Theology At The Movies

A practical area in which many Christians face legalism is in the area of entertainment in general and movies in specific. It might be helpful then, for the sake of our souls and the glory of God, if we study how theology should play out with entertainment. Are movies “of the devil”? Does it endorse the sins of Hollywood to see a film? Does God have a place in the cinema? These and many other questions are a part of what we will tackle as we consider Theology at the Movies.

Why Movies?
Since the popularity of movies exploded in the 1920s up to the present, the cinema has become, arguably, the most popular expression of the worldviews of various generations, groups, and individuals. Despite what many contend all art, even movies, has a message to share, and the fact that millions of people go to the movies each year makes it one of the largest forms of mass media[1]. This is why when considering the influence of entertainment we must zero in on movies, for various “messages” are reaching millions of people.

Theologian and professor John M. Frame wisely writes, “It is simply false to claim that art has nothing to do with ‘messages.’ Indeed, we are living in a time in which the messages of art are becoming more and more explicit.”[2] This is most noticeable in the genre of political films, such as Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and the more recent (2006) American Dreamz, but we will deal more with this later. So if you ask, “why deal with the subject of movies,” the answer, simply put, is that movies and television are among the most influential sources of media in the world, and deserve a Biblical analysis. But if, as Frame writes, “The worldview is the most important issue in film,” then we should begin by asking specifically what is a worldview.

What’s in a World?
If you live long enough every person will come to a point where they have to ask, either consciously or more indirectly, the seven[3] most basic question of human existence. James W. Sire lists the seven most basic questions in this way:
1. What is prime reality- the really real?
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
3. What is a human being?
4. What happens to a person at death?
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
6. How do we know what is right and wrong?
7. What is the meaning of human history?[4]

If we stated those questions in more specific terms they might be said to be questions about: God, the world, humans, death, knowledge, morality, and history; or in philosophical terms we could say: metaphysics, external reality, humanity, death, epistemology, ethics, and history. In any case the answers to these seven basic elements make up a worldview. A worldview, then, may be stated as “a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”[5] A worldview, in short, is a philosophical system through which we filter all of life. Education, theology, science, love, politics all these things and more are affected by one’s own worldview.

Most people are not even aware that hey have a worldview or can they articulate it in formal terms, but the answers which they give to these seven basic questions reveals that they do indeed have one. Examples of worldviews would be Naturalism or Scientific Humanism, Deism, Feminism, Modernism and Postmodernism, and even Christianity. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of worldviews in existence today, the most important point to grasp about this, however, is that everyone has one.

A worldview is not the same thing as a formal philosophy; otherwise, it would be only for professional philosophers. Even ordinary people have a set of convictions about how reality functions and how they should live. Because we are made in God’s image, we all seek to make sense of life. Some convictions are conscious, while others are unconscious, but together they form a more or less consistent picture of reality.[6]

Nancy Pearcey explains the origins of the word “worldview” in her book Total Truth. She writes:

The term worldview is a translation of the German world Weltanschauung, which means a way of looking at the world (Welt= world; schauen= to look). German Romanticism developed the idea that cultures are complex wholes, where a certain outlook on life, or spirit of the age, is expressed across the board- in art, literature, and social institutions as well as in formal philosophy. The best way to understand the products of any culture, then, is to grasp the underlying worldview being expressed. But, of course, cultures change over the course of history, and thus the original use of the term worldview conveyed relativism.

The word was later introduced into Christian circles through Dutch neo-Calvinist thinkers such as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd. They argued that Christians cannot counter the spirit of the age in which they live unless they develop an equally comprehensive biblical worldview- an outlook on life that gives rise to distinctively Christian forms of culture- with the important qualification that it is not merely the relativistic belief of a particular culture but is based on the very Word of God, true for all times and places.[7]

With this in mind let’s turn our attention now to discussing how movies convey a worldview.

The Motion Pictures and Their Messages
It’s easy to get caught up in the stimulation of the movies and forget that each film is saying something about the world we live in. It is a popular expression of our culture’s ideologies. So writes Russ Moore, Vice President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, about the culture in general:

Christians should ask why culture resonates with the Superman mythology of a hero from beyond the stars who rescues humanity from itself. We should ask why country music singer Toby Keith sings about the unity-in-diversity he longs for in his song “I Love This Bar.” We should ask why, as the City Journal’s Harry Stein points out, trashy talk shows such as “The Jerry Spring Show” always end with a “moral lesson for the day,” despite the fact that the rest of the broadcast has dismissed the very idea of moral absolutes. Why do gangster-rap hip-hop artists sing so much about their rage against an absent father?[8]

All around us our culture is answering these seven basic questions, and they are offering to us a worldview. Movies are not exempt from this truth. For every film that we see there is a message being proclaimed. Some are very easy to discern while others are much more subtle, but nothing is neutral or sheer entertainment in motion pictures. So how do Motion Pictures share their messages? I have listed here five particular ways that we would do well to note.

First, films convey a message through imagery. This is the point that Gene Edward Veith examines in his article “Message Movies.” Paraphrasing Thom Parham, Veith writes, “Films work metaphorically. Language can communicate with clear propositions, but film communicates instead with symbols.” Then adding his own commentary he says, “What carries the message [in movies] is a good story. And the message is indirect, inherent in the film’s emotional impact.”[9]

Movies are a medium of visual stimulation, which explains why some poor stories can still do well in the box office. The imagery on the screen, the way that the plot plays out has as much to do with the message as anything else. Even something as basic as scenery can play a part in the delivering of a message. Let’s look at an example: the Academy Award winning “Brokeback Mountain.” Writing about the films projection of hatred for the Biblical family Dr. Mark Coppenger says:

“Brokeback Mountain” was billed a gay love story, but the movie was actually a hate story, dripping with contempt for conventional, moral life. Normally, these two utterly implausible homosexual cowboys were forced to suffer the squalor of bland or kitschy quarters, disappointing wives, creepy in-laws, wearisome children, thuggish bosses and dreary work back in town, but their spirits soared as they ascended the high country with rushing brooks, big skies, snow capped peaks, lush mountain meadows and crisp, clean air. Alas, after soulful hugs, etc., these Marlboro Men were forced to once again assumer their places in the sad world of heterosexual marriage, gainful employment, and civic responsibility, a world disparaged by director Ang Lee.[10]

According to Coppenger the director of this controversial film uses beautiful scenes to express his own idea of the beauty and freedom of homosexuality. It is not the heterosexual scenes that are depicted with “rushing brooks, big skies, snow capped peaks,” etc. it is the homosexual scenes. Not all films convey their messages this way, but it is important to note that nothing is neutral, aesthetics included.

Secondly, films spread their messages by means of story. This of course is the most basic means of the message. It takes no effort to see how the storyline of a movie like “Brokeback Mountain” contains a message, a pro-homosexual message. But all movies, whether blatant or subtler, contain a message. So even the Dreamworks film “Over the Hedge” is a “genial poke at the conspicuous consumption habits of food and lawn-care obsessed suburbanites from the perspective of wide-eyed animals just trying to survive,”[11] writes Veith. The story is, of course, what all the imagery points to, what the dialogue explains, and what most clearly demonstrates the worldview of the film as a whole. Some will be harder to discern, such as Tim Burton’s “Big Fish,”[12] others are obvious, like the environmentalist film “Hoot.” As Brian Godawa, a Hollywood screenwriter, testifies, “The story is where it all begins and ends. The lighting, cinematography, directing, acting, visual style…all are profoundly a part of the process, but they all serve the story- because the story is king.”[13] In many cases it might be appropriate to say, not that he story carries the message, but that the story is the message.

Thirdly, films spread their message through dialogue. This is another obvious one, but deserves to be mentioned for the power of words. The subtlety of dialogue is such that one might never pick up on some of the messages conveyed in films. Few movie gowers thought of Pantheism when they heard Mufassa tell the young Simba, “When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected; the great circle of life.” But likewise when Christians hear phrases like this one from “Kingdom of Heaven” they should shutter: There will be a day when you will wish that you did a little evil to serve a greater good.

Fourthly, films convey messages through their identification of heroes. This is an important point to mention as more and more stars of films are actually anti-heroes or vigilantes. This is most obvious from the recent 2006 film “V for Vendetta.” Speaking of the graphic novel turned movie Gene Veith writes:

In Alan Moore’s Graphic Novel, V for Vendetta, the Guy Fawkes- masked protagonist is introduced in a section titled, “The Villain.” In the big-screen adaptation of Mr. Moore’s work, no such moral ambiguity exists. Originally conceived as an extreme, anarchistic response to an extreme, fascist government in the near future, V for Vendetta has been translated, with a terrorist hero at its center, into a vicious, thinly veiled attack on American conservatives and Christians.[14]

Other films, however, have taken this same approach of glorifying evil in a less palpable manner. Take for example a number of comedies whose “heroes” have been pragmatists who engage in all sorts of crimes to “win the day.” Examples of these are “Fun with Dick and Jane,” where Dick and Jane Harper take to larceny and deception to win back the pensions of those put out of employment by a company’s crash. Or “Runaway Jury,” based on the John Grisham novel, which has the heroes blackmailing a filthy jury consultant into early retirement. We must never suppose that the end justifies the means, as many of these characters put it themselves. A true hero sees no value in doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Finally, a movie may express a message through its overall composition. The entire layout of the movie, put together with its cinematography, music, acting, dialogue, etc., display an entire worldview. I mentioned how Disney’s “The Lion King” is a movie that revolves around the philosophy of Pantheism, but a close analysis of “Star Wars” reveals similar conclusions (though this film is more New Age). Take screenwriter Charlie Kauffman for example. Mr. Kauffman’s films are often expressions of his own nihilistic, or hopeless, faithless, and truthless, philosophy. His most popular film “Being John Malkovich” is a visual scene of the cold hopeless doctrines of this philosophy, the dialogue reveals this hopelessness, and the storyline itself is, to quote the film, a “metaphysical can of worms.”

These are just a few ways that movies express their messages. The list could, of course, be expanded, but this is sufficient for us to be discerning as we go to the movies. Now comes the all-important question: If movies convey worldviews, and some of these worldviews are not simply bad but completely destructive, should Christians even go to the movies? What should we think of those who do? These are important questions and take up the focus of the next section.

