“Dear Legalism,” A Personal Letter of Hope
The following post is a journal entry I wrote late Saturday night, August 15, 2007 (with a couple edits for the sake of explanation).
The night after I was baptized on March 15, 2005, I wrote:
“I will never deserve the love you’ve shown me, but I will spend the rest of my life trying to earn it.”
The day I realized I wanted to spend the rest of my life with the beautiful woman who is now my wife, in November 2006, I wrote:
“As always, I will spend my entire life striving to be at least halfway worthy of all the blessings you have bestowed upon me.”
Where did this come from? How could I not see that the Lie of legalism was already planted and growing in my newfound faith? As I read this, I am totally appalled. Each of these writings came at pivotal points in my life, and in my faith especially. And now I write again, as I struggle with the shadow of fear and inadequacy. Truly, I am grateful for the love shown for me by God the Father and Christ, but why do I feel that I must still earn it after the fact?
And now I write again. What landmark event is consecrated with this ink? What turning point (I pray!) in my faith awaits its conclusion? Could it be a new beginning?
Until recently, I have not realized how thoroughly legalism has gripped my heart. It penetrates all I do: my relationships, my motivations, my acceptance among others, my very identity! Yet, until now, I have fought legalism with more legalism. I have simply perpetuated it and continued to give it life. I know that I am tired of this and am ready for change. I notice, and take GREAT heart in seeing, that the language shifted in the 18 months or so between my first two entries (“earning it all” to being “halfway worthy”). Now it is time for the final step. No more will I seek to earn my worthiness of God’s Love or acceptance from others, or self worth, or identity, or otherwise not trust in the finished work of Christ. I am His, wholly and completely.
Dear Legalism,
You have lost. The game is over. Pack up and go back to the cesspool of doubt and deceit from which you came. I have not defeated you myself, Jesus has. I sit on the bench, broken and beaten while He made the plays and saved the day for the whole team. It is time you realized that while I am incapable of anything apart from Him, I am invincible in Him, and shall never need you. Never again will I trust your lies, nor your false promises of fulfillment. You bring only emptiness. You are gilded, yet rotten to the core. I have Christ. I have His Love, His acceptance, and His perfect record. I have Him, and I need nothing else.
Dear Lord,
I lift this prayer to you: be my trigger finger. Help me take the liar out back and end his miserable existence. Help me kill, slaughter, and destroy my sinful and disbelieving self, that I might be raised to new and glorious life in You. Help me accept your love and grace in recognition of my dire need for it. I no longer seek to earn it, only to love, appreciate, and obey you in grateful response. I know that I will always have your love and while I will always struggle with this Lie, I pray that You fill me with your Truth and not allow the lie to take hold of my heart any longer. Lord, please grow my faith that it might be a comfort and shade for others as I rest in Yours. Lord, while it is difficult for me to simply accept your Love, I thank you for it and the truth that you will never tire in giving it. For this, I cannot express my gratitude with words alone, and find that I am greatly lacking the means to show it.
Amen…
Suggested Reading:
Velvet Elvis, by Rob Bell
Transforming Grace, by Jerry Bridges
Children of the Living God, by Sinclair Ferguson
Related Posts on Legalism:
Legalism (Overemphasis on the Law)
Cheap Grace (Overemphasis on Grace)
Gospel Centeredness
Posts
good post and point.
we all can get so easily entangled in trying to earn our way into the Kingdom.
peter
Absolutely… but I think my problem is less that I am trying to earn my acceptance, and more that I am trying to sanctify myself on my power alone.
Kinda like my attitude was, “Thanks God for forgiveness for my past jacked-up-ness, I got it from here.”
