I think it's too general a question. For instance, some people think that praying and reading the bible is a chore, and being asked or encouraged to do so is legalism. Seems to be up to the individual to define it.
Mike, interesting way to look at it, but still "control" is the main factor. You may want to and think you can control a teenager, but HA!
I hate to admit this, but I guess the final straw of legalism to me was hearing that we needed to wear suits and dresses to enter THAT auditorium thing. I can't even remember the name of it now! All I kept thinking was whatever happened to God doesn't care what you're wearing as long as you're here? It broke my heart.
My first recollection of "who do these people think they are"? [my definition of legalism] actually occured when I took PFAL. I had my almost-2 year old with me. It was on Shelter Island in NY and it was run in a week, instead of 3. That's why I took it. I couldn't have found a babysitte for 36 hours over 3 weeks. Who's kidding who? Anyway, my baby girl didn't like being separated from Mommy and going to strangers. She acted up at dinner and B*b M told me I needed to discipline her. I grabbed my kid and left the dining room and was trying to figure out if I could swim home while holding my daughter. The guy running the class smoothed things over enough for me to stay and finish. I hated B*b for years actually, but he wound up being in charge of our Corps, and we actually became kinda friends. Probably cause I was able to tell him I thought he was an a-hole. Is that allowed here? Sorry, if not.
I remember thinking when my Corps coordinator on the WOW field demanded we get up and run with her that I didn't sign up for THAT!
I remember thinking when I had to leave my kid for weeks at a time while in residence that that just didn't jive with their family-first teachings.
Etc., etc.
Overall, it took getting out to realize I had a paper bag over my head for YEARS and plain refused to see what I knew in my heart. I thank God my husband stayed with me anyway.
We got out in/around that ridiculous Geer paper. Left the ROA early and I wish I could say hardly-looked-back, but who'd believe me?
I think it's too general a question. For instance, some people think that praying and reading the bible is a chore, and being asked or encouraged to do so is legalism. Seems to be up to the individual to define it.
There will always be someone advocating some extreme view.
(For example, paying money for a Bible is wrong, or something.)
To most Christians, saying that "praying is a good thing" or "prayer is recommended" is fine.
REQUIRING a certain amount of prayer in minutes, or at a specific time-or both-
would probably be seen as "legalism"- MANDATORY prayer,
just like MANDATORY Bible-reading time.
Some people are more alert when getting up, others are more alert when turning in.
Requiring EVERYONE to act like one or the other is probably a lot more legalistic than not.
(Thus, MANDATORY Bible-reading and prayer for 30 minutes first thing in the morning,
and refusal to let anyone switch it to "last thing at night" if it works better for them-
and it's not all being done as a group in one room, say-
would be seen by many as needlessly legalistic.)
I once stood for someone- not because it was REQUIRED, but because I CHOSE to.
I prefer that to "stand whenever anyone in leadership enters the room".
That's something else you can generally get a consensus about, concerning legalism.
perhaps from the time the old vicster incorporated pfal (alias for "Gifts of the Spirit") into twi-dom.
"I AGREE to attend every session ON TIME to receive the benefits of this class.."
I don't entirely object to the requirement. College classes are like that.. they don't really LIKE people meandering in fifteen minutes into class, needing a "catch up" with what one has already covered for everyone else..
but I think in the case of pfal, it was one of the little "stepping stones" along the way to some pretty harsh legalism..
sure.. show up on time. No big deal.. but then.. "well, gaw'd's time is five minutes early.." or ten, or fifteen.. then you're showing up an hour and a half or more early, to clean the leader's house, mow the lawn.. get the refreshments ready.. remove lipstick and teeth marks from used styrofoam cups.. check all the audio video stuff.. it's almost a "natural" progression on the road to "success(?)".
all of this is based on one's ASSUMPTION, often based on the reports of many glassy eyed others who may have used to be your friends, that the class was actually WORTH the EFFORT of showing up on time..
"want results? you gotta GIVE something.."
I think it was more along the lines of "give in somewhere".