War of the Worldviews
Christians have long been known as those who boycott the movies. The cinema has been hailed by some as the SINema, and Hollywood as the Devil’s machine. As we saw in the last chapter, there are many who still hold to a belief that any Christian who goes to the movies is not only spiritually immature, but is in fact in sin. As I explained in chapter 8, this is legalism[15] and has no place in the Christian church; but can Christians, whose own worldview is so opposed to the general worldview of Hollywood, receive enjoyment and value from movies? I believe so.

Dave Swavely is right when he says, “No other issue has been the source of more friction between Christians in our media-soaked, pleasure-worshipping society, and no other issue has given rise to so many legalistic rules in an attempt to keep us from being contaminated by the world.”[16] But he adds these wise words of wisdom to that initial comment:

First, we need to understand that the Bible offers very few specific rules about this issue, if any, and therefore we should not expect to find easy answers that apply to everyone. It is mostly an individual matter of “the heart”- a term which in the Bible means our “inner man,” where we think, desire, worship, and make choices…What we take in our eyes and ears can certainly temp or influence us…but it cannot necessarily cause us to sin. So the response of our hearts to what we see and hear is the ultimate issue in morality.[17]

This statement cannot, of course, be taken to exempt those who make and produce certain kinds of films from being judged for their actions when the Lord returns, but it can safely be applied to those of us who view movies with discernment. Viewing a movie in and of itself may not be sinful, what our hearts desire, dwell upon, and endorse before, during and after that viewing, however, can be. As is the case with most sins, it is not simply the external action that matters, but the internal state of the heart.[18]

That being said it is safe to say that movies are not inherently sinful, they are a form of art, which is a creative form of expression instilled in man by God. Art is one way that humanity reflects its Creator. God in creating the world displayed His artistic abilities. Think about that for a moment. God was in no way obligated to make the world so aesthetically pleasing (beautiful sunsets, various races, colorful creatures in many shapes and sizes). In creating man in His own image, God has likewise instilled in man the gift and ability to be creative. So writes Brian Godawa:

The arts (of which movies are a part) are a God-given means of expressing our humanity. The creation of art, though flawed or imperfect, reflects the creativity and beauty of our Creator. To reject any form of art in toto [total] is to reject the imago Dei, the image of God in humanity. Even though we are fallen, with our art partaking of this fallenness, we are still created in the image of God, and therefore our creations continue to reflect our Maker. As Francis Schaeffer was fond of pointing out, that image comes through even if the artist tries to suppress it. This is so because all truth is, in one sense, God’s truth, no matter who is saying it, be he prophet, infidel or donkey.[19]

There is value in art, even in movies, because of the simple fact that they remind us of our Creator. And there are ways to find redemptive value even in art produced by unbelievers. So Dave Swavely reminds his readers of a verse from Ecclesiastes which reads, “For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God….”[20] Sinners “gather and collect” for God’s people. And, as Godawa has said, all truth is God’s truth, no matter who says it. The difficult task for movie gowers, then, is to be able to discern the truth in movies and to pull out what is of redemptive value and throw away that which is not. More on this is to come.

Art has two main functions: (1) The Utilitarian and (2) the Pleasure functions. At it’s utilitarian function art gives form and expression to the human experience. So Leland Ryken writes:

A rich confusion of awareness lies below the level of our consciousness. Artists reach into that confusion and give it an order. As we stand before a painting or listen to music or read a poem, we suddenly see our own experiences and insights projected onto the details of the work before us. Artists turn our pain into art so we can bear it. They turn our joys into art so we can prolong them.[21]

Under the pleasure function the arts simply celebrate life and bring great joy to audiences, an element of life which is also a desire of God for His children.[22] These two functions are found in all art, including movies, and in that regard we may take value from them.

Another great value of watching movies is related to the disciplines of evangelism and apologetics. As I have tried to express already in this chapter, movies are an enormous part of our culture. The millions of dollars spent at the movies, by production companies and fans alike, the celebrity worship, and sheer number of movies produced each year testify to this fact. To live in our culture is to live amongst a people obsessed with the cinema. Being able to communicate with this culture, then, will require at least a surface level awareness of its cultural language, influences, and current setting. Godawa helpfully articulates this point when he writes:

Not only do [movie haters] miss the positive values that do exist in many movies, but also those who would completely withdraw from culture because of its imperfection suffer a decreasing capacity to interact redemptively with that culture. They don’t understand the way people around them think because they are not familiar with the “language” those people are speaking or the culture they are consuming. A communication barrier results, and these cultural abstainers often end up in irrelevance and alienation from others. I call these artistic teetotalers cultural anorexics.[23]

One way to see clearly the redemptive value that movies can have is to take an example of a common type of story used in film, a type, interestingly enough, labeled by Brian Godawa as the “Christ Myth.”

The Christ Myth
The motion picture industry is in the business of storytelling; part of this task is selecting a particular form in which to convey that story. Among the lists of forms we find such things as parables, fables, allegories, and the myth. The myth is, I believe, a commonly used motif because of all that is involved in a myth. While Fairy stories are more complex than Disney reveals, they are fairly optimistic and upbeat. It is with the myth that we find tragedy, chaos, suffering, and events and aspects that threaten human life. It is this form that appeals most to the modern film because it is the most like our lives; it connects on an emotional level with the audience. In many ways movies today are, as Godawa says, modern myths. What is a myth? The noted educator and mythologist Joseph Campbell best articulated what a myth was. Former Campbell student Christopher Vogler writes:

What is a myth? For our purposes a myth is not the untruth or fanciful exaggeration of popular expression. A myth, as Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, is a metaphor for a mystery beyond human comprehension. It is a comparison that helps us understand by analogy, some aspect of our mysterious selves. A myth, in this way of thinking, is not an untruth but a way of reaching a profound truth.[24]

It is important not to think of myth, here, as an untruth. Myth is a form of storytelling that, by means of analogy, brings an audience closer to the truth (or so it should. Of course some myths are false because the truth they are pointing to is false). In this light even Christianity is it self a myth. As C.S. Lewis wrote:

The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact…By becoming a fact, it does not cease to be a myth: that is the miracle…To be truly Christian we must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth (fact though it has become) with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myths.[25]

Lewis’ point is merely that by embracing Christianity as fact we do not have to lose any of the beauty and creativity of the story. Godawa explains it perhaps in better language than Lewis:

We are creatures of story, created by a storytelling God, who created the very fabric of our reality in terms of His story. Rather than seeing our existence as a series of unconnected random events without purpose, storytelling brings meaning to our lives through the analogy of carefully crafted plot that reflects the loving sovereignty of the God of the Bible.[26]

As a myth Christianity contains one of the most beloved mythical genres: the Christ Myth[27]. While it may seem condescending it is probably necessary to point out the components of the Christ Myth. First, there are in this myth the common elements of every hero’s journey. The good guy overcoming great obstacles to achieve the best end, yet it brings with it, as Godawa points out, “unique concepts like subistutionary atonement and unmerited grace.”[28] This style has found re-duplication in several major motion pictures. Godawa, in his book Hollywood Worldviews, gives the positive example of “Green Mile” and the negative example of “Hannibal”. The most obvious example of a film using the Christ Myth, however, remains “The Matrix.”

This film gives the most obvious signs of identification with the Christ film. In a simple chart Godawa lays out all the parallels for his readers. He points out: Morpheus declares “the One” just as John the Baptist proclaimed the Christ. Neo is the New Adam. Trinity, the name of one character, is the Holy Spirit. The characters were at one time slaves to A.I., just as humanity is a slave to sin. Their waking up in the pod is representative of spiritual re-birth. Cypher is Judas. There is an Oracle, which is a synonym for prophet. Neo is “the One,” so is Christ. Neo is resurrected and even ascends, just like Christ. Likewise both return in a “Second Coming.” Zion is the name of the last human city, also the name of the Biblical Promised Land/Body of Christ.[29] Could the parallels be any more obvious? Some movies, then, can be redeemed through their expressions, however flawed, of the truth of Christ’s redemption of sinners.

Though this myth is a highly loved and appreciated myth among Christians, due to the disdain for Western culture that much of Hollywood has expressed, it is rarely used in such a full fashion in movies. There is another theme found in almost every movie, however, which brings good value with it but is less blatantly Christian: Redemption.

The Essence of Storytelling
If you were to ask me what every movie is essentially about I would have to conclude “redemption.” Redemption is the essence of all movies because it is the essence of all storytelling. It is the essence of all storytelling because redemption is that one thing we are all looking for in life. Most people have a realization that the world is not as it should be. People can quickly recognize the evil in the world (crime, violence, war, etc.), and if they are honest, within themselves. Such news is unsettling and so we look for something to set it right (i.e. salvation). The pursuit for redemption does not lead all people to Christ, though this is the only true redemption. Others have tried to create a savior in their false worldviews that satisfies this desire for wholeness and perfection without God and the Christ. So Existentialism offers salvation through means of “self-creation”. The universe is absurd, logic is a failure, and the only thing that makes us whole is the creation and definition of ourselves. Nihilism says nothing can save us and so they offer only abandonment and hopelessness (which is in itself their form of salvation). The point here being, of course, that we all seek salvation, and this is expressed at the popular level in film.

Brian Godawa explains the basic structure of storytelling, of course there are many complexed forms of this but I believe that at the most basic level this is at the heart of every good story. He writes:

A movie takes a hero with an inner flaw, who desires something and has a plan to get it. But he is blocked by an adversary until he almost fails but finally finds a solution. This process of goal, flaw, failure and self-revelation is the process of paradigm change or conversion in an individual.[30]

This basic structure of storytelling also happens to be the same basic structure of a Christian redemption. Again Godawa explains:

We, as individuals, have a goal for what we want in life to give us significance, fame, money, what have you. But Satan is our adversary, and our character flaw of sin keeps us from achieving that significance. We think that our control is our salvation, but we are wrong. We are the problem, not the solution. We get to the point in life where our constant attempts at achieving our goal are blocked to the point of apparent defeat. We get to the end of ourselves in a final confrontation when we realize that either we cannot achieve our misguided worldly goals or else we achieve them and realize they do not bring the significance we seek. And we finally have a self-revelation that what we wanted in life is not what we needed. Our alienation is caused by our own inner faults, our sins. We change our minds (repentance), which results in a changed life, our resolution. This is the common personal story of Christian conversion.[31]

Of course the Christian redemption has much more at stake and is much more meaningful than this paragraph explains, but Godawa is right in explaining that it has the same basic structure as the redemption stories found in most movies. Take for example movies like “Forest Gump,” “City Slickers,” “The Truman Show,” and “Chariots of Fire”. Each of these films presents a form of redemption, not all are Christian, in which the main character goes through these stages toward his salvation at the end of the film. In some films redemption may be rejected. This type of film is a tragedy and serves as a parable. In most, however, redemption is embraced and resolution is found. This is a basic element of all films and because of that there is an obvious way for Christians to find redemptive value in movies.

