about to accept female deacons. The Heavenly Receptionist turns to the inner sanctum or office and comments in the general direction of God. “Here’s an item that might interest you Mam”. We pile upon God all of our own fears, weaknesses, sense of guilt, failure and shame and assume this is Her/His reaction to us. It is Projection, making God in our own image. The second element in self-hatred is perfectionism. We relentlessly pursue something bigger, better, more successful, cleaner. Witness the significant number of women in a Mood Disorders’ Day Hospital whose major source of dis-ease and stress is their inability to achieve a perfectly scrubbed household. Witness the paralyzed students whose work is never enough or whose essays are never on time because they do not measure up in their own minds to what constitutes the “perfect paper”. Often the standard is one ingrained by a stern father or mother. Just as often it is a religious standard learned in school and church or both. Here the authoritarian is understood to be none other than God Himself or Herself. The third and final major ingredient in the structure of self-doubt and self-hate is what we have been talking about all this session: legalism or moralism. It is our ever-present condition of desiring a way around our insecurities. Ironically, as Yancey himself points out, it appears more difficult to engage in the simple celebration of living out the freedom that the Universe, God, Christ, can offer. There is a difference between a godly discipline and legalism or moralism. The first is energized by joy, freedom, courage and hope. But hope and faith by nature are future-oriented and therefore include living today in relative uncertainty. Freedom by nature represents the incentive to risk action. Courage lived is fear challenged. The accumulated result can be the presence of intermittent joy. The second form of living: legalism and moralism, is destructively filled to the brim and forcibly willed by waves of fear, insecurity, self-doubt and self-hatred. The very absence of courage to act against the stream; freedom to choose in favour of, or in opposition to the customs of church and polity; faith and hope to enliven healthy doubt and uncertainty; leaves the hollow shell of self-doubt and self-hatred. This session concludes, then, with some pithy questions for us. (1) In what areas of my life is legalism actually easier than true freedom in Christ? (2) In what way am I influencing others in my life to buy into legalistic rules or concerns? (3) In what way is God’s Spirit prompting me to lay down legalism and strive, through Jesus, to celebrate and live out freedom in Christ? In what way is God’s Spirit prompting me to develop, not legalism, but godly discipline in my life? The other chapter which is included for consideration in this eighth session is “Big Harold: A Story”. Big Harold is a seemingly kindly man who raises Philip Yancey following the death of both his (Yancey’s) parents. It may be significant that this highly legalistic man who provides such kindness for Yancey at one stage, eventually leaves his congregation and his country (the USA) in favour of a more legalistic church and a more “moralistic” (apartheid) country, i.e., South Africa. The bitterness of “Big Harold” illustrates unchecked legalism and moralism and its soul-destroying results. Decades later the adult Philip Yancey meets up with the benefactor of his youth in South Africa. But what Yancey discovers is an embittered and abrasive man, a disgraced pastor, imprisoned for selling and promoting child pornography. Big Harold’s life story sadly speaks volumes to the self-hatred and destructiveness of legalism and moralism where there is an almost complete absence of Love and Grace. POSTSCRIPTS: Brennan Manning is a most controversial character as any Google search on him will illustrate. You might wish to search him out at his own website. There is an interesting interview with Manning entitled “Living as God’s Beloved” in the on-line journal “The Ooze”. Paula Rinehart of “The Ooze” conducts the interview. The New York Times recently carried two articles which indicate the renewed relevance of Reinhold Niebuhr to our present day. See: Magazine| April 30, 2006 The Rehabilitation of the Cold-War Liberal By PETER BEINART. Joseph Klein recently reviewed this important new book in the NYT. A review of the above controversial book is available. It is important to note that Niebuhr has been credited with authorship of the Serenity Prayer used by Alcoholics Anonymous. On this he said with his characteristic humility: "Of course, it may have been spooking around for years, even centuries, but I don't think so. I honestly do believe that I wrote it myself." If one does a Google search there is a great deal of on-line material by and about Reinhold Niebuhr including: (1) major sermons or essays, and the entire contents of many of his books . (2) …a list of quotations highly pertinent to the discussion of grace and politics: (3) A biographical piece by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. pointing to the contemporary relevance of Niebuhr: (4) An audio program by Krista Tippet of PBS “Speaking of Faith” which features the voice of Niebuhr in a broadcast borrowing the title of one of his most renowned books: “Moral Man and Immoral Society”—all highly relevant to this session’s discussions. |
||
 |
Oct 2006