Great thread, great posts, and a darn good question Bullinger – and ditto of what Oakspear said – "no simple answer."…I think it's all relative to each person – and I think the motive behind the legalism has always been there – in that it's a means of controlling followers.
Here's my 2 cents from experience. I joined TWI in 74, went WOW in 75, went in the Corps in 84. Left in 86 after all the commotion over Passing of a Patriarch…My whole time in – I never perceived the legalism. Sort of like the frog being put in a pot of water and then slowly turning up the heat. Initially why I left was to get away from the madness – and try to sort things out – it wasn't that I was fed up with legalism…But looking back I now realize it was there all along – and think that as the organization grew – they had to ramp up their control on everything. That's my 2 cents and I'm sticking to it!
sure.. show up on time. No big deal.. but then.. "well, gaw'd's time is five minutes early.." or ten, or fifteen.. then you're showing up an hour and a half or more early, to clean the leader's house, mow the lawn.. get the refreshments ready.. check all the audio video stuff.. it's almost a "natural" progression on the road to "success(?)".
a few further thoughts on this. Only the "few".. the "faithful".. THOSE WHO FORKED OUT OVER TEN PERCENT of their incomes.. were those deemed "worthy" enough to do all this and more..
weird.
maybe it's human nature. Put a big enough price tag on a broken down, decaying house, spray it with the right kind of personna, and "anybody who's anybody" just HAS to have it..
I mean.. who is going to buy the Brooklyn Bridge for $9.95?
For most individuals, I really think the legalism started with the very first session of the class..
Here's the definition of legalism from Merriam Webster online:
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>
According to the definition it is legalism if it restricts free choice.
Not picking a fight.. But umm.. I think you need to look at that definition again.. Just because it uses the phrase "free choice" in an example of how to use "legalism" in a sentence, does not constitue the sentence itself as the actual definition.
The definition part is a "strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code."
Nothing about free choice or any choice added to it. It's still legalism whether one chooses to conform or not.
And unless someone has blinders on, TWI is/was full of legalism. But then again.. So is most of Christianity.. Hmmm, then again, so is most of the world! lol..
We all decide how much legalism we are willing to conform to. But in the case of TWI, we thought that God required it and now we find out it was all manmade religious action.
I think each person has their own idea of what it is; that is why its difficult to have an answer to this question.
As I see it, the individual making the decision decides what for him/herself what is "excessive conformity".
Thus, the individual decides for himself whether it is legalism or not.
For instance, there are some folks who thought (or think now) that praying, reading the word, working with believers, starting fellowship on time, most of Christianity etc. is excessive conformity. Others think different.
Some of those who are not engaged in a religion may feel that those who are, are engaged in legalism. Others may think different.
Who's correct? Everyone is!
Everyone has their own ideas, everyone's ideas are right in their own eyes, and those ideas may vary at various times. I once thought that the religion of my youth was full of legalism and bondage. Today, I have a different opinion, although for someone else that might not hold true.
I think each person has their own idea of what it is; that is why its difficult to have an answer to this question.
As I see it, the individual making the decision decides what for him/herself what is "excessive conformity".
Exessive conformity is only one of a many other reasons given in the definition of what would make something legalism. Go back to the definition.. It's really simple!
But yes, you're right, it's all in the eye of the beholder. But how about you show us how they were NOT legalistic, meaning they didn't hold anyone to any literal religious code (as the definition says) in order to be a part of TWI.
This has been an interesting thread. I guess I draw the line between what is and isn't legalistic by looking at the benefit of following the rules, the natural consequences of not following the rules, and then try to line those up the corresponding vigor in which those rules are enforced.
In other words, the proper manner of holding a weapon in the military is a rule that is enforced with a great deal of vigor because the benefit of following it is that you will be ready to use the weapon when necessary, and because you can accidentally discharge it if you don't. Since the benefits and consequences are both life-threatening, they match the vigor with which the rule is enforced.