That is not to say, however, that all films that convey a message about redemption are distinctly Christian. Many are anti-Christian. Brian Godawa uses the example of “The Dead Poet’s Society” as a humanistic form of redemption.

In Dead Poets Society the redemption is asserted, by the schoolteacher Keating, that since we are food for the worms and there is no afterlife, we must “seize the day” by casting off social and moral restraint to find one’s self or potential.[32]

In this film the power for resolution lies within the self, and this is the common interpretation of redemption that films take today. Other examples of this humanistic framework are found in “Forest Gump,” “Babe,” and “Groundhog Day,” to name only a few. Nonetheless it is possible for Christians to see these films and while noting the misconception of redemption appreciate the films realization of the need for it. See how a film conveys its message of redemption and compare it with Scripture. See where it is right and where it is wrong. What does God’s word say about the type of redemption this film is attempting to teach? In this way we can be both practicing apologetics and growing in our understanding of Biblical salvation. This type of work is all part of what it means to find redeeming value in films; it is part of watching films actively and with discernment.

Active Viewing versus Passive Viewing
The big screen presents us with such images of intense action, drama, color, comedy, emotion, and special effects that often it is easy to simply be a spectator of movies. Perhaps the word “simply” makes you pause. I mean after all what else does one do with a movie besides watch it? Is there more to movie viewing than being a spectator? There is…much more.

If it is true, as I have tried to show above, that movies have messages, share worldviews, and express values, then no Christian can be a mere passive spectator in the viewing of films. If movies are the popular expressions of various philosophies then every time we watch a movie we are being bombarded with messages, therefore it becomes of paramount importance for Christians to watch them with discernment. That is what this section of the chapter is about: Viewing with Discernment, or as I call it, Active Viewing.

How can we discern what we are seeing and hearing in movies? How can we enjoy films, find redemptive value in them, and yet still avoid swallowing all the falsities that some films give out? There are a number of guiding principles laid out below that will help us all to do just that.

1) Aim to Glorify God. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:31 that whatever we do we are to do “all to the glory of God.” That word “all” is huge! This means no eating, no drinking, no playing, and no movie watching can be done ultimately to please ourselves. “All” means ALL things are to be done with the aim of bringing glory to God, exalting His name, and pleasing Him. This means that we watch movies with the intent of being edified. Perhaps that seems hard, but the rest of these principles will show how you can watch movies with the intent to be edified. The important point here is to realize that we cannot simply watch movies to pass the time or for sheer pleasure in and of itself, there must be the higher aim of communing with God through it.

2) Use Biblical Discernment. Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” It’s important to let the Bible be the judge of what is and is not edifying and glorifying to God. Dave Swavely writes:

How can you apply these verses to the entertainment you enjoy? First, you need to know what the Bible says, and you need to evaluate what you see and hear on the basis of what the Bible says. All of it! …So when you watch, read, or listen to anything, Christian or non-Christian, your brain should be in gear, not in neutral. You need to be interacting with the material in the art form in a manner that is illustrated by the phrase “talking back to your TV.”[33]

Engaging in the art is a must for all those who wish to glorify God in their movie watching. Remembering the way in which movies convey worldviews (as I listed above) will help you to think critically about everything from scenery to dialogue, from hero types to final resolution. The understanding of basic story structures will help you to search out for the type of myth being used, is it a Christ myth, a naturalistic myth. It will enable you as well, to conclude what the redemption story is in the film. These are all part of engaging the art form and thinking Biblically. Your answers to those questions must then be compared with the text of Scripture and a final judgment of the films overall message may be made. This, of course, takes into consideration the art itself. Thinking critically about the message of the movie does not mean that we cannot appreciate its artistic presentation, even if the message it conveys is one we do not endorse. I can disagree whole heartedly with the New Age religion espoused in “Star Wars” while still appreciating its influence on the development of CGI animation, and acknowledging its cultural influence.

3) Expose Evil. Part of using Biblical discernment means exposing evil, acknowledging what is sin and not reveling in it. This is part of the dilemma of seeing films whose heroes are themselves the anti-hero. There are reasons to not see movies, and that is of the utmost importance to remember. In a moment I hope to address the issue of being cultural gluttons. The fact is that not all of the culture should be embraced. Films that devalue human life may have no redeemable value in them whatsoever. And other movies may just be so full of immorality and sin that whatever redeemable value is accessible in them is not worth seeking. We must acknowledge sin in the cinema and avoid the tendency to mindlessly or consciously endorse it with our laughter and applause, or even with our complete silence.

4) Be Aware of Your Weaknesses. Just as Joseph recognized the advances of Potiphar’s wife and fled, so we should flee from areas of temptation. Men, if you struggle with lust then it would be foolish to attend movies replete with nudity and sexuality. So writes Godawa, “As viewers we must be sensitive to our own weaknesses and negative propensities…we must be careful to draw personal lines that we will not cross, based upon what particular things affect us negatively when we are exposed to them in movies.”[34] Fight off your temptations by viewing movies with discretion.

5) Always Discuss. One of the most important steps to active viewing is discussion pre and post movie watching. Never let a movie pass by without serious contemplation and thoughtful engagement of the film. The best way to do this is by getting input from others. Again Godawa comments:

Two of the most frustrating replies to hear when asking people what they thought of a movie are “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it,” accompanied by an inability to explain why. But with an elementary understanding of the structure of storytelling, an informed moviegoer can watch a film and enjoy the story while also engaging his or her critical faculties to understand what the movie is trying to say about the way in which we ought or ought not to live.[35]

Discussion helps us avoid the generic “I liked it” or “it was good” expressions and discern what the film was really saying.

6) Make the Most Use Out of Your Time. Not all movies are created equal, therefore we must choose wisely what we spend our time watching. To be sure there are far more important things than movies to begin with. Reading, exercise, service, church, and family communication are far more important things to spend your time in. But when you have time to watch a movie choose wisely. Read up on a film, see what reviewers are saying, and don’t just pick films that look “cool.” It is here that a word about the cultural glutton is necessary.

To be sure the cultural anorexic, who avoids all culture because of its contamination with sin, has his problems (mostly in areas of evangelism and apologetics), but his counterpart is not without need of correction. The cultural glutton says that all culture is good and embraces all the latest popular films and appeals to evangelism and apologetics for justification. More often than not, however, as Godawa states it, “One person’s sense of exploitation may simply illustrate his own prudery, while another person’s tolerance may actually be her own indulgence in besetting sin.”[36] A blanket acceptance of all films, even with critical thinking, is not acceptable for Christians. There are far more important things that we need to be using our time on, and Paul wisely exhorts Christians to “redeem the time.” Christ will not be pleased to return and find us having spent our lives at Cinema 6.

And here, appeals to evangelism can only go so far. Many of these cultural gluttons will attempt to find justification for their indulgences in Acts 17:22. Here Paul stands before the Aeropagus and shares the gospel with these non-believers by means of their own poets. So, the defense often goes, Paul is using their own culture as a vehicle for evangelism. But, as Russ Moore writes, “Paul’s discourse on the Aeropagus is strikingly different from many Christian attempts to be relevant to popular culture.”[37] Paul’s use of the Athenian culture is not in an attempt to join them up with Christianity. “Yes, Paul quotes pagan poets, and yes, Paul takes note of the altar to the unknown god. But in neither case is he ‘building a bridge,’ at least not in the way pop evangelicalism wishes to do so….in the citations from the poets, Paul does not find some form of ‘redemptive analogy’ he can use among a people who do not acknowledge the authority of Scripture. To the contrary, he calls them to repentance on the basis of a Scripturally revealed storyline of humanity (17:26-27, 30-31).”[38] Our movie watching must avoid making movies idols, or simply more important than loving Jesus! No amount of text twisting can argue for movie-dominated lives.

Bring Your Briefcase
A dear friend of mine takes a bag full of books with him wherever he is going. He carries theology texts with him at work, in the car, on vacation, to visit family and friends. Why does he do this? He does it because he always likes to have resources at his fingertips from which he can pull to answer various questions and thereby be both apologetic and evangelistic. A continuously growing knowledge of the Bible remains his most effective and important tool in this task but there is an analogy in his example for all moviegoers.

Take your theology with you to the movies. No movie, nor any element of that movie, is neutral. Everything conveys a message, a worldview, that is true or false. Films contain elements that may be redeemable and minister to our souls, but they also contain elements that deceive us and manipulate our emotions. That is why we must engage the art and think critically about it. That is why our theology must accompany us at the movies, to help us discern what is good and bad, to glorify God and edify our souls while we live in the 21st century’s culture. “Avoidance of pop culture is not possible,” writes Moore, “especially among the unbelieving American populace we’re seeking to evangelize.”[39] And while it is possible to both love the cinema and hate the sin, it can only be done if you bring your theology with you.

The movies are a gift from God.[40] We may and should enjoy them, and since the Bible contains no rules against proper and moderate viewing we can have fun at the movies. So, buy your ticket, grab your popcorn, and don’t forget to leave a seat for your theology.

