Dan Doriani in this post outlines four classes of legalists: (1) Those who believe they can "earn God’s favor" and merit salvation, (2) those who "require believers to submit to man-made commandments, as if they were God’s law," (3) those who "obey God and do good in order to retain God’s favor," (4) those who "so dwell on God’s law that they neglect other aspects of the Christian life."

Among conservative Christians there is broad agreement that class 1 is unbiblical and is legalism.

Class 2 is where much of the debate exists. It is no doubt true that a real danger exists in exalting man-made rules to the status of divine commands. But there is also a danger in not allowing for applications of Scripture that extend beyond the explicit letter of Scripture. This too is a form of legalism. So it would be legalism to insist that, as a timeless divine directive, men should not wear beards or women should not wear jeans. But it is also legalism to deny that a father could tell his son, "I don’t want you to dress or groom in a way that identifies you with a certain subculutre known for its opposition to God" or say to his daughter, "I don’t want you to wear this specific style of clothing because it is immodest" (or vice versa).

Class 3 also deserves some clarification. If by retaining God’s favor Doriani means maintaining one’s salvation or position in Christ before God, this certainly would be legalism. It would be a variant of class 1. If it means that the person thinks he has to work his way back into God’s favor after sin, then that also would be legalism. However, it is not legalistic to understand that God is pleased when we obey him and displeased when we disobey him; (1 Pet 1:7; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 12:5-6). This is a difficult truth to keep balanced. Christians must rest in the fact that God is unchangeably their Father who loves them and freely forgives them while also recognizing that their sin grieves God’s Spirit and can result in chastening. To employ a Puritan distinction, Christians should have a filial fear of God, but not a servile fear. They must recognize that God does chasten, but he chastens those he loves.

Class 4 is, I think, more properly labeled moralism, which the OED defines as "religion consisting of or reduced to moral practice; morality practised impersonally or without sympathy." Labels aside, however, Doriani is correct that a Christianity that consists of checking off the boxes next to a list of rules is sub-Christian, not least because it neglects the two great commandments upon which all the Law hangs. Of course Christians who are concerned about loving God and the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness are also concerned to tithe mint and dill and cumin (Matt 23:23). These need not, ought not, be pitted against each other.

There is no question but that the essence of holiness is love. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans says that ‘love is the fulfilling of the law’ (13:10). We only conceive of holiness truly when we conceive of it in terms of love. . . . The holiness of the man who is in Christ, the holiness of the Christian, is not some mechanical conformity to the law, neither is it mere morality. A man may be moral without loving holiness. Morality is a negative quality. It means not committing sin. But that is not holiness. Holiness is positive, it is essentially a matter of loving. The Christian is a man who loves holiness and he appears before God because he is ‘holy in love.’ He ‘hungers and thirsts after righteousness,; he delights in the law of God. He does not obey it as a task; he says with John in his First Epistle, chapter 5 verse 5: ‘His commandments are not grievous.’ That constitutes one of the best tests as to whether we are Christian or not. Do we enjoy Christian living? do we wish to be more Christ-like day by day? These are tests, and they are tests of love. The law of God really calls us to love. . . . (Mark 12:28-31).

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God’s Ultimate Purpose: An Exposition of Ephesians One (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 98-100.

If Lloyd-Jones is correct, as I think he is, several things follow. One is that moralism is a grave danger. It is a false substitute for holiness that can lure one into thinking he is right with God when he is not simply because he avoids certain sins or conforms his behavior to the Ten Commandments and other moral principles from Scripture. Another is that moralism is not solved by stepping away from the law, loosening its expectations, or forbidding its application beyond the bare letter to the real circumstances of our everyday lives. The true opposite of moralism is not antinomianism or license but holiness. In truth, the moralist and the saint may look much alike on the outside because both may have their eye on the same law. But the one acts mechanically, as Lloyd-Jones says, and the other acts out of love toward God and others.