Okay, let's look at a twi rule... arrive to a class a few minutes early so you can settle in and be ready to start class on time. I would say that's generally a good rule. It has the benefit of being mindful of everyone's time equally, and makes the most efficient use of that time. It has the natural consequence if broken that others are disturbed if you arrive late, and you may miss something that would have been good for you to hear. So, what would be the proper amount of vigor in which to enforce this rule? In some cases, it might just be a reprimand or an offer of help to make it on time next time. Or, in some cases, it may be that you are not allowed to arrive late and will therefore have to wait until the material is available again and take it then. Either way, if you know that going in, those would be (in my opinion) acceptible levels of vigor in enforcing the rule.
However, what many people experienced in addition was a tongue-lashing by the leadership; insinuations about the state of their spiritual lives, or marriages, or even their minds; and threats of future consequences. Sorry, but I can't see how that in any way lines up with the benefits of following the rule, or the consequences of breaking the rule. To me, that's legalism!
And no, I didn't even go into the additional factors of cause and intent because those are far more subjective, but I do think that they should be factored in (like, was I late because I ran through the drive-thru to get a coffee or was I late because my tire blew out?) and in the twi of the 90's we were taught that the reason didn't matter... late was late no matter the cause. Sorry, but enforcing a rule just because it is a rule, yeah, that's legalism too.
So, I guess you could say that I define legalism as being when the punishment doesn't fit the crime, or when the response is a knee-jerk one, with little actual thought going into it.
For me, it came fairly early because they didn't have many people my age to choose from in my geographic area.
I think it's really more about when it started to affect an individual than when the organization itself became "legalistic".
In other words, I saw it within months of taking the PLAF class(1972) but the person who sat right next to me in class might not have seen it until a couple years later because it was not imposed on them when it was imposed on me.
Still, I think it was there all along waiting in the wings to make its entrance into any one individual's "walk".
I understand what you're saying TheHighWay, I wouldn't term that behavior as legalism but instead I would call it abusive.
But however we may choose to refer to the "legalism" as you call it, I understand what you're talking about in tems of the appropriate vigor in enforcing the rule.
... But how about you show us how they were NOT legalistic, meaning they didn't hold anyone to any literal religious code (as the definition says) in order to be a part of TWI.
To me, the definition "literal religious code" is way too simplistic. Under that definition, requiring the service to start on time would be legalism since it adheres to a literal religious code. To some, yes, that is legalism.
But what I believe would be a more accurate understanding of legalism would be an "improper" or "burdensome" conformity to a religious code. And that, I think, is defined by the individual. For example, what is proper for you may not be proper for me, What is a burden for me, may not be a burden for you, and so forth.
You and I might think a monk is living in legalism. The monk, however, may disagree.
To me, the definition "literal religious code" is way too simplistic. Under that definition, requiring the service to start on time would be legalism since it adheres to a literal religious code. To some, yes, that is legalism.
You were the one to introduce the definition, but now you think it's too simplistic??
Oh well... I'm guessing then you can't show us how they were NOT legalistic, meaning they didn't hold anyone to any literal religious code (as the definition you presented says) in order to be a part of TWI?
This has been an interesting thread. I guess I draw the line between what is and isn't legalistic by looking at the benefit of following the rules, the natural consequences of not following the rules, and then try to line those up the corresponding vigor in which those rules are enforced.
In other words, the proper manner of holding a weapon in the military is a rule that is enforced with a great deal of vigor because the benefit of following it is that you will be ready to use the weapon when necessary, and because you can accidentally discharge it if you don't. Since the benefits and consequences are both life-threatening, they match the vigor with which the rule is enforced.
Okay, let's look at a twi rule... arrive to a class a few minutes early so you can settle in and be ready to start class on time. I would say that's generally a good rule. It has the benefit of being mindful of everyone's time equally, and makes the most efficient use of that time. It has the natural consequence if broken that others are disturbed if you arrive late, and you may miss something that would have been good for you to hear. So, what would be the proper amount of vigor in which to enforce this rule? In some cases, it might just be a reprimand or an offer of help to make it on time next time. Or, in some cases, it may be that you are not allowed to arrive late and will therefore have to wait until the material is available again and take it then. Either way, if you know that going in, those would be (in my opinion) acceptible levels of vigor in enforcing the rule.