[1] Of course magazines, newspapers, and television most likely are larger forms of mass media, the celebration of films in recent decades makes it a noteworthy part of this group.
[2] John M. Frame, “Introduction.” Theology at the Movies. Available only online at www.frame-poythress.org/frame_books.htm
[3] I suggest here that there are seven basic questions about life, others would argue for more and some less. My list I have borrowed from James Sire in his book The Universe Next Door. (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2004). It seems that Ronald Nash might claim only five (Life’s Ultimate Questions. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999). 14-17) and Nancy Pearcey might suggest only a broad three (Total Truth. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004). 124). I am taking Sire’s view in part because I think it is more specific than the others, but I am not dogmatic about there being seven.
[4] Sire, The Universe Next Door. 20.
[5] Ibid. 17.
[6] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity. 23.
[7] Ibid. 23-24.
[8] Russ Moore, “Pop Christianity & Pop Culture on Mars Hill,” The Tie. Spring 2006. 74:1. 5.
[9] Gene Edward Veith, “Message Movies.” World Magazine. September 3, 2005. 20:34.
[10] Mark T. Coppenger, “Love and Hate at the Movies.” The Tie. Spring 2006. 74:1. 12.
[11] Veith, “Creature Comfrots.” World Magazine. June 3, 2006. 21:22. 12.
[12] “Big Fish” is actually based on the novel by the same name by Daniel Wallace. It is hard to grasp, but when you do it is worth re-watching.
[13] Brian Godawa, Hollywood Worldviews. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002). 10.
[14] Veith, “V for Vile.” World Magazine. April 1, 2006. 21:13. 10.
[15] Dave Swavely’s book deals at greater length than I have on the issue of legalism in the area of entertainment. He even gives a critical exegesis of one legalist’s own text on pages 135-138. cf. Dave Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. (Philipsburg: P & R, 2005).
[16] Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. 131.
[17] Ibid. 132.
[18] Note, for example, the way Jesus speaks of sin in the Sermon on the Mount. Specifically sexual sins, which the Jewish leaders took to mean only the external act of sexual intercourse, and Jesus applies to even lust.
[19] Godawa, 13-14.
[20] Ecc. 2:26.
[21] Leland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination. (Colorado Springs: Shaw, 1989). 32.
[22] For further defense that God desires His children to have joy see John Piper, Desiring God. (Sisters: Multnomah, 2003).
[23] Godawa, 13.
[24] Ibid, 25-26.
[25] C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. ed. Walter Hooper. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970). 66-67.
[26] Godawa, 32.
[27] Again, in using the word myth in reference to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, I am in no way saying that the Biblical account of Christ’s redemption is false, fabricated, containing any errors, historically unreliable, or even an allegory to some moral/philosophical truth. It is the factual death of Jesus of Nazareth in the flesh on the cross for the salvation of sinners. I embrace a fully orthodox soteriology.
[28] Ibid, 34.
[29] Ibid. 37.
[30] Ibid. 51.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid. 51.
[33] Swavely, 140.
[34] Godawa, 178.
[35] Ibid. 43.
[36] Ibid. 178.
[37] Moore, 4.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid. 5.
[40] For a more thorough articulation of the point that art is God’s gift to mankind see Leland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination. (Colorado Springs: Shaw, 1989).

The Heart and the Head: Gregory of Nazianzus and the Connection Between Theology and Worship

There is a connection between the heart and the head that is often overlooked today. For some, theology is useless because it has no value for the Christian life[1]. For others, theology is significant for knowing God, but yet it still finds little application in the day to day[2]. Such a modern conception, however, finds no place in the writings of the ancient church father Gregory of Nazianzus, nor indeed in the Bible. Gregory understood well the connection between worship and theology, and his writings clearly demonstrate this. Gregory grounds this connection in two ways throughout his five Theological Orations: (1) By showing that theology itself is worship, and (2) by displaying how the knowledge of one doctrine (that of the Trinity) is essential to worshiping Christianly.

In his first theological oration Gregory begins by stating that the act of theological thinking and discussion is itself an act of worship, and, that being the case, it must not be done trivially. He compares the “philosophizing about God” with Moses’ going up to the Mount, and speaks of those who would be like Aaron the Priest. The comparisons, and the mention of priests and entering the presence of God, echo the expressions of worship in Exodus 24.[3] Worship is at the center of all theological pursuits. Theologian and professor Christopher Hall notes that “from the very outset of his theological orations, Gregory warns his audience that they and he are attempting a high and holy task.”[4] He continues:

Theology, while employing the mind, also involves the heart. A pure heart, one grounded in the worship of the church and a life of prayer, will produce clear and fruitful theological reflection. A murky heart and a dark mind, on the other hand, will produce a sick, thorny theology; it will offer no nourishment, only harm.[5]

This connection between the heart and the head lead Gregory to say, “Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the subject is not so cheap and low.”[6] Why is it not acceptable for all men to philosophize upon the subject of God? Gregory answers:

Not to all men, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined, and are passed masters in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified. For the impure to touch the pure is, we may safely say, not safe, just as it is unsafe to fix weak eyes upon the sun’s rays.[7]

Indeed, for Gregory, the theologian who wishes to pursue further the knowledge of God he “ought to be, as far as may be, pure, in order that light may be apprehended by light.”[8] All these comments direct us to think carefully about the matters of theological investigation, to be careful about how one ascertains various doctrines, including the doctrine of the trinity. For Gregory, discovering the nature of God requires that we receive His own special revelation. We cannot achieve a deep knowledge of God without God revealing Himself to us. Reason, he argues, fails to adequately provide us with a knowledge of God. Reason is a gift of God that certainly has its uses and is a great tool when used properly, but reason alone is not a means by which one may come to a full understanding of the divine. So Gregory writes:

With a small instrument we are undertaking a great work, when with merely human wisdom we pursue the knowledge of the Self-existent, and in company with, or not apart from, the senses, by which we are borne hither and thither, and led into error, we apply ourselves to the search after things which are only to be grasped by the mind, and we are unable by meeting bare realities with bare intellect to approximate somewhat more closely to the truth, and to mould the mind by its concepts.[9]

The mind’s natural act of reasoning is both part of what is needed to come to an understanding of God and yet is also part of what may lead us astray. Our reasoning is an important tool, Gregory is saying, yet it is not a flawless one. Yet, man is not without hope.

In his introduction to the Gregory’s theological orations one author comments, “God, out of compassion for our weakness, has been pleased to designate Himself in Holy Scripture by various names taken from material objects, or from moral virtues.”[10] This is where the discussion of a knowledge of God’s nature takes a turn. While it is true that it is “impossible for even the most exalted human reason fully to grasp the Nature of God”[11] God Himself has deemed it good to reveal Himself to us in the Scriptures. As Robert Letham has noted, “God has revealed himself to mankind, to Abraham, Isaiah, and Paul, so an apophatic approach is ruled out. [Gregory teaches that] our knowledge of God is true knowledge, but it is not direct knowledge of God’s essence.”[12] The human mind alone is not sufficient to know God, but thankfully God has revealed Himself in Scripture.

The revelation of God’s Trinitarian nature did not come all at once in Scripture, but it is seen throughout the whole scope of the canon. Gregory gives a splendid articulation to this point when he writes:

The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further…with the Holy Spirit…[I]t was necessary that, increasing little by little, and, as David says, by ascensions from glory to glory, the full splendor of the Trinity should gradually shine forth.[13]

It is to the Scriptures that one must turn to do theology, and without the Bible not only do we come to a faulty, or a weak knowledge of God, but we also fail to worship God. In his first Theological Oration Gregory delineates this point thoroughly. His attack against the heretical Eunomian heresy in this first sermon aims at pointing out their faulty hermeneutic. Christopher Hall notes well the error that Gregory aims at undermining in this first oration.

Gregory’s attention appeared to focus on a radical Arian group known as the Eunomians. This group exalted their supposed ability to plumb rationally the depths of the divine being itself. The Eunomians believed they could clearly comprehend the divine essence and distinguish the relationships between Father, Son and Holy Spirit through the use of reason alone.[14]

It has already been mentioned why Gregory believed that reason alone was incapable of producing a knowledge of the divine essence[15], but if not reason what, then, may give man a knowledge of the holy? Hall continues:

In his first Theological Oration Gregory concentrates his attention on how the Eunomians read Scripture and do theology, rather than on their specific errors. It does not surprise him that they are making crucial errors, because their attitude from the beginning is faulty.[16]
The supposition that reason alone is adequate to form a conception of the essence of God is faulty, Gregory argues, because “in their study of God…they have forgotten who they are dealing with and have reduced God’s wonders and mysteries to the boundaries of their own rational capabilities.”[17]

At the heart of their heresy is a bad heart, Gregory says. The Eunomians come to wrong conclusions in their theology because they do not seek to worship God in their theology; rather they seek to exalt their abilities. Gregory is arguing here not simply for an admission of the inadequacy of reason, but for an honesty about the need for God’s self-revelation in Scripture. Hall points out the lack of a worshipful spirit in how the Eunomians pursued theology. “The Eunomians were a cocky, self-assured bunch, ready to use rational syllogisms to poke holes in the ideas of their opponents, but all the while blind to the drastic implications of their own theological methodology.”[18] Their hearts were in the wrong place, and their pride mutated their theology.

The first Theological Oration is the most in depth of Gregory’s writings on the connection between theology and worship. It strongly emphasizes that without a proper heart, without a devout spiritual life, one cannot and should not do theology. Many had, in fact, turned theology into a type of sport. Quoting from Jarslov Pelikan, Christopher Hall describes Gregory’s complaint against these individuals:

Pelikan notes Gregory’s complaint that “some devotees of theology” were “like the promoters of wrestling-bouts, in the theatres,” people whose “idle chatter about the dogmas of the faith,” in Gregory’s words, made “every square in the city buzz with their arguments.” The only remedy was a pure mind and heart and good, old fashioned study.[19]

This is what happens when one separates worship from theology; you end up with mere prattle and useless philosophizing. To maintain a biblical focus on discourse about God one must have a pure heart, one must love God, and one must seek to worship Him. Theology is affected by worship.

On the reverse side, however, we find the same connection. Not only is theology affected by worship, but worship is affected by theology, as well. Robert Letham is right when he writes, “Today most Western Christians are practical modalists. The usual way of referring to God is ‘God’ or, particularly at the popular level, ‘the Lord.’” Where is the Trinity in our Christianity? Do many of our worship songs reflect the God of the Bible, or could Jews, Muslims, and deists sing them as well? “It is worth contrasting this [absence of the Trinity from Western worship] with Gregory Nazianzen, the great Cappadocian of the fourth Century, who spoke of ‘my Trinity,’ saying, ‘When I say, ‘God,’ I mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’”[20] The true worship of God must acknowledge that He is Triune, and worship the full Godhead.