Pretty weak, honestly, but also a common problem for Christians influenced by Western culture.
brad
i think i understand a little better what you are saying, thanks.
have you read any tim lahaye (not his left behind series, which i think are a little offbase, but his psychological books)? tim makes exactly the same pt in his books about the Holy Spirit changing our temperaments. he says that we cant change what our temperaments are, but the HS can.
i think there is a lot to that. because i find that i cant change my tendency toward anger, say. and yet, the HS can. the more i rely on Him, the more i can “live by the Spirit”.
shalom
peter
Brad, your post gets at a question I’ve been considering for a couple of weeks now. I recently became interested in studying “worldviews” when I read the following passage from Francis Schaeffer:
“People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize.”
My question is, if FAS is correct, why do we see such a disconnect between our worldview and our lives?
I am a Catholic. People accuse me of relying on my works to get into heaven. What I actually believe is that I have to believe and also have to follow God. In my view, it is not enough to just believe. I must also pray, look out for my neighbor, and obey the commandments. You would think that I would suffer from what you describe above, but I don’t. From some people’s perspective I do works works works, yet at the end of the day I realize I’m not perfect and thank God for his mercy, ask him for forgiveness and to give me the grace to do better, and move on with my life.
I have come up with a lot of possible answers to my question and I think there may be different answers for different “disconnects.” In your case could it be that maybe deep down inside you know there is something mistaken in your beliefs about human actions?
I find it interesting that your second exerpt begins with “As always…” It sounds like those sentiments weren’t just creeping in; they were there constantly. Pretty scary, all things considered.
It’s like discovering the monster wasn’t just under the bed, it was sleeping right next to you!
Civis,
Wow. Just… wow. Your personal example is very truth-telling. I believe the same thing, yet our actions do not always line up. It is incredibly subtle, and because we have lived so thoroughly in such a way, it can simply take time to overhaul and live in the light and truth of our very belief. Thank you VERY much for your comment. I saw that you also commented on Josh’s post, and I look forward to considering this conversation on an even deeper level!
Danielle,
LOL… you are so right. But to push your analogy even further, I found out the monster was me, and not just lieing next to me. It’s a scary reality, but it wont go away on it’s own, and facing it is necessary to face it directly.
Thanks guys, for the insanely insightful comments…
Brad,
Well, I’m glad you got something out of my comment. I was concerned about my comment, because your post was very open and truthful, and here I stumble upon your personal thoughts and interject. I respect your openness about your struggles.
It really is a strange phenomenon though. While Catholics do not believe in Sola Fida, they don’t sweat so much about thier actions. On the other hand, Protestants believe in Sola Fide, yet they (the ones I know) are obsessed with not drinking, not smoking, and not saying the “S” word.
I think that in both cases both Protestants and Catholics have a strength and a weakness. Protestants are right to be thoughtful about their conduct. At the same time sometimes they strain the gnat and swallow the camel. Catholics on the other hand, are right to not put too much emphasis on how well they do; they are very much aware that we are human, and that most of us are imperfect–we just have to keep picking ourselves up. On the other hand, we sometimes can be flippant about our sins and set a horrible example.
Civis,
Oh no worries! In posting on here there is an assumed vulnerability and risk in taking a sucker punch, but in no way was your comment even CLOSE to that. I got out of it that you are a guy who has some questions and is eager to learn more. I respect your own openness and humility.
I think that your comparison between Catholics and Protestants is very fair. I confess that I am not as familiar with the normative Catholic, but I know more than a couple protestants that fit that description.
To ease your mind somewhat, all of the contributors are very human. By that, I mean that we are not a fan of adding rules onto the bible that the bible itself does not include. The occasional “S” word falls out (among others…), Josh loves smoking his pipe and we all enjoy the occasional cigar, and we all love a good beer (but light beer is a sin…).
Know that this is a very safe place to be open, exchange ideas, and really get elbow deep in “messiness.” Being human is messy.
Welcome!
** What’s wrong with MSG in the Western cultural diet? **
>> Let an old atheist play God’s Advocate for a while.
Almost from the beginning, the Jesus “story” received many divergent underpinnings. Clearly, the orthodox christological interpretation given by Paul posits a [Hellenistic] transcendental world savior in the mid-late 1st century CE.