However, what many people experienced in addition was a tongue-lashing by the leadership; insinuations about the state of their spiritual lives, or marriages, or even their minds; and threats of future consequences. Sorry, but I can't see how that in any way lines up with the benefits of following the rule, or the consequences of breaking the rule. To me, that's legalism!...
You were the one to introduce the definition, but now you think it's too simplistic??
The definition you used wasn't the whole dictionary definition as I quoted it; you apparently deleted some words that, taken as a whole, would change the entire meaning.
Legalism is much more than adherence to a set of religious code. The word itself connotes a disparaging, pejorative, improper devotion.
Slaves to Jesus? Not a problem, slaves to guys whom USED the name of Jesus, and the masquerade as a minister to gain trust..... to steal, kill, and destroy...yeah I have a problem there.
The definition you used wasn't the whole dictionary definition as I quoted it; you apparently deleted some words that, taken as a whole, would change the entire meaning.
Legalism is much more than adherence to a set of religious code. The word itself connotes a disparaging, pejorative, improper devotion.
Thanks for your opinions.
T&O didn't delete any words in the definition. the MW entry in whole is:
legalism
Main Entry:
le·gal·ism Listen to the pronunciation of legalism
Pronunciation:
\ˈlē-gə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1928
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> 2 : a legal term or rule
removing the illustration doesn't change the definition. the part in angle brackets is the illustration. here's what MW says by way of explanation:
Illustrations of Usage
Definitions are sometimes followed by verbal illustrations that show a typical use of the word in context. These illustrations are enclosed in angle brackets, and the word being illustrated appears in italics:
1key . . . noun . . . 3 a . . . <the key to a riddle>
biblestudy.org attempts to explain usage by christian writers:
Legalism
The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system. Some teachers have used the term to describe those who accept various Old Testament biblical laws and principles, such as tithing, as being applicable in some way to Christians. But if acceptance of those laws or principles is not being viewed as a method to "earn" or "preserve" salvation, this is not really related to the specific concept of legalism. It is entirely possible for a religious group to reject even any or all of the Ten Commandments, but to substitute for them a list of forbidden activities such as card-playing or dancing, and still be proponents of a legalistic system.
whether you take the MW definition or the biblestudy.org explanation of usage, twi is plainly legalistic.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
4
4
6
Popular Days
Jan 14
22
Jan 17
20
Jan 16
15
Jan 15
8
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 12 posts
T-Bone 4 posts
Eyesopen 4 posts
JeffSjo 6 posts
Popular Days
Jan 14 2008
22 posts
Jan 17 2008
20 posts
Jan 16 2008
15 posts
Jan 15 2008
8 posts
rascal
Well not choosing to accept the legalism does not mean that it didn`t exist, which was the question asked, I believe.
I do agree though, that corpes and wow was when it was more evident.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think it's too general a question. For instance, some people think that praying and reading the bible is a chore, and being asked or encouraged to do so is legalism. Seems to be up to the individual to define it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have felt a lot of legalism regarding certain matters in some posters here at times.
Then again, if I were in their situations I might hold similar feelings to theirs just for practicality.
I've been more than once impressed in how male friends of mine had changed their feelings
regarding where to draw lines in sexual matters AFTER they had daughters.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Mike, interesting way to look at it, but still "control" is the main factor. You may want to and think you can control a teenager, but HA!
I hate to admit this, but I guess the final straw of legalism to me was hearing that we needed to wear suits and dresses to enter THAT auditorium thing. I can't even remember the name of it now! All I kept thinking was whatever happened to God doesn't care what you're wearing as long as you're here? It broke my heart.
My first recollection of "who do these people think they are"? [my definition of legalism] actually occured when I took PFAL. I had my almost-2 year old with me. It was on Shelter Island in NY and it was run in a week, instead of 3. That's why I took it. I couldn't have found a babysitte for 36 hours over 3 weeks. Who's kidding who? Anyway, my baby girl didn't like being separated from Mommy and going to strangers. She acted up at dinner and B*b M told me I needed to discipline her. I grabbed my kid and left the dining room and was trying to figure out if I could swim home while holding my daughter. The guy running the class smoothed things over enough for me to stay and finish. I hated B*b for years actually, but he wound up being in charge of our Corps, and we actually became kinda friends. Probably cause I was able to tell him I thought he was an a-hole. Is that allowed here? Sorry, if not.