Gregory could hardly think of God without thinking of each of the three Persons of the one Godhead, and, likewise, could hardly think of one Person without thinking of the whole unity. So he says:

When we look at the Godhead…that which we conceive is One; but when we look at the persons in whom the Godhead dwells, and at those who tirelessly and with equal glory have their being from the first cause—there are three whom we worship.[21]

The theologian has a specific way of describing how this Trinitarian worship works. He knew that many of his opponents, even if they conceded that the Bible presents God as Triune, would still question whether or not all three Persons should be worshiped, he answers their doubts as follows:

But, [the doubter] says, who in ancient or modern times ever worshipped the Spirit? Who ever prayed to Him? Where is it written that we ought to worship Him, or to pray to Him, and whence have you derived this tenet of yours? …For the present it will suffice to say that it is the Spirit in Whom we worship, and in Whom we pray. For Scripture says, God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.[22]

It is by the Holy Spirit, through Christ the Son, and to the Father that the Christian worships. In the act of worship the Spirit is the one who generates this desire to worship God, and it is because of the Son’s death and resurrection and through His righteousness credited to us that we may approach God in worship. Thus all three Persons of the Godhead must be acknowledged in worship, or we do not have a distinctly Christian worship.

God has revealed Himself as Triune within scripture[23] and, according to him, to fail to affirm this in our worship is to fail to worship. Gregory is not shy in asserting his belief in the trinity:
This then is my position, with regard to these things, and I hope it may be always my position, and that of whosoever is dear to me; to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, Three Persons, One Godhead, undivided in honour and glory and substance and kingdom.[24]

Theology and worship, despite what many may say, cannot be separated. Gregory declares that only a worshipful spirit produces true theology, and only a true theology produces Biblical worship. Thus it may rightly be asserted, as Gregory would assert, that the heart and the head are connected.








[1] Donald Miller suggests this very plainly in his work Blue Like Jazz.
[2] Unfortunately this is how many academicians behave. This model also finds examples among Protestants who owned slaves.
[3] Gregory’s Second Theological Oration. ed. Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 289.
[4] Christopher Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: IVP, 2002. 56.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Schaff, 285.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 288.
[9] Ibid. 296.
[10] Ibid. 282.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2004). 158-159.
[13] Quoted in Letham, 33.
[14] Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: IVP, 1998. 69.
[15] Much of my thought on the place of logic in Gregory’s writing is owing to helpful articulation from both Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers and Frederick Norris, “Of Thorns and Roses: The Logic of Belief in Gregory Nazianzen.” Church History. 53. 455-464.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.70.
[20] Letham, 5-6.
[21] Quoted from Letham, 412.
[22] Schaff, 321.
[23] Gregory makes his case for this point in both the Theological Orations on the Son and his final one on the Holy Spirit.
[24] Ibid. 326-7.

A Theology Against Legalism

They weren’t allowed to listen to music or watch television. Movies were strictly forbidden and school dances were out of the question. I often wondered how this family had come to such conclusions. Why were such things as music, dancing, movies, and the like evil things? Why were they banned? My initial analysis was simply that they were legalistic. They had set down rules and made regulations for things that the Bible never speaks about. They were living by some other standard, I thought. In recent years, however, I have come to see more clearly that this is not entirely fair, nor is it a true understanding of what legalism is. Legalism is a serious issue and one that each Christian encounters, both externally and internally. Therefore, we must know, understand, and counteract the doctrines of legalism.

What is Legalism?
C.J. Mahaney has helpfully clarified what legalism is in the following definition: Legalism is seeking to achieve forgiveness from God and acceptance by God through obedience to God.[1] It is basing our relationship with God on our own performance. This is such a crucial point to get because it turns legalism into something that is not merely “out there”, but quite probably “in here”. In other words this definition points out that legalism is something that all Christians struggle with. Let me show you how.

Legalism in Me
Do you ever feel God is more accessible because you read your Bible? Do you ever feel like you can’t go to God because you have sin in your life, you haven’t done a daily devotional, you haven’t prayed, or you yelled at your spouse? Do you ever feel like God looks on you more happily because you attended church, sang with a worshipful spirit, or wept over sin? This is essentially legalism. We are basing our relationship with God on something we ourselves have done. We are all prone to do these sorts of things, to believe these things. Suddenly the legalist is not merely that person who scorns wearing makeup, but it’s me. It’s no longer external, it’s internal. It’s no longer an issue for old churches or young believers, but a struggle for me. Suddenly I have to examine my own life to touch on spots where I am failing in my theology. John MacArthur is dead on when he writes that legalism is a threat today. He says:

Even in Evangelical churches there are many people whose assurance of salvation is based on their religious activities rather than faith alone in the all-sufficient Savior. They assume they are Christians because they read the Bible, pray, go to church, or perform other religious functions. They judge spirituality on the basis of external performance rather than internal love for Christ, hatred for sin, and a heart devoted to obedience.[2]

It’s easy to do and most of us are prone to it. Perhaps we don’t all associate our salvation so blatantly with our works, but rather we judge God’s accessibility based on these works. We say, or simply think, “God won’t hear me,” or “God won’t bless me if I don’t do ____,” and you can fill in the blank. The fundamental error involved here is a confusion of two important works of God: justification and sanctification.

When the Related Become Synonymous
Because the church often employs its own language to talk about certain ideas and doctrines it is easy for people to be confused about what these terms mean without a simple investigation. That is, I believe, what has happened with the terms “justification” and “sanctification”. In many ways the church has taken the term “salvation” and made it synonymous with both of these terms. When we mean to say that someone is “saved” we may say he is “justified.” But in reality “Justification” and “Sanctification” are sub-sets of the whole work of “Salvation”. All three of these terms are related but they are not synonymous. To be saved one must be “justified” and one must begin the process of “sanctification.” If you are “justified” then you will be growing in “sanctification”. It’s important to see the differences between justification and sanctification, for that is where the fundamental error leading to legalism begins. Mahaney gives a good list of these differences.

· Justification is being declared righteous. Sanctification is being made righteous- being conformed to the image of Christ.
· Justification is our position before God. Sanctification is our practice. You don’t practice justification! It happens once for all, upon conversion.
· Justification is objective- Christ’s work for us. Sanctification is subjective- Christ’s work within us.
· Justification is immediate and complete upon conversion. You will never be more justified than you are the first moment you trust in the Person and finished work of Christ. Sanctification is a process. You will be more sanctified as you continue in grace-motivated obedience.[3]

Understanding the distinction between these two works of the Spirit of God is
crucial to avoiding the error of legalism. Mahaney wisely writes, “Nearly every man and woman I’ve met who has struggled with legalism has had a faulty understanding of how justification and sanctification are related to each other, and how they’re distinct. We must distinguish between justifying grace and sanctifying grace, but never separate them.”[4] Do you adequately understand these two theological terms? A quick summary of them individually may be helpful here.

Changing Positions
The term “justification” is too important to leave open to various interpretations. It is, as Thomas Watson said, “the very hinge and pillar of Christianity.”[5] We must make sure that we fully understand what justification is as taught from scripture.

The Bible indicates that the term “justification” is a legal term. The common meaning of the Greek word, which we translate as “justification,” is “to declare righteous.”[6] Some verses make this abundantly clear by the way that they contrast “justification” with “condemnation”. So note Romans 8:33-34, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?” The contrast is between two types of declarations: (1) The Declaration of Guilty, and (2) The Declaration of NOT Guilty. This is the essence of justification. Wayne Grudem gives us a wonderful working definition: Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which He (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in His sight.[7]

Justification is a legal declaration made by God, and this is important to remember. For we are all guilty of one great sin: disobedience to God’s law. We are lawbreakers and God has every right, as the just judge of the universe, to condemn us for this crime. Yet, because of Christ’s death on the cross, all those who repent of this sin and confess Christ as Lord and Savior, can be declared not guilty. The only Son of God has bore the punishment that they deserved, and God now “justifies” them. It is a changing of positions on the grandest scale. Listen to how Paul describes this transition in Colossians 1:21-22.

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, He has now reconciled in His body of flesh by His death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before Him.

Listen again to Paul’s words from his letter to the Ephesians:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ- by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

These two verses emphasize well the change of positions that occurs in the sinner when he is justified. The ground of this justification is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the cross in the place of sinners. The key to this justification is faith, and this is crucial to our discussion of legalism.

Justification by Faith Alone?
The great debate of the Protestant Reformation was over the issue of justification by faith alone. It was perversions of this doctrine that Luther most ardently opposed. The Catholic church, at that time, taught that one might attain justification via the sacraments. Justification is poured into the soul at an infant’s baptism, but the receiver must co-operate and assent to this. The individual is, then, justified if they keep themselves from mortal sin. If one commits a mortal sin that individual may be restored through penance. The works of satisfaction give the penitent sinner a merit that God acknowledges as worthy to grant the sinner restoration. What Luther was running into was a theology, which confessed that faith was necessary for justification, but not sufficient. It was the difference between faith and faith alone.[8]

Today we have similar problems, not only with Catholic theology but with Protestants as well. While many plainly profess justification by faith alone they do not live that way. Our actions and thoughts often reflect a belief that we are justified by something other than faith, and we often judge others by an external standard. But note what scripture clearly teaches about our justification.

And to one who does not work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Rom. 4:5)

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the Prophets bear witness to it- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Rom. 3:21-22a)

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Rom. 3:28)

He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. (Rom. 3:30b)

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom. 5:1)

Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:16)

We must all come to grasp fully the truth that we are only justified by faith! Works have no place in the Biblical doctrine of justification. We are neither initially justified nor remain justified by our works, it is all by grace through faith. This is the most crucial step to grasp if we are to fight off the urge to be legalists, yet it is not the only step.