1. Joe Carter’s statement bears heeding: “Those of us who believe, as I do, that the medium of Reformed hip hop is defensible should give these men—and other critics—an opportunity to hear an informed defense of the genre as a genre. It’s not enough to condemn, we must also convince. But before we can convince others that the genre itself can have a positive—or at least neutral—influence apart from the message it carries, we should first be sure that we ourselves understand the medium we are defending.” One reason I’m not convinced of the legitimacy of rap for Christian purposes is that I’ve never heard such a defense. I’ve heard that it is more word-centered than other genres, which may be true―but it fails to address the issue of genre. I’ve heard that musical style is neutral, but that is theologically defective. And I’ve heard those who object to using Christian rap called names such as legalist and racist, but again no argumentation regarding the genre itself—which is necessary to properly evaluate the charges of legalism or racism.

2. The charge of racism seems especially uncareful. First, many of those who object to the use of Christian rap objected earlier to the use of Christian rock. If the objection to Christian rock was not racially motivated (and I don’t know that anyone claims that it was), why should the objection to Christian rap be racially motivated? Furthermore, what is to be made of John McWhorter’s concern that  “Hip-Hop holds blacks back” by giving them a template for anti-social behavior that “retards black success” and which corrupts many positive things that previously existed in black popular culture? Or what should the Christian think of hip hop artist KRS-One’s description of hip-hop culture in a Tavis Smiley interview: “Well, rap music, and I will say hip-hop culture in and of itself, but rap music as its calling card, offers to young white males a sense of rebellion, freedom, manhood, courage. That’s what it means when you see a 50 Cent or Snoop Dogg or someone on television just blatantly defying the law and doin’ what they’re doin’. No one sees the thug and the criminal. They see courage. They see, ‘This is my chance to wild out and be rebellious in the form of music’”? Is a Christian not allowed to critique such a culture?

3. Why is there such invective toward men who counsel against the use of rap music for Christian purposes? Do they not have the liberty to express and practice their view (an increasingly minority view at that) without being called Pharisees or racists? Some of the speakers on the recent video were not as articulate as might be hoped given the pressure of answering a difficult question on the spot, but was there nothing accurate or worthy of consideration in what was said? Both Scott Aniol’s and Joel Beeke’s responses were careful and well thought out—they deserve some thoughtful interaction in return.

Faith in the doctrines of Christ, and conformity to the strict commandments of the Gospel, must expose us to the taunts of the unbeliever and the worldling. Yet, where the heart is right with God, the " derision of the proud," instead of forcing us to " decline from the law of God," will strengthen our adherence to it.

Charles Bridges, Exposition of Psalm CXIX, 131.

Acceptable obedience must however flow from love, and be accompanied with a measure of " delight." And surely at the very time that we are " abhorring ourselves in dust and ashes " before our God, we have every reason to delight in his ways ; and it cannot be entirely right with us, until something of this " delight in God’s commandments " is felt and enjoyed.

Charles  Bridges, Exposition of Psalm CXIX, 123.

Psalm 119:45. “And I will walk at liberty ; for I seek thy precepts.”

The way of the Lord, which to the man of the world is beset with thorns and briars on every side, to the child of God is a way of liberty. Without fear or anxiety, in the gladness of his heart and the rejoicing of his conscience, he walks on the king’s highway. Even in "seeking these precepts," there is " liberty" to be enjoyed, unknown to the worldling, the sensualist, or the professor. . . . What must it be, then, to walk in the full enjoyment of the precepts of God ? " They shall sing in the ways of the Lord " — " for how great is his goodness! how great is his beauty!"Are we then obeying them as our duty, or " seeking " them as our privilege ? Oh ! beware, lest allowed un faithfulness in any part of your walk with God, straiten and cripple your soul. The glow of spiritual activity, and the healthfulness of Christian liberty, are only to be found in a persevering and self-denying pursuit of every track of the ways of God.