I remember thinking when my Corps coordinator on the WOW field demanded we get up and run with her that I didn't sign up for THAT!
I remember thinking when I had to leave my kid for weeks at a time while in residence that that just didn't jive with their family-first teachings.
Etc., etc.
Overall, it took getting out to realize I had a paper bag over my head for YEARS and plain refused to see what I knew in my heart. I thank God my husband stayed with me anyway.
We got out in/around that ridiculous Geer paper. Left the ROA early and I wish I could say hardly-looked-back, but who'd believe me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
There will always be someone advocating some extreme view.
(For example, paying money for a Bible is wrong, or something.)
To most Christians, saying that "praying is a good thing" or "prayer is recommended" is fine.
REQUIRING a certain amount of prayer in minutes, or at a specific time-or both-
would probably be seen as "legalism"- MANDATORY prayer,
just like MANDATORY Bible-reading time.
Some people are more alert when getting up, others are more alert when turning in.
Requiring EVERYONE to act like one or the other is probably a lot more legalistic than not.
(Thus, MANDATORY Bible-reading and prayer for 30 minutes first thing in the morning,
and refusal to let anyone switch it to "last thing at night" if it works better for them-
and it's not all being done as a group in one room, say-
would be seen by many as needlessly legalistic.)
I once stood for someone- not because it was REQUIRED, but because I CHOSE to.
I prefer that to "stand whenever anyone in leadership enters the room".
That's something else you can generally get a consensus about, concerning legalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
IF one CHOOSES to conform, is it legalism?
Here's the definition of legalism from Merriam Webster online:
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>
According to the definition it is legalism if it restricts free choice.
So again, what if the person CHOOSES to conform? Is it legalism?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
ah.. when did the legalism start..
perhaps from the time the old vicster incorporated pfal (alias for "Gifts of the Spirit") into twi-dom.
"I AGREE to attend every session ON TIME to receive the benefits of this class.."
I don't entirely object to the requirement. College classes are like that.. they don't really LIKE people meandering in fifteen minutes into class, needing a "catch up" with what one has already covered for everyone else..
but I think in the case of pfal, it was one of the little "stepping stones" along the way to some pretty harsh legalism..
sure.. show up on time. No big deal.. but then.. "well, gaw'd's time is five minutes early.." or ten, or fifteen.. then you're showing up an hour and a half or more early, to clean the leader's house, mow the lawn.. get the refreshments ready.. remove lipstick and teeth marks from used styrofoam cups.. check all the audio video stuff.. it's almost a "natural" progression on the road to "success(?)".
all of this is based on one's ASSUMPTION, often based on the reports of many glassy eyed others who may have used to be your friends, that the class was actually WORTH the EFFORT of showing up on time..
"want results? you gotta GIVE something.."
I think it was more along the lines of "give in somewhere".
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great thread, great posts, and a darn good question Bullinger – and ditto of what Oakspear said – "no simple answer."…I think it's all relative to each person – and I think the motive behind the legalism has always been there – in that it's a means of controlling followers.
Here's my 2 cents from experience. I joined TWI in 74, went WOW in 75, went in the Corps in 84. Left in 86 after all the commotion over Passing of a Patriarch…My whole time in – I never perceived the legalism. Sort of like the frog being put in a pot of water and then slowly turning up the heat. Initially why I left was to get away from the madness – and try to sort things out – it wasn't that I was fed up with legalism…But looking back I now realize it was there all along – and think that as the organization grew – they had to ramp up their control on everything. That's my 2 cents and I'm sticking to it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
a few further thoughts on this. Only the "few".. the "faithful".. THOSE WHO FORKED OUT OVER TEN PERCENT of their incomes.. were those deemed "worthy" enough to do all this and more..
weird.
maybe it's human nature. Put a big enough price tag on a broken down, decaying house, spray it with the right kind of personna, and "anybody who's anybody" just HAS to have it..
I mean.. who is going to buy the Brooklyn Bridge for $9.95?