Growth is a Process
As I have already noted, most of us do not have the problem of defining our salvation by our works. For any good Protestant this is an obvious heresy. Yet in the area of our sanctification we often stumble into legalism. Dave Swavely notes the distinction:

The word [legalism] is used by Christians in connection with both justification and sanctification, two very different topics. When used in connection with justification, “legalism” usually means adding works to faith, or human merit to grace, as a condition for salvation. But when used in connection with sanctification (the Christian life after coming to salvation), the term usually has something to do with man-made traditions added to the Bible.[9]

It is often in this second area that Christians fall into the error of legalism: by adding man-made traditions to the Word of God. This creates a standard for spirituality which the Bible never mandates and which often leads to pride, sin, and disappointment. Let’s begin this part of the discussion, however, by nailing down exactly what “sanctification” is.
We’ve already seen what the differences are between “justification” and “sanctification” but let’s get some more detailed information. Wayne Grudem gives us a working definition for “sanctification.” He writes: Sanctification is a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives.[10]
It’s important to realize that our conversion is a full and complete change of heart. We once hated God and now we desire Him and love Him. This truth, however, does not negate the fact that we still live in a world of temptation and have sinful desires in us. To change this takes time, hard work, and the continuing outpouring of God’s grace. This is why we read Paul saying to the Roman Christians, who had “died to sin” (Rom. 6:2), that they should “let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions” (v. 12). And likewise, the apostle writes of the Corinthian Christians that while they are “beholding the glory of the Lord,” they are also “being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18).
These verses, and many others, teach that God’s work to conform us to the image of His dear Son is a process, it does not happen overnight and requires both our hard discipline and, ultimately, His triumphing grace to overcome sin. This is important for us to remember as we seek to avoid the error of legalism. There are two main pitfalls into that sin in the area of sanctification, so let’s look at them each individually.

Remember the Cross
The first pitfall we have already mentioned, it is the confusion of “sanctification” with “justification.” I won’t belabor discussion of this beyond what is necessary; I have already highlighted (thanks to C.J. Mahaney) what the differences are between the two doctrines. But let me add a few more comments to this discussion.
The chief fault of this association is that it makes necessary for salvation what God never required. Mahaney, again, gives a good summary of what needs to be said. He writes:
Now…here’s the mistake the legalist makes. He confuses his own ongoing participation in the process of sanctification with God’s finished work in justification. In other words, he thinks that godly practices and good works somehow contribute to his justification.[11]
We seem to struggle with the notion of having nothing to contribute to our salvation. We tend to want to “help God out,” or, less blasphemous, “to pull our own weight.” During the 3rd Century a heresy developed in Christendom known as Pelagianism, which embraced this innate tendency. The teachings of Pelagius, a British monk, argued for a meritorious salvation. Man was not corrupted with sin, but could, through hard work, save himself. Historian and theologian Timothy George summarizes well the distinctiveness of Pelagius’ teachings when he writes, “The law was the perfect rulebook and Jesus was the perfect rule keeper- nothing more. Salvation, like sin, is by imitation too.”[12] Under this type of teaching legalism would creep into a doctrine of justification. After Pelagianism itself was refuted and declared heretical, a new brand of the old teaching developed: Semi-Pelagianism. In many ways this same teaching is still in existence today and may be even more disastrous. 19th Century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge once jokingly said that he did not fear the ghost of Pelagius, but the ghost of Semi-Pelagius.
Semi-Pelagianism, while acknowledging the faults of the old Pelagianism, still maintained a meritorious aspect to salvation. In Pelagianism we did 99% of the work towards our salvation and God, in sending the Son, did 1%. In Semi-Pelagianism, however, it is God who does the 99% and we who do the 1%. Martin Luther, writing of Semi-Pelagianism, asserted that this teaching was even more dangerous than the former heresy:

This hypocrisy of theirs [Semi-Pelagians] results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something in us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace.[13]

The outcome of this teaching is the same as that of the heretical Pelagius: man works for his salvation. Many Christians believe and live as though their salvation is based on how good of a Christian they are. This can be most evidently seen in the theology of those who deny the doctrine of Eternal Security.[14] There is a shift in the central focus of the believer, going on here. Instead of focusing on the cross and Christ’s death as the satisfaction of God’s wrath against man’s sin, he focuses on his works as the means to maintaining God’s good favor. But the Bible is clear that no one will be saved (or kept saved) by the works of the law. No good deed is good enough to satisfy God’s anger against your sin, only Christ’s subistutionary death, paying the penalty we deserved, is sufficient. This is important because of what “working for God’s favor” says about the cross.
When we work to earn God’s favor, when we attempt to add our character or deeds to the cross, we are saying with our lives, if not with our hearts, that Jesus’ death was not sufficient. That in fact his death may very well be in vain if I do not do something to help him out. We suddenly turn God into a puny deity who needs us to work, or worse still we rob Him of all the glory He deservers for our salvation. Jesus paid it all! We have nothing to add. In the words of William Cowper, “Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling.” Grasping this is crucial for warding off legalism.

Remember Progression
The second pitfall into legalism deals with the issue of sanctification as a process. While the former failed to distinguish sanctification from justification, this error fails to realize the progressive nature of sanctification. This problem is all the more difficult to resist because of the battle going on currently over “Lordship Salvation.”[15] It is true that Scripture does indeed teach that the true Christian will live a life representative of his changed heart, reflecting his conversion. But our obedience as evidence of our salvation can easily be perverted into something it was not meant to be. Let’s carefully deal with this issue in more detail.
The mistake of legalists in this area is to confuse sanctification with glorification. We are not perfect in this life and while we are to follow Christ in obedience, failure to do so flawlessly does not admit false conversion, or lost salvation. A theology that teaches otherwise may properly be identified as Perfectionism. Theologians and Christians who adhere to this system of teaching do so based on misinterpretations of various Scriptural passages, such as: Matthew 5:48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect;” 2 Corinthians 7:1 “Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God;” 1 Thess. 5:23 “May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly;” and John 3:6 “No one who abides in Him sins;” and there are many other verses. Do these verses, however, teach that in this life our perfection may be realized? After a closer inspection of the context and the whole of Scripture it is simply not possible to conclude what the Perfectionists profess. Wayne Grudem has done a masterful job of arguing against their interpretations of these verses in his systematic theology[16]; I will not here repeat them. What we must understand, however, is that each part of the Bible is to be interpreted in light of the whole. So we should consider here and ask the question, “what does the whole Bible teach about sanctification?”
A great verse to consider here is Romans 6:19. Here Paul writes, “Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.” We must pay attention to the words at the beginning of this verse. The “Just as” is crucial. For “just as” the Roman Christians had previously yielded themselves up to more and more sin, in a like manner they are now to yield themselves up to more and more “righteousness for sanctification.” So Wayne Grudem correctly writes:
Paul says that throughout the Christian life “we all…are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18). We are progressively becoming more and more like Christ as we go on in the Christian life. Therefore he says, “Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13-14)- this is in the context of saying that he is not already perfect but he presses on to achieve all of the purposes for which Christ has saved him (vv. 9-12).[17]

The Bible teaches that sanctification is a process, not a one-time event that produces perfection in this life.[18] Legalism appears in this manner when individuals suppose that any sin is a sign of “backsliding” or of a lack of salvation all together. This simply is not always the case. The apostle James clearly said, “We all make many mistakes” (James 3:2). When we understand that sanctification is a process we are less prone to judge others, and ourselves, by our works.
The “sticky” part of this particular aspect of the discussion comes up when we inquire of the role of works. What place does self-discipline have in the Christian life? What about the spiritual disciplines? How do we wrestle with those commands in the Bible that tell us to “work?” These are important questions and they must be addressed in a balanced manner. It is important to remember that while we are called to “work” we are never called to any form of legalism, and the difficulty is in finding the proper balance.

The Role of Works in the Christian Life
Titus 2:14 is one particular passage that helps us to understand the place of discipline and work in the Christian life. There the apostle Paul, writing to his son in the faith, says that Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify form himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works.” Within in this short and simple verse we have a basic theology of works. Let’s lay it out.
The context of this verse indicates that Paul is speaking about the very issue we are here considering: working in the Christian life. Beginning in verse 11 he states that it is the grace of God through Jesus Christ that has brought salvation to us, and that this salvation is “training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.” So sanctification is a post conversion work of God. After salvation, God, through His Holy Spirit works in us to train us to renounce ungodliness, to be conformed to the image of Christ. The verse we are mainly focusing on in this section of scripture, v. 14, teaches the same thing. Christ redeems a people from all “lawlessness and to purify” them. No matter how good our works were before Christ they were not good enough, for all men and women need to be redeemed from lawlessness and be purified.
The second part of the verse indicates why Christ redeemed and purifies: to make a “people for His own possession who are zealous for good works.” To be zealous for truly good works we must first be redeemed and purified. So in no way are our works meant to save us! They cannot! Only after our salvation do works have a proper place in our life, as a means to honor God and exalt Christ. Where we fall short of this we are to confess our sins and ask for forgiveness, and, according to the apostle John, “if we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.”[19] Christians sin; John says as much when he writes in chapter two of 1 John, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” There is no place in Christian theology for a Perfectionist teaching, and no place for a legalism that deems only the perfectly sinless are truly converted.

Turning Our Theology On Others
The brunt of our focus on legalism thus far has been the self. I have been concerned with encouraging those of us who bare the scars of legalism and find ourselves hopeless and depressed and indeed doubting our salvation. I hope that if you are one of those people you see how clearly the Bible teaches only Christ can save and His work is sufficient for your full and eternal salvation. Rest in that truth and never move beyond it. But now let me take the time to focus on those who use legalism as a means of judging others, something, I am sure, none of us are innocent of.
While none of us likes to be judged by the legalist’s standards it is sadly true that we often do the same to others. I hope that making the proper distinctions between justification, sanctification, and glorification will keep you from doing this, but there is another principal that may also help us to avoid judging others un-biblically. The apostle Paul lays it out for us:
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1 Cor. 4: 6)
The context of this passage is Paul’s criticism of the Corinthians who were judging others based on what leader they followed, and judging Paul, himself. In verse 5 we read, “Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” In this verse Paul is instructing the Corinthians not to judge matters for which we do not have all the information (things hidden in darkness) and not to judge the motives of others’ hearts. And he follows this up with a strict command “not to go beyond what is written,” meaning beyond what God has laid out in His Holy Word. This is the number one fault leading to legalism and as such deserves a full explication; this will help us make a proper distinction between judging Biblically and un-Biblically.