It’s a long way from Paul of Tarsus to Paul Tillich. Protecting central xian claims [creeds] from refutation is a 2,000 year old game. Let’s get away from xian “understandings” and move into the sociology of religion.
Let’s consider the presence of MSG in the Western cultural diet.
Not the stuff that gives you headaches from Chinese restaurant take-out. No, I mean the Minimum Standard God. Philosophers can indulge themselves forever, and evolutionary biologists can await life’s arising from some self-organizing system. But, the U.S. Federal Courts have had to bring some reasonable specificity to the meaning of the word, ‘God.’
And, the winner (surprise!) is one deistic divinity — what I call the Minimum Standard God within the Western Tradition, “the MSG” for short.
Courts have consistently held that ‘God’ as in the notorious “In God We Trust” refers to a one-size-fits-all unique deistic divinity — creator, sustainer of the universe consistent with Western tradition. “He” is the MSG.
I expect U.S. courts to trot out this precedent for beating back an atheist’s challenge to the ‘under God’ clause in the pledge of allegiance — the MSG is today invoked before each Supreme Court session and each House of Congress opens with a prayer — recently by a Hindu who was booed from the House Gallery by radical xian know-nothings.
The courts will argue that the concept of the MSG does not violate the establishment clause. Traditionally, most Westerners averred that the MSG would answer their basic notion of God. The MSG concept is non-sectarian.
No one is legally obligated to equate the MSG with that moral monster embraced by the late (unlamented) “Rev.” Falwell. Or, the merely xian “God” of C.S. Lewis. Or, “God” as Paul Tillich’s “ultimate concern.”
>> “I ask God to rid me of God.” [Meister Eckhardt]
Unfortunately, tradition also dictates at least that the MSG exists. Tradition leaves open any god hypothesis, except of course denying the existence of a unique god, however bland. (That is however “logically weak” or “pared down” the concept.)
Still remaining outside the sheepfold: secular humanists, Buddhists, Chinese ancestor worshipers, Shintoists, Hindus, Vedantists, Wiccans, assorted polytheists, devil worshipers . . . those few too principled to be hypocrites . . . and legions of the wholly indifferent.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually guarantees freedom of conscience to each of them. Thus, each person is free to deny even the MSG of blessed tradition and to seek the foundations of morality in philosophy rather than theology, for example.
Western tradition is also androcentric and paternalistic. That’s why the MSG assumes a masculine gender (”He”), certainly not “She”, instead of the correct “It.” The Western MSG presupposes too much.
Problems with the MSG: It’s existence, personhood, gender, misogynist “mindset.”
Some xians can perhaps jettison their “God’s” misogyny and masculinity as culturally limited metaphor, but it’s hard to see how personhood could be eliminated as Hinduism has done with the Absolute (Brahman). And by parity of reasoning, Islam and Judaism are likewise inflexible.
In general xianity has to grapple with how much of its so-called sacred text can be characterized as time-bound metaphor, myth-managed history, and dispensed with. This task has been on-going for about 200 years under titles like “higher criticism” and “de-myologicizing the NT.” [You can make evil spirits fly from the mouths of Fundies if you dare to utter either of these phrases.]
>> Now, an anti-theist speaks.
As a non-theist, perhaps anti-theist would be better, I claim my right under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to freedom of conscience.
I choose not only to deny any god anywhere, any time, but also to oppose all god-hypothses with as much amused irony, satire, civilized invective, and responsible reasoning as I can muster.
After all, “God” is just a front man.
The real “religious” issues in the U.S. are not religious. They are about political domination and overthrow of governments.
The pressing issues leading to social control by organized xofascists have nothing to do with religion per se, but the Fundie interpretations of the xian religion used as a front for totalitarian ideologues. (As must be obvious, a strictly analogous problem arises within Islam and Judaism.)