For most individuals, I really think the legalism started with the very first session of the class..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Not picking a fight.. But umm.. I think you need to look at that definition again.. Just because it uses the phrase "free choice" in an example of how to use "legalism" in a sentence, does not constitue the sentence itself as the actual definition.
The definition part is a "strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code."
Nothing about free choice or any choice added to it. It's still legalism whether one chooses to conform or not.
And unless someone has blinders on, TWI is/was full of legalism. But then again.. So is most of Christianity.. Hmmm, then again, so is most of the world! lol..
We all decide how much legalism we are willing to conform to. But in the case of TWI, we thought that God required it and now we find out it was all manmade religious action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
But who defines what "excessive conformity" is?
I think each person has their own idea of what it is; that is why its difficult to have an answer to this question.
As I see it, the individual making the decision decides what for him/herself what is "excessive conformity".
Thus, the individual decides for himself whether it is legalism or not.
For instance, there are some folks who thought (or think now) that praying, reading the word, working with believers, starting fellowship on time, most of Christianity etc. is excessive conformity. Others think different.
Some of those who are not engaged in a religion may feel that those who are, are engaged in legalism. Others may think different.
Who's correct? Everyone is!
Everyone has their own ideas, everyone's ideas are right in their own eyes, and those ideas may vary at various times. I once thought that the religion of my youth was full of legalism and bondage. Today, I have a different opinion, although for someone else that might not hold true.
Thanks for your opinion.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Exessive conformity is only one of a many other reasons given in the definition of what would make something legalism. Go back to the definition.. It's really simple!
But yes, you're right, it's all in the eye of the beholder. But how about you show us how they were NOT legalistic, meaning they didn't hold anyone to any literal religious code (as the definition says) in order to be a part of TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
This has been an interesting thread. I guess I draw the line between what is and isn't legalistic by looking at the benefit of following the rules, the natural consequences of not following the rules, and then try to line those up the corresponding vigor in which those rules are enforced.
In other words, the proper manner of holding a weapon in the military is a rule that is enforced with a great deal of vigor because the benefit of following it is that you will be ready to use the weapon when necessary, and because you can accidentally discharge it if you don't. Since the benefits and consequences are both life-threatening, they match the vigor with which the rule is enforced.
Okay, let's look at a twi rule... arrive to a class a few minutes early so you can settle in and be ready to start class on time. I would say that's generally a good rule. It has the benefit of being mindful of everyone's time equally, and makes the most efficient use of that time. It has the natural consequence if broken that others are disturbed if you arrive late, and you may miss something that would have been good for you to hear. So, what would be the proper amount of vigor in which to enforce this rule? In some cases, it might just be a reprimand or an offer of help to make it on time next time. Or, in some cases, it may be that you are not allowed to arrive late and will therefore have to wait until the material is available again and take it then. Either way, if you know that going in, those would be (in my opinion) acceptible levels of vigor in enforcing the rule.
However, what many people experienced in addition was a tongue-lashing by the leadership; insinuations about the state of their spiritual lives, or marriages, or even their minds; and threats of future consequences. Sorry, but I can't see how that in any way lines up with the benefits of following the rule, or the consequences of breaking the rule. To me, that's legalism!
And no, I didn't even go into the additional factors of cause and intent because those are far more subjective, but I do think that they should be factored in (like, was I late because I ran through the drive-thru to get a coffee or was I late because my tire blew out?) and in the twi of the 90's we were taught that the reason didn't matter... late was late no matter the cause. Sorry, but enforcing a rule just because it is a rule, yeah, that's legalism too.
So, I guess you could say that I define legalism as being when the punishment doesn't fit the crime, or when the response is a knee-jerk one, with little actual thought going into it.
Edited by TheHighWayLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
To me, "legalism" is a one way street.
It's not about what you expected of them.
It's about what they expected from you.
For me, it came fairly early because they didn't have many people my age to choose from in my geographic area.
I think it's really more about when it started to affect an individual than when the organization itself became "legalistic".
In other words, I saw it within months of taking the PLAF class(1972) but the person who sat right next to me in class might not have seen it until a couple years later because it was not imposed on them when it was imposed on me.