Beyond What is Written
God has given us clear commands in scripture on a number of issues in the Christian life. We know from the Bible that we are not to commit adultery, we are not to steal, we are not to get drunk, we know that we are not to forsake the church, or to oppress the poor. But what are we to do when the Bible does not give an explicit command on a certain issue? There are a number of issues which Scripture does not address that are considered somewhat controversial in Christian circles. For example: Should Christians go to the movies, play video games, smoke, drink, watch football games on Sunday afternoon, dance? These and many other issues are a main source of division in the church. How are we to deal with such subjects when God’s word does not deal with them? In that one phrase “do not go beyond what is written” Paul gives us a principal of guidance.
Where God’s word remains silent, by either direct statement or implication, then we are free to make our own choice in good conscience. This one verse assuredly condemns making a moral universal standard out of something that is nowhere recorded in Scripture. You cannot make a universal law about something that the Bible is silent. Again, in Romans 14 Paul lays this principal out for us.
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
The passage continues with an astounding and forthright declaration on the freedom of the Christian to make decisions where the Bible is silent, and on the prohibition of judging where there is no definitive Biblical rule.
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the Judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
The whole chapter is rich with this topic and in a straightforward fashion declares judging where the Bible is silent is an un-Biblical form of judging. Instead it promotes the freedom that Christians have in Christ, and one phrase in particular stands out as key: Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. In this one sentence we have a mandate for free thinking and conscience guided decision-making. After all a Biblically informed conscience can be an excellent guide in the Christian life, though it is not the only one or the ultimate one. Dave Swavely calls this the “Principal of Conscience” and it is an important principal to grasp to help aid us in the fight against legalism.

The Principal of Conscience
Dave Swavely writes, “The apostle Paul ends his discussion in Romans 14 by explaining more about Christian liberty and its relation to that mysterious faculty of the human soul that we call conscience.”[20] God has instilled in His created man a conscience with the intent that, under the influence of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, man would be led in the way he should go. Of course with the fall into sin all of man has been contaminated, and even our conscience can sometimes lead us astray. But when informed by God’s moral law and requirements the conscience can be a great tool. In verses 22 and 23 Paul gives encouragement for us to enjoy the freedoms that we have in Christ. So he writes:

The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

On issues where the Bible has given no clear direct or implied moral command we are free to make our own decision. But, as Paul tells us here, that decision must be Biblically informed and you must be convinced in your conscience that you are in no way sinning against God. Speaking of those who would eat food sacrificed to idols when it is against their conscience to do so Paul says that they are “condemned,” meaning guilty. To eat without faith, Paul says, is sin. It is not the eating that is the sin, it is the person’s heart that is causing him to sin. Dave Swavely uses an interesting example to explain this point.
A helpful illustration would be a woman who was taught while growing up, by her parents and her church, that wearing pants is wrong. Men wear pants, the argument goes, so women should not wear pants. This is a legalistic view that is read into Scripture…, but does not proceed from a sound interpretation of Scripture and is not consistent with common sense…So she has been convinced that it is wrong for her to wear pants. Now suppose she is getting ready to go out for the evening with some female friends, who are all wearing jeans and begin to encourage her to do the same. They even poke fun at her hesitancy, and practically browbeat her into breaking her tradition. If she decides to put the jeans on while she still thinks it might be wrong, she will be sinning, because at that moment something is more important to her than pleasing God. It will not be her faith in Him that motivates her to put those jeans on, but her fear of what her friends think, and perhaps her own comfort. [21]
Here is a clear case of how the “Principal of Conscience” should be applied. It is not a sin to wear jeans; nowhere in Scripture do we find even the slightest implication of such a rule. Yet if one believes it is a sin to wear jeans, yet you do it anyways, than you say with your heart, “I would rather wear jeans than honor God.” As is often the case with sin, the action is not necessarily the sin; it is the motivation and inclination of the heart. In the case of Swavely’s fictional woman, her heart is more inclined towards pleasing her friends than pleasing God. Where Scripture does not give us boundaries we are free to make our own choice, but that choice must never be to do what we think might even possibly be a sin.

The Dangers of Unbiblical Judging
While the Bible does declare that we have much freedom in Christ there are many who don’t acknowledge this and they make their own opinions about certain issues to be universal laws. So they judge others by a standard which God has not set, a man-made tradition. This was the great fault of the Pharisees in Jesus’ own day. The Pharisees had a number of problems, a majority of which stemmed from their legalism. I want to turn our attention to three major problems, or dangers, that stem from legalism: (1) Hypocrisy, (2) Pride, (3) Self-Condemnation.

The Sin of Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy is a word used to describe those who give the pretense of being something which they are not. It is saying one thing, and doing the opposite. This is often a result of legalism because of the tendency that this teaching has to focus on the external actions while ignoring the internal heart. On Several occasions Jesus identifies this as the problem that the Pharisees had. In Mark 7:5-7 we read:

And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "' This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

Here we have a real life example, from the New Testament, of legalism. The Pharisees were teaching “as doctrine,” meaning they made a universal law, the “commandments of men.” The “law” to wash your hands before eating was not set by God, but was a man-made rule that the Pharisees were making universal. It was the “tradition of the elders,” not the tradition of God. Yet in making this rule the Pharisees forgot that it is not merely the external actions that matter, but the state of one’s heart. So Jesus condemns them for their formalism: honoring God with their lips but not worshiping Him in their hearts.
Again in Luke 11:37-44 Jesus identifies the Pharisees as hypocrites.

While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it."

The Pharisees here are said to cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, a metaphor for their own selves, yet the inside is still dirty. It’s a very practical and convincing image. Would you want to drink from a cup that was clean and shiny on the outside but on the inside had week old coffee stains or milk? It’s a rather gross image in that way, and Jesus is here comparing the Pharisees to externally clean dishes that have maintained their filth on the inside. They look good to others, yet to God, who judges the heart, they are stained with sin. In short: they give the pretense of holiness, while being full of sin; it is hypocrisy.
Of course this serves as a warning to us. One of the great faults of legalism is to suppose that external deeds are evidence of internal holiness. But we know it to be true that often we can do the right things and still be sinners. Before we were Christians even, we often did good deeds, but this does not make anyone holy (as has been shown above). Washing the outside of our cups but leaving the inside dirty is hypocrisy and not genuine righteousness. We may honor God with our lives but if our hearts do not worship Him than we worship God in vain. Hypocrisy hardens our hearts to true purity. We will gradually become more convinced that if we are doing the right deeds, we will not need to seek true repentance and internal devotion to God. It is this hypocrisy that Jesus condemned and it will bear dead spiritual fruit in our lives.

The Sin of Pride
Pride is the second major sin of the practice of legalism. This result being as equally disastrous to our spiritual lives and fellowship with the saints and the Lord as the former sin is. Often the keeping of these external rules can become a source of pride in the legalist. Listen to the words of the Pharisee in the parable that Jesus tells.
[Jesus] also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'[22]
What audacity this Pharisee had. He came before God bragging of his good deeds as though he had accomplished much for God without God. His heart was full of arrogance and self-righteousness. And Jesus’ has told this parable with the expressed intent of showing the self-righteous how foolish they are, for it continues:

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

It was not the self-professed righteous Pharisee who leaves the temple justified, but rather the poor and humble tax collector. Legalism tends towards making arrogant fools out of men, a point that the Apostle Paul saw all to clearly.
Why is the Apostle Paul so concerned, in 1 Corinthians 4, that Christians should never go “beyond what is written” in their judgments about moral issues? …The Answer lies in all the problems that result from it…The last part [of 1 Corinthians 4:6] is a purpose clause (beginning with the Greek conjunction “hina”) explaining why Paul wants the Corinthians to keep themselves from going beyond what is written…Paul says we should avoid legalism “so that no one of you will become arrogant.”[23]
Pride is simple sin to fall into and yet God’s word has very harsh words for the proud man. Note these verses from Proverbs:

When pride comes, then comes dishonor, but with the humble is wisdom (11:2).
Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; assuredly , He will not be unpunished (16:5).
Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling. It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly than to divide the spoil with the proud (16:18-19).
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him (26:12).
An arrogant man stirs up strife, but he who trusts in the Lord will prosper (28:25).
A man’s pride will bring him low, but a humble spirit will obtain honor (29:23).[24]

God’s word makes no excuses for the sin of pride. It is an “abomination” to the Lord. It is an outrage to Him, for many reasons but chief among them being that it robs God of His glory. Paul plainly asked the Corinthian Christians “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if you did not?” God gets the glory for every “good and perfect gift” and our pride is an attempt to claim for ourselves some of what belongs solely to Him, for “in Him we live and move and have our being.” So how does pride come from legalism? Dave Swavely gives a solid and Biblical answer:

…Remember that to whatever extent you go beyond what is written, it will short-circuit your spiritual growth to the same degree. Why does this happen? One way of explaining it is that when we are learning and obeying the commandments and teachings of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is present and working within us as we do …But when we are learning and obeying the “commandments and teachings of men,” He is not. If we grow in our godliness by the power of the Holy Spirit, He makes sure that we progress in humility as well. But when we are living in legalism by our own strength, we can only grow arrogant as we surpass other Christians in our “spiritual success.”[25]

Legalism leads to pride because it accomplishes “spiritual growth” (which is really false spiritual growth) in one’s own strength, and bypasses the power of the Holy Spirit. And, as we read above, pride leads to destruction and is an abomination to the Lord. Spiritual pride wreaks havoc on our relationship with God and with other believers.

