Confessions Of A Legalist

This Article Is A Personal Account by Bro. Gary Burns, a former member of the Unamended Community. The comments concern the material in “Legalism vs. Faith” by Bro. David Levin, also a former member of the Unamended Community. Bro. Gary fell asleep in Christ, June 14, 2003, after a courageous struggle with cancer he refers to later in this article. Our deepest sympathy is with Sis. Lindsay, and daughters, Sis. Ashley and Sis. Lauren.

  • The Truth meant everything to me. I would do everything I could to make sure that it was pure and untainted in doctrine.
  • The laws and regulations of Scripture could unambiguously lead us in the right paths, if we would just carefully parse the meaning and have the courage to do what we knew should be done.
  • The “law of the Truth” was supreme. There were legal requirements to fulfill and there was no getting around it. “Biblical jurisprudence,” as one brother put it.
  • I built fences, both personally and around certain ecclesias and Bible schools.
  • I believed strongly in contamination by association. Don’t associate with the “weak, the sick and the lame. How can they help you grow?”
  • I avoided things, just to be on the safe side. After all, how could Christ condemn me for not doing anything wrong?
  • I avoided all questionable associations, both Christadelphians and non. Better not to be at a Bible school, gathering, seminar, workshop, than “give the wrong impression.”
  • Preaching the Truth? We have enough to do keeping ourselves straight and raising godly families. Why waste time possibly bringing the “wrong element” into our midst?
  • Christadelphian “tradition” was a top priority. If the “pioneers” didn’t think of it, it wasn’t worth considering. Let’s just keep things frozen in the 19th century.
  • Some project or good work might be worthwhile in the short term, but what of the long-term consequences to the Truth? One or two good things might happen now, but it could lead to bad things in the future. Better not to risk it.
  • Respect among my peers was terribly important. Even though there was an outward show of humility, I craved the approval of those I admired in the Truth. I would never let them think the less of me for doing something they might not approve of.
  • My prayers, all prayers, should be framed in archaic language to preserve respect to the Deity. Those who didn’t have the “approved structure,” were liberal and superficial.
  • No “touchy-feely” stuff for this guy. Keep your emotions buttoned down. Emotion can cloud the issue. Where you heard people talk about love, it was all humanism and weakness. Sure you “loved” your brother, but that was a far different thing from putting up with their weaknesses.
  • Modern translations were all well and good for study, but those who used them as their standard text, or from the stand were “shallow, weak and lazy.”
  • The concept of unity in North America was abhorrent. Coming from an Unamended background, I believed that the majority of Christadelphians had given up an important part of the Truth. Better they should go their own way and let us alone in our purity. Some nice people there, no doubt, but “the enemies” of the Truth to be sure. Mixing would be a bad idea.

My turning point

I was happy and content, or so I thought until a serious ecclesial problem developed in the late 1980’s over the marriage issue.

I had been raised to believe that there was no such thing as divorce, period. Those who were divorced were to be disfellowshiped, end of story. Those who tolerated the situation were little better than those who were divorced. They “condoned” the situation. Cut them off, too, whole ecclesias if necessary; if not formally, then informally. Better that a small number suffer for the good of the Truth than for the “floodgates of immorality” to sweep us away.

After countless hours of wrestling with this problem, both personally and in arranging board meetings, it began to dawn on me that I really didn’t understand the issue all that well. I was going on what brethren I respected had told me, and their scriptural arguments seemed reasonable at the time.

However, after sitting through one acrimonious meeting after the other and seeing respected brethren shred each other, I realized that even those who I agreed with didn’t have the answer. I struggled mightily with this issue and realized I could no longer deal with such a situation with a “one size fits all” rule. I just wasn’t right. My legalism had left me ill-equipped to deal with such a difficult problem.

I knew that the consequences of accepting this would cause distress, separation and a loss of personal esteem. Those places that I had formerly been welcome to teach and exhort would now be closed to me. My family would be very disappointed in this turn of events. A brother “staunch” in the Truth had fallen by the wayside. It’s not the same old Gary anymore.

It was a personal crisis of the first magnitude to me, and my faith was ill equipped to handle it. I was (and probably still tend to be) a linear thinker. It was nearly impossible for me to tolerate the ambiguity that this bred. The “tools” of legalism could not, and cannot, ever solve such difficulties as the marriage, divorce and remarriage issue. The real issue is not which side is right and which side is wrong. The issue is whether God and His Son are seen to be right. Only the outworking of faith will do this. Legalism, rules and regulations never will.

The short-term outcome of all this was an ecclesial division.

A curious friendship and beyond

Almost simultaneously, in an unrelated matter, I managed to wreck my personal relationship with Bro. David Levin. Ours was a curious friendship to begin with. He was just about everything I didn’t admire. He just didn’t fit my usual profile of friends. He was informal, didn’t really pray right, had some “funny ideas” about doctrine and tradition. He read from a “non-standard” Bible. He worked with and sponsored “non-traditional activities,” was involved in unity movements with Central — a real “left-coaster.” However, I did have enormous respect for him — his intelligence, sense of humor, his obvious dedication to the Truth and Bible scholarship.

We had a cordial friendship. Even though he was “unconventional” you could tell the Truth was paramount in his life. And he was a member of the Unattended fellowship, which at least put him on “the right side.”

The offense

The break came when I learned that he was moving his family to Pennsylvania and was going to study psychology and counseling. I just couldn’t believe he would buy into that stuff. I wrote him a scathing letter (the legalism wants it in writing! Forget about face-to-face dialog. Too “touchy-feely.”) I seem to recall using words like “voodoo,” “black magic,” “witchcraft,” “pseudo-science.” I was just being “honest.” It was just “tough love.” Why would anyone ever be offended by that? And if they were, they just didn’t really understand the Truth.