Undermining the Constitution, trashing biological science, and perverting education to suit ideologies of cultural domination by right-wing politico-xians will lead us to the dystopia envisioned by Margaret Atwood in “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
What’s “God” got to do with all that. Nothing.
bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007
Bipolar,
I’d love to engage your comment here but… was there a point/question in there somewhere? I can find much I disagree with in general, but nothing concrete enough to illustrate what your views are, nor anything that seems even remotely related to the post.
Please clarify, and I’d be happy to dialog.
Bipolar,
I hope you are interested in discussing what you said above. It would appear that you copied and pasted this from something you wrote elsewhere, and want to see what these gentlemen have to say. I have a few comments. I’ll skip down to where an “anti-theist speaks”. I’m assuming this is you.
First, enjoy your freedom of conscience. I think you’re freedom to be an anti-theist is quite safe.
Second, you said that you chose to “oppose all god-hypotheses with as much amused irony, satire, civilized invective, and responsible reasoning as I can muster.” I would like see some of the latter. Let’s talk about reality.
One: you say “The real ‘religious’ issues in the U.S. are not religious. They are about political domination and overthrow of governments.” I would agree with you on that, but I think you have the players mixed up. It is true that religion and politics often go hand in hand. I have yet to find a heresy in the history of Christianity that did not involve an attempt to overthrow or modify a government. We associate burning at the stake with heresy, but if I understand it correctly, burning at the stake was traditionally a punishment for treason. Christians were persecuted in Roman times because they were seen (wrongly) as threat to civil order. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but that is the bottom line. The Romans would not have worried one iota about Christian beliefs but for the political.
Two: Surely you are aware that a great number of Americans who supported the Constitution that protects your right to be an “anti-theist”, some of whom singed it, came to America to seek freedom to practice their religion without the control of the Church of England. Granted, we as Americans don’t have a perfect record of allowing religious freedom, but let’s be fair. Further, the worst Christian/Moslem/Jewish government in history could not hold a candle to the totalitarian atheist governments. Consider the bloodbath of the French Revolution. They were murdering people so fast they had to invent a new way to execute people: the guillotine. The Nazi’s had a similar problem. They had to find ways to kill people that would not cause the most hard-hearted human to have a nervous breakdown. They were killing so many people, that the executioners could not handle it. Humanity rebelled. So they had to come up with the gas chamber. But even the Nazi’s did not kill as many as Stalin. He killed eleven million people in a single year. No one knows how many have been killed in communist China. Bottom line: would some Christians like to dictate to the world? Sure, but if there is any group that should be feared as far as totalitarian governments go, it’s atheists not Christians, not Moslems, not Jews, not Hindus.
Three: You accuse religious people of some interesting things. Have you picked up the newspaper? Who do you see undermining the Constitution? Who is it that wants to dictate scientific theories? Who is it “perverting education to suit ideologies of cultural domination”? I have to tell you, I had a good laugh when you accused theists of that one!
Four: You mentioned dystopias/utopias. I’ll have to refer you to history once again. The only successful utopias (which were always dystopias) in history I can think of are all atheist dystopias. The French made a dytopia based on rejection of religion and the enthronement of the goddess reason. The Nazis made a dystopia based on race. The Communists made one (in the USSR, China, Cambodia, and south and central America) based on rejection of religion and private property. Where there is religion there is a law above the state. A truth that has been seen by the thoughtful at least as far back as Sophocles’ ANTIGONE. As a matter of fact, many atheists view religion as useful force in keeping social order. You are aware, I assume, that dystopian literature was invented by a man attacking an atheist government.
You haven’t told us why you really hate religion. You have an awful lot of venom. This did not happen accidentally. If you think a lot of Christians are jerks, I’ll agree with you. A lot of Christians are jerks. If some Christian has done something unkind to you, even if it is your own parents, let me take this opportunity to apologize on their behalf. Maybe it’s something you did, and it is yourself you need to forgive. Whatever the cause, you would be a lot happier if you let go. I would encourage you to step back and consider why it is that you hate religion. What you said above is not the real reason. I think that is quite obvious.