The Sin of Self-Condemnation
Perhaps it seems odd to you to call “self-condemnation” a sin. Many think this has more to do with a lack of self-esteem than with sinfulness, but sin is usually involved in this psychological problem. C.J. Mahaney helps us better understand condemnation, he writes, “Condmenation is something we all deal with at one time or another…We can become condemned over any sin, past or present, great or small. The common element is a sustained sense of guilt or shame over sins for which you have repented to God and to any appropriate individuals.”[26] How is this a sin? That’s an excellent question and I am glad you asked.
Self-Condemnation is a sin because it reflects an unspoken attitude that says, “Jesus’ sacrifice couldn’t possibly be enough to win the Father’s favor completely, unreservedly, and forever.”[27] It is an attempt to justify oneself by works, which we have already seen is the epitome of arrogance and impossible. Legalism almost always leads to self-condemnation, both for those who allow themselves to be judged and often for those who do the judging. Let’s see an example.
A legalist has recently joined your church. Of course he does not identify himself as a legalist, and to the members and the staff of the congregation he seems to be a very godly man who lives a very godly life. You welcome him with open arms, and suspect nothing (which you should if you do not know him to be a legalist or have reason to suppose he is). As you spend more time together he convinces you that it is a sin to watch movies, to listen to public radio, and to eat a snack after dinner. He then convinces you that only home schooling is a Biblical way to train your kids, and that if you are not leading a Bible study at work then you are sinning. After further time together he wants you to read a book together with him, and join the bus ministry; After all “every good Christians serves in as many capacities as he can at the church,” he tells you. Well for several weeks you are doing well but then you had some ice cream after supper one night, and you watched a movie with your cousin who came in town. Suddenly you begin feeling extremely guilty, and for things that are not even sins. As time goes on you fail to read the weekly chapters for the book you’re reading with him, and you listened to a song on the radio on the way to work, you begin to wonder how displeased God is with you? You’re now feeling worse than before, you begin to avoid prayer and Bible study, and you can no longer look you friend the eye. Why does this happen? Where did this condemnation come from? From the legalism you have been sucked into.
There are many good things to do in the Christian life, some are even essentials, yet none of them ever changes our accessibility to God or His favor on us. Even something as crucial as Bible reading and church attendance will never make us more acceptable to God. But the more we think they do, and the more we fail to do them, the more we will build up a problem of self-condemnation. Mahaney gives some sound advice, however, when he writes:

The Christian who desires to live a cross centered life will regularly face his or her own depravity and the seriousness of personal sin, squarely and unflinchingly. It’s a reality. But the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin is even greater…Here’s how to beat condemnation. Confess your sin to God. Then believe in Him.[28]

Fighting Our Great Foe
We have, at length, discussed the issue of judging and legalism. Much more could be said, and, thankfully, has been said by better authors than myself. It is important, however, that before we conclude our discussion we ask the question: How can I fight against legalism in me? That is the final focus of this chapter: Steps to Kill Legalism.
Step 1: Sola Scriptura. We read above on the strict command of Paul “not to go beyond what is written.” The chief way to avoid legalism is to filter every though through the word of God. Paul said to the Romans, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…” We become more like Christ as our thoughts become more like His thoughts. Keep a close guard on your theology and let the word of God be your source. Speaking of the phrase “do not go beyond what is written,” Dave Swavely comments:

This would be a good slogan for Christians today to repeat regularly, similar to Sola Scriptura, the one made famous during the Reformation in Europe. It represents and reminds us of the important doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture- both positively and negatively. Positively it reminds us that in God’s Word we have all we need to know and serve Him- in other words, “everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). And negatively the slogan reminds us that the Bible is the only trustworthy chart by which we can navigate the murky waters of human morality.[29]

God gave His Bible as the means by which we would learn how to serve Him and live in this world for His glory, to that end it should be sufficient to instruct us. Adding to it is only a suggestion that God’s infallible Bible is not enough.
Step 2: Cross-Examination. One of the elements to the Puritan Spiritual life we would do well to recover is the element of self-examination. Among them there was often a suspicion about the self, they did not always trust themselves and therefore the were constantly holding up to their faces the mirror of Scripture. In a like manner we need to cross-examine our judgments. It is important to realize that if we will compare our judgments with what the Scriptures say it will be much easier to put off un-biblical ones and to hold tightly to those that are Biblical. So Dave Swavely lists several questions to help us examine our judgments.
First, Is this opinion based firmly on Scripture, or on my ideas and preferences? We might use the example of music here. Nowhere in the Bible are we told what style of music to sing in our worship services, we are told to honor God and in some ways certain genres and certain songs will affect this, but nonetheless we cannot make a case for singing only hymns, or singing only new worship songs. We each certainly have our preferences but we cannot make a universal rule about music styles without basing them on our own ideas and preferences alone.
Second, Does the formation of this opinion include any judgments about the person’s thoughts or motives? We have read above how Paul strictly forbids the judging of people’s motives, things which we cannot see or know for definite. We need to be conscious that we are not making judgments based on what we think others may be thinking. Dave Swavely wisely notes the tendency of some Reformed folks to do this with non-reformed brothers. He writes:

As a Reformed Christian I find it easy to assume certain things about the hearts of those who are not Reformed in their doctrine. I tend to think that they are not willing to study enough to get to the truth, that they are afraid of the unpopularity that true doctrine brings, or even that they want to believe that they have contributed to their salvation, and are really trusting in their works rather than in Christ. But although some of those things might be true of some non-Reformed people, it simply does not follow for all of them.[30]

We must examine our judgments to see if we are in anyway judging things that we cannot know for certain. Judging the hearts and motives of others is beyond our ability and only God can judge the heart.
Third, Am I missing any facts that are necessary for an accurate evaluation? In some cases we can get ahead of ourselves in making judgments. We rush in and look like fools (as the song says), we need to be sure we have all the facts straight before we draw our conclusions about issues. How many relationships have been broken because one person didn’t get all the facts about another person’s response. Think about surprise parties. It seems as though everyone has forgotten your birthday and this, of course, would make you very upset. So you begin to formulate judgments about certain individuals. “They never liked me anyways,” or “So-and-So is just too busy for her own good,” or “I remembered his birthday and this is the thanks I get.” But at the end of the week you come to find out that they have all been secretly planning your surprise party. Imagine how foolish you would have looked if you would have expressed your judgments to these people before you found out about the party. It’s embarrassing to even think about.
Fourth, How would I want this person to think of me if the roles were reversed? This important question puts us in the shoes of those we would judge. Perhaps we are judging the hearts and motives of another person, and if that is the case would we want someone to judge our hearts that they cannot know? Would we want someone to make opinions about us or our actions without getting all the details? We want people to “hear our side” before they draw conclusions so shouldn’t we give them the same respect?
Finally, How can I show the grace of the cross to this person? We must never forget in our judgments that God has all along known our hearts and motives and seen all our wicked deeds yet has been merciful to us. We truly deserve condemnation and wrath, yet receive grace because of the Cross of Christ. How can we demonstrate Christ and point others to the grace of God? Both believers and un-believers need to be reminded of the cross and the way that we judge can be a pointer to it. This is not to say that we should never make judgments. Paul clearly makes it known that in certain cases judging and expelling from the church is the most loving thing to do with a sinning brother who will not repent (1 Cor. 5:5). But in all cases our goal is not to condemn a brother, but to love them and to show grace to them just as God through Christ has shown grace to us. In these five ways, and I am sure many others, we can guard our hearts and lives from legalism.
Step Three: Cross Centeredness. All things tend back to what was discussed in chapter one. The Bible is of no use to us if it does not speak of the Cross. Worship cannot happen if Christ has not reconciled us to God. The meaning of life is fulfilled only after Christ has redeemed us from the Kingdom of darkness. And legalism can only be thwarted by the Christ on the Cross and continues to be denied a place in our Christian lives through our sanctification. A life centered on the cross, living in its shadow, and turning to it repeatedly is a life that will avoid the error of legalism. When we know that we are justified only by Christ’s death, and we are sanctified through a process of becoming conformed to His perfect image, we will see no place for un-biblical standards and rules. We will be less prone to confuse justification, sanctification, and glorification, and we will be more prone to humble, gracious, Christ honored living. Legalism is the great killer in the church. It divides and conquers whole congregations. But at the cross Christ died for every sin, even the sin of legalism. Through His death He made atonement for our sins, justified the repentant believer, and now makes intercession on our behalf at the right hand of God almighty. When we are tempted towards legalism we can think of the cross, when we commit legalism we can repent and be forgiven because of the cross, and when others judge us we can hope in the cross. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1)!


[1] C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life. (Sisters: Multnomah, 2002). 24.
[2] John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991). 179.
[3] Mahaney, Cross Centered Life. 32-33.
[4] Ibid. 32.
[5] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2003). 226.
[6] diakou is the Greek word. Cf. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). 723.
[7] Grudem, Systematic Theology. 723.
[8] This summary of Catholic teaching is owing to a lecture by R.C. Sproul at Together for the Gospel, 2006. Louisville, KY.
[9] Dave Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2005). 51.
[10] Grudem, Systematic Theology. 746.
[11] Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life. 33.
[12] Timothy George, Amazing Grace. (Nashville: LifeWay, 2000). 50.
[13] As quoted by J.I. Packer in the introduction to The Bondage of the Will. Trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957). 50.
[14] Eternal Security asserts that Christ’s death on the cross secured salvation for all those who repent and believe. Based on verses such as John 10:27-30 and others this doctrine denies that any true Christian can ever lose their salvation. For further reading see Tom Schreiner, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance. (Leicester: IVP, 2001).
[15] Lordship Salvation teaches that where there is not fruit of repentance there is not genuine conversion. That is to say a true Christian will show forth his salvation in good works; not that we are saved by good works, but that we are saved for good works. See Titus 2:14, Romans 6:1-4, etc. For further reading see John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005); The Gospel According to Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); Ernest C. Reisinger, Lord & Christ: The Implications of Lordship for Faith and Life. (Philipsburg: P&R, 1994).
[16] pp. 746- 759.
[17] Grudem, Systematic Theology. 748-9.
[18] Some verses in scripture do speak about sanctification as a past tense event but interpreting these passages requires careful consideration of the context. Some may refer to the definite beginning stage of our sanctification, some may be speaking in a future context of glorification looking back on our life of sanctification. Always, always, always pay attention to the context. For further reading see G.C. Berkouwer, Faith and Sanctification. Trans. by John Vriend. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952); Anthony Hoekema, Saved By Grace. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); and John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955). For a thorough dealing with Perfectionism see B.B. Warfield Perfectionism. Volumes VII and VIII of The Works of B.B. Warfield. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1932 reprinted 2003).
[19] 1 John 1:9. Some have said that this verse speaks of conversion but John is not writing to non-believers. He refers to them as “My little children,” in chapter 2 verse 1.
[20] Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. 126.
[21] Ibid. 127.
[22] Luke 18: 9-12.
[23] Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. 65-66.
[24] These verses were compiled by Dave Swavely in his book Who Are You To Judge?. 77.
[25] Swavely, 70.
[26] Mahaney, 38.
[27] Mahaney, 42.
[28] Ibid. 42-43.
[29] Swavely, 55.
[30] Ibid. 39.