Still, I think it was there all along waiting in the wings to make its entrance into any one individual's "walk".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I understand what you're saying TheHighWay, I wouldn't term that behavior as legalism but instead I would call it abusive.
But however we may choose to refer to the "legalism" as you call it, I understand what you're talking about in tems of the appropriate vigor in enforcing the rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
To me, the definition "literal religious code" is way too simplistic. Under that definition, requiring the service to start on time would be legalism since it adheres to a literal religious code. To some, yes, that is legalism.
But what I believe would be a more accurate understanding of legalism would be an "improper" or "burdensome" conformity to a religious code. And that, I think, is defined by the individual. For example, what is proper for you may not be proper for me, What is a burden for me, may not be a burden for you, and so forth.
You and I might think a monk is living in legalism. The monk, however, may disagree.
Thanks for your opinion.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oldies
Since you've chosen that road to traverse I suppose I'll go along for the ride.
In 1975, I was sent to a rural area to run classes.(PLAF/TIP/CF&S,ETC.)
The majority of the students were dairy farmers.
I don't know what knowledge you have of farm animals so I'll just come out and tell you, cows don't wear watches.
The first couple of sessions, there were students who arrived a few minutes late.
Not only that, they were wearing work clothes.
It made perfect sense to me that the situation would have to be modified to accommodate their unique needs.
HQ did not agree.
Ironic, I think, given the farming background that permeated the lives of those at HQ.
They said that students must be in their seats, wearing "respectful" clothes before the classes began.
If they could not comply, they would be expelled from the class and their money would NOT be refunded.
I tried as best I could to follow those guide lines.
People hated me for it. I fudged. Not because it made me unpopular but because it just made sense.
I learned that it's best not to be too honest with HQ.
I apologize here and now to those who had to endure that silliness all those years ago.
Legalism?
It's been there as long as I can remember.
It's not about when it started in the ministry as an organization, it's about when it started in your personal walk as it was imposed upon you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
You were the one to introduce the definition, but now you think it's too simplistic??
Oh well... I'm guessing then you can't show us how they were NOT legalistic, meaning they didn't hold anyone to any literal religious code (as the definition you presented says) in order to be a part of TWI?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
gee,sorry i am late i just found this site,i think legalism starts when you are no longer free,but a slave! be free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Very good definition! It's all between the ears.
Then again, if we are slaves to the Lord Jesus Christ, would it be legalism?
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The definition you used wasn't the whole dictionary definition as I quoted it; you apparently deleted some words that, taken as a whole, would change the entire meaning.
Legalism is much more than adherence to a set of religious code. The word itself connotes a disparaging, pejorative, improper devotion.
Thanks for your opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Slaves to Jesus? Not a problem, slaves to guys whom USED the name of Jesus, and the masquerade as a minister to gain trust..... to steal, kill, and destroy...yeah I have a problem there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
T&O didn't delete any words in the definition. the MW entry in whole is:
legalism
Main Entry:
le·gal·ism Listen to the pronunciation of legalism
Pronunciation:
\ˈlē-gə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1928
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> 2 : a legal term or rule
removing the illustration doesn't change the definition. the part in angle brackets is the illustration. here's what MW says by way of explanation:
Illustrations of Usage
Definitions are sometimes followed by verbal illustrations that show a typical use of the word in context. These illustrations are enclosed in angle brackets, and the word being illustrated appears in italics:
1key . . . noun . . . 3 a . . . <the key to a riddle>
biblestudy.org attempts to explain usage by christian writers:
Legalism
The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system. Some teachers have used the term to describe those who accept various Old Testament biblical laws and principles, such as tithing, as being applicable in some way to Christians. But if acceptance of those laws or principles is not being viewed as a method to "earn" or "preserve" salvation, this is not really related to the specific concept of legalism. It is entirely possible for a religious group to reject even any or all of the Ten Commandments, but to substitute for them a list of forbidden activities such as card-playing or dancing, and still be proponents of a legalistic system.
whether you take the MW definition or the biblestudy.org explanation of usage, twi is plainly legalistic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.