Is Legalism a "Higher" Standard?

"Higher" would seem to be totally a personal opinion.

 

I often wondered, if the concept of woman not wearing slacks, was based on the fact that they are considered manly. In the Torah, a man wearing womanly things is forbidden. Never really thought about it much. Interesting question Bob.

 

No, legalism is a more extreme standard. Nothing more or less. That's all.

 

Amen, Amen, Amen

 

Higher standards are not always legalistic. Sometimes they are biblical. The difficulty is that some unbiblical Christians want to add to the Bible's standards, and some unbiblical Christians want to mock those who live by the Bible's standards as legalistic.

 

The issue of women's dress, as much as I hate these threads and have hated them since I was a moderator here, is a DIFFERENT standard and not necessarily a higher one. In many cases, it is not even a legalistic standard, but simply reflects the desire of many women to separate themselves from the world's ways and the unisex clothing of today which, to them, does not fit a biblical standard.

It should be respected as such and not derided.

I am saying this after having just cleaning out our stalls (singing "Super er" to the tune of "Super Trouper...") and wearing jeans and a definitely unisex warm sweatshirt! My husband is standing behind me chuckling, so I don't think my attire is putting him off. Nevertheless I respect the women who dress differently simply because they believe it fits a more biblical standard.

It is legalism when they say that we women HAVE to do that in order to meet a biblical requirement. But what they are doing is something they see as part of a higher standard. I call it a slightly different standard but I understand and respect it and wish others here would, too.

 

I preached in a church in Ohio one August. It was well over 100F outside, the church was moderately full, so inside it was even higher than that.

The church had a "high" standard about wearing a coat in the pulpit so I ruined a suit by soaking it with sweat. I was dripping so badly that when I was showing deputation water was dripping off my hands.

But, we had to keep the "higher" standard.

I once phoned a church in northern Mississippi for a meeting. The second question was "We have pretty high standards here. Do you have any facial hair?"

I wanted to answer, "Do you besides my eyebrows, eye lashes, and nose hair?" but resisted. When I admitted I wore a moustache the pastor told me their standards would not permit them to let me preach there.

"Higher?" Somehow I doubt that. "Different?" Maybe.

 

Higher standards are often biblical. Legalistic standards are never higher, not biblical.

 

Legalism is a lower standard. Those who are legalistic are in bondage and not free in Christ.

 

There are not higher standards. The standard is Christ being led by the Holy Spirit.

A legalistic person can appear to do all the right things and dress properly and be lost as a goose.

 

Well said Pastor Larry!

 

Jesus would have never been welcomed there to preach. Just imagine where his razor was.

The really sad thing but yet great thing was when I preached in a chruch and a lady attended. Later that day the pastor and myself wisited her. She gave her life to Christ that day when we visited her. She told the story of going to the church at the end of her road and was sent away because she had pants and her hair wasn't long enough. Fortunately she did attend the next week at my friend's church when I was preaching. She is stil doing well today.

So I guess those legalistic churches do serve a purpose. It keeps the same kind of people locked in the same box and out of other churches causing problems.

 

Sure there are. Leaders have to live by a higher standard, and they do so because of their responsibility. To say that "standard is Christ being led by the Holy Spirit" is true, but not very helpful. Many people, claiming that standard, have left their wives or husbands, abandoned their children, lived together without being married, stolen things, gotten drunk, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, indeed. And a lady who won't wear pants can bey very godly.

 

Sure there are. Leaders have to live by a higher standard, and they do so because of their responsibility. To say that "standard is Christ being led by the Holy Spirit" is true, but not very helpful. Many people, claiming that standard, have left their wives or husbands, abandoned their children, lived together without being married, stolen things, gotten drunk, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, indeed. And a lady who won't wear pants can bey very godly.

 

If wearing a suit and tie for men was godly then Jesus was very ungodly. He probably smelled like the animals and didn't have western attire of fine clothes and jewelry.

In fact James talks about how we are to treat people in the assembly.

 

I've never questioned or mocked any lady who chose to dress in long dresses or skirts. That is their conviction. It is not legalistic if it's done out of their reverance for God, not man.

It's when you are told you must dress like this, that pants are "eeevulllll" (as a former pastor used to pronounce it), or some similar nonsense that is used for control, that we wander into legalism.

In the same manner, some women (and men) should be spoken to about the style of their dress and the distractions it causes.

 

In similar manner, discernment is needed to objectively and properly discern if the distraction is on the part of the distractor, or the distractee. A tank top and shorts worn to church in Honolulu will likely not be distracting. In Utah, it would most likely be distracting.