Needless to say, David was mightily offended. Who wouldn’t be? I had savaged our friendship. Oh well, no sacrifice is too great for the Truth!

Another turning point

In the early 90’s my wife, Sis. Lindsay, persuaded me to attend the Canadian (Unamended) Bible School. I reluctantly agreed. As luck (or Providence) would have it, David Levin was on the teaching staff that year. However, the school was one of the few places left that “divorce liberals” like us would be comfortable. If not for Lindsay’s total support during this and all phases of my journey, I don’t think the change would have ever taken place. I credit her with being the catalyst for change.

When we received the teacher’s synopses I groaned. David Levin would lead a study on “Legalism vs. Faith.” It seems like he used the term “spiritual stenosis” in his synopsis, which sent me running for the dictionary — and an antacid. It gave me a stomach ache to think about sitting through a study with David hammering away at us legalists.

David’s material was so good, however, so right and so Bible-based, that the layers of legalism, which were ingrained in my character, began to melt away. (This is not to say that the first day, I didn’t have my arms crossed, my antennae up and a healthy dose of skepticism for what I was about to hear.)

Reconciliation

As the week wore on, I engaged David in a real heart-to-heart dialog. I truly felt ashamed of my actions and apologized. He was still the same old David whom I had admired and respected years ago. The very same one I had managed to alienate. We were now reconciled. What a wonderful feeling it was!

Consequences

  • David and I worked a couple of “high-risk” (for me, anyway) projects.
  • I was estranged from a number of respected and loved friends, brethren and ecclesias.
  • I began to think about the division in North America and the possibilities for unity.
  • I contacted brethren from Central. (A heinous offense in the eyes of some in the Unamended community.)
  • I actively sponsored and encouraged study days and private study sessions with lecturers and teachers from Central.
  • I went to Central Bible schools.
  • My wife and I eventually transferred to Central.
  • My carefully crafted life in the conservative wing of the Unamended fellowship was over.

The power of faith

…Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life (Job 2:4).

It’s terrible to suffer loss of property or family. These are severe trials. The loss of one’s health is another matter. Job would be put to his ultimate test. I can relate to that situation. When a doctor tells you that you have a deadly disease and an early death is a distinct possibility — that will get your attention.

On December 7, 2001, I was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia. It is a treatable, but life-threatening disease with many hours of chemotherapy and sickness. While one’s cancer might be in remission, the immune system is compromised and death from a simple infection is a real possibility. If not from the disease itself, the treatment is so physically stressful on the main organs of the body that many patients do not survive.

In my case, standard chemotherapy treatment did not work. I had to have a stem cell transplant. I am currently in remission, thanks to the Father, and on the road to recovery, which is expected to take a year, barring an opportunistic infection [which occurred and resulted in Bro. Gary’s falling asleep].

Through it all, I never questioned the righteousness and justice of God. This was in no part to my credit, it is the power of faith.

As a legalist I would have worried over whether I had studied enough. Did I really understand every little nuance of doctrine? Did I really understand the atonement? Had I “contaminated” myself with some unsavory association?

Had I left some sin “unaccounted” for? Had I done enough to get into the Kingdom? A hundred questions the legalistic mind would ponder.

Through the power of faith, these questions were irrelevant and I didn’t consider them. Biblical paradox made sense. Faith gave me the power to join in true fellowship with those of Hebrews 11 and know what faith can do. And what legalism could never do. The words of Hebrews 11 were no longer abstract words on a page about some unknowable super-spiritual beings that I couldn’t relate to. I could truly enter in and understand the suffering of Christ and God’s servants. This is not to say that I considered my illness trivial, that I breezed through without a complaint, that there were not a few “down” times. Yet through it all, faith gave me cheerful confidence” (compare “boldly” in Heb. 4:16; “confidence” in I John 2:28, 5:14; Eph. 3:12; “boldness” 1 John 4:17, these are all Strong’s # 3954). I had faith that God would do what was best for me no matter the outcome. My concerns were for others and not for myself. The flesh makes enough provision for itself!

My trial became a speed bump and not a mountain.

I say these things not to burnish my image as one who “saw the light” and is such a marvelous example of turning from legalism to faith. This is not about me. It is about God and the power of faith. It is about His love and grace. It is about what God can and will do for us all.

I believe that even in my legalistic days faith was there. It just wasn’t a growing faith. It was child-like and had barely grown from my baptism. It was about “doing and getting.” I do the right things. I avoid the wrong things and God is in my debt. In my view, there are no pure legalistic or pure “faithist” Christadelphians. We are all works in progress.

The question is one of growth. How do we promote the growth of faith individually and collectively? How can we help our brother get into the Kingdom? When our thoughts turn to God’s glory and the benefit of others we know that our faith is growing.

I struggle daily with the flesh’s demand to return to the comfort of laws, rules and regulations, as opposed to the ambiguities of a growing faith. I still can feel a sense of discomfort about “non-traditional” activities. Effective prayer is difficult. I tend to lapse into the well-worn forms, cliches and phrases without proper reflection. When rules and regulations are not followed, when there is disorder in the ecclesial protocol, I can still sense legalism arising. (As David pointed out in his book, rules have their proper place. We would have chaos in our ecclesial world without them. He is very balanced on this point.)

We all struggle with this to some extent because it is a product of our human nature. Sin comes from within, not some external source.

A growing faith “wrecked” the Christadelphian life I had so carefully constructed. That life is over, and I couldn’t be more content.

I encourage you to read Bro. David’s book Legalism vs. Faith and do a little “wrecking” of your own. You won’t regret it.