Charles  Bridges, Exposition of Psalm CXIX, 117.

Creation

Music, or the capacity for music, is built into God’s good creation. Music is possible because God created the world to vibrate in particular ways, created the human body with the capacity to recognize the vibrations, and gave the human brain the capability of decoding these vibrations so that we hear them as music.

Fall

Because of the entrance of sin into the world human culture has become totally depraved.* Human culture is simply the product of God’s image bearers making things from God’s creation. But when the image bearers are corrupted by sin, and the creation itself is cursed and groans because of the Fall, culture is inevitably affected by the Fall as well. There is no good reason to restrict the impact of the Fall to musical lyrics and to wall off musical style as the (only?) aspect of culture unaffected by the Fall.

Redemption

Jonathan Edwards notes that redemption may be used in narrower and broader senses. Narrowly, redemption may refer to the “purchase of salvation.” In this sense redemption was accomplished with the death and resurrection of Christ. More broadly, redemption may include “all that God works or accomplishes tending to this end, not only the purchasing of redemption but also all God’s works that were properly preparatory to the purchase, or as applying the purchase and accomplishing the success of it” (A History of the Work of Redemption, ed. John F. Wilson (New Haven: Yale, 1989), 117-118).

In the larger sense, Christ will redeem music when he returns and sets the world right, reversing all the effects of the Fall. In the meantime, Christians should seek to live consistently with the coming redemption and anticipate it as much as is possible in a fallen world.**

When a Christian says that he is going to redeem certain musical styles by applying Christian lyrics to a style associated with all the things Christ opposes, his vision of redemption is not too large. It is too small. The Fall extends beyond the lyrics, and redemption must therefore extend beyond them as well.

 

*Total depravity is more correctly applied to individuals. In both cases it is important to recognize that “total” does not mean a person or culture is as bad as it can be. It means that the corruption of sin extends to every part. There is no part of the human person (e.g., his reason) and no part of human culture (e.g., musical style) unaffected by the Fall.

**Isaiah 59:15-21 provides a model for how we ought to think of redemption. In this passage redemption is accomplished by the Lord himself in the last day. And yet Christians today should learn from the Lord’s displeasure at the lack of justice and the lack of intercessors that seeking to establish justice insofar as is possible and interceding on behalf of those being treated unjustly is pleasing to God and thus expected of his people. Christians cannot accomplish final redemption, but they must live consistently with it. This is not a call to triumphalism. Peter’s first epistle reveals that when Christians live at odds with their culture in this way they can expect persecution.

The moral life aims at happiness, but by happiness Aristotle doesn’t mean what the utilitarians mean—maximizing the balance of pleasure over pain. The virtuous person is someone who takes pleasure and pain in the right things. If someone takes pleasure in watching dog fights, for example, we consider this a vice to be overcome, not a true source of happiness. Moral excellence does not consist in aggregating pleasures and pains but in aligning them, so that we delight in noble things and take pain in base ones. Happiness is not a state of mind but a way of being. . . . But why is it necessary to live in a polis to live a virtuous life? Why can’t we learn sound moral principles at home, or in a philosophy class, or by reading a book on ethics—and then apply them as needed? Aristotle says we don’t become virtuous that way. ‘Moral virtue comes about as a result of habit.’ It’s the kind of thing we learn by doing. ‘The virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well.’ . . . If moral virtue is something we learn by doing, we have somehow to develop the right habits in the first place. For Aristotle, this is the primary purpose of law—to cultivate the habits that lead to good character. ‘Legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one.

Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2009), 197-99. (See review)

According to Calvin, the law of God—as well as human statue law, when it is well modeled on the law of God—functions in three ways: (1) as a mirror, because by exhibiting God’s standard of righteousness, it makes fallen humans aware of their sins and imperfections,; (2) as a curb, because it restrains the unregenerate through fear of penalties; and (3) as a teacher, because it instructs the regenerate in the requirements of sanctity [drawing on Institutes, 2.7.6-12]. . . .  According to Calvin, the first use of the law—as a mirror—has two branches. In the first branch, the mirror of the law accuses sinners so that when God at last condemns them, they cannot claim ignorance of the standard by which they are judged. . . . But in the second branch, the mirror of the law prompts sinners to flee to the refuge of God’s grace. . . . If the second branch of the first use is real, then statue law that is well modeled on God’s law ought to serve the same use today . . . . The purer the laws, the more vividly citizens might conceive the ideal of justice; the more vividly they conceive it, the more sharply they might feel their sin; the more sharply they fell their sin, the more deeply they might long for the One who can do for them what government never can.

Budziszewski acknowledges however that "the vision of their sins in the mirror of the law" may lead to "enraging others so that they desire to transgress even more" (drawing on Institutes, 2.7.7).

J. Budziszewski, Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006),  48-49, 50, n. 37. (See review)

Some American states, not to mention Canadian courts, have legalized ‘marriage’ between homosexuals. Most Western democracies run or sanction large gambling establishments. Confessional Catholics and Protestants alike will be displeased with the former, and confessional Protestants will be displeased with the latter. Their own liberties are not curtailed by such legislation or judicial decisions, of course: they are not forced (at least, not yet!) to sanction homosexual marriage or to gamble. But many Christians will see such steps not only as contrary to the ‘norming norm’ of Scripture but also as deeply harmful to society. Whether they think the harm comes in the social categories of deteriorating families and desperate addictions and bankruptcies, or in the theological category of the threat of God’s wrath on the nation, or some combination of the two, they feel morally constrained, not only out of loyalty to God but out of concern for the nation, to influence policy in another direction. In other words, we would prefer to se laws in place that forbid certain conduct because we are convicted that such conduct is bad—bad both theologically and socially. Secularists will view this as religious meddling; we view it as the entailment of love for our neighbor and as inescapably tied to our confession that Jesus is Lord. Secularists may well view Christian political efforts along these lines as frightening examples of theocracy; Christians may well view secularist rhetoric as an attempt to stifle Christian efforts to pass laws they judge to be moral—indeed, as a sign of desperate moral decay that does not care for the well-being of the nation, let alone for the glory of God.

It is unclear how far such polarities can go without democracy itself changing its shape. Indeed, most efforts to point the way forward implicitly adopt either a Christian or a secularist stance.

D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 199. (See review)

Many countries have laws that its citizens know will be broken. A recent controversial example would be that of the torture of terrorist suspects. This led some in the USA to suggest that it might be desirable to change the law. Should torture be legalized and this subject to regulation? Or should it be kept illegal, even though it is tacitly understood that the law will on occasion be broken? Both arguments have a certain power, but my own // instincts incline me to the latter position for the simple reason that laws represent in part the moral aspirations of a given society. Nobody, for example, believes that outlawing abortion will stop abortion; but many of us would wish to live in a society where the statue book represent our aspiration to be an abortion-free society. That is one reason we want it to be illegal: laws set before us a vision of the kind of society we would like to see realized.

Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 177-178

This does not mean that Christians ought to push for erecting a Christian utopia or theocracy. Indeed, they ought not do so. Jesus notes that even God, as the divine Legislator, took into account the hardness of Israel’s hearts when legislating the Mosaic law (Matt. 19:8). As already noted above, the law can enrage sinners so that they press for their sin all the more. In addition, Carson notes that Paul distinguishes between the kind of holiness that may be pressed for with the church, and enforced by church discipline, and public morality. Paul’s focus is firmly placed on the former (Christ and Culture Revisited, 165). Furthermore, Aristotle’s view of the law as a habit-forming tool falls short of Christian obedience, which includes not only actions abut also affections. Nonetheless, a nation’s laws are not morally neutral. Laws will reflect a moral vision, and Christians should press, as they have ability and with prudence, laws promote the biblical vision of righteousness.