well, i’d imagine jesus wore a cloth diaper . . .

I have yet to discover a working, standard definition of “legalism.” It seems to be most commonly used to refer to a conflagration of works-righteousness and unnessecary moral prohibitions. This is fine. But it can also be used to refer to one or the other seperately, which confuses things, and is sometimes used to insinuate that one is the other, which is not true. 

This short exchange between N.T. Wright and Brian Walsh about Wright’s students’ response to Walsh’s book explores a little bit about what “legalism” really means. I liked this little snippet:

. . . The question becomes, “whose legalism?” And my hunch is that we tend to find any moral prescriptions that challenge our own sense of morality to be legalistic. Raise the standard of Christian discipleship high and you can get dismissed for legalism.

That expresses a lot about my feelings about the concept. What is a necessary outworking of faith to one Christian is legalism for another. Which is a perfectly fine issue to debate. What is not fine, I think, is to cry “legalism” at any and every moral prescription that you disagree with, and thereby insinuiate that the people you disagree with are Pharisees and believe in works-righteousness. That seems to me to be the way things usually work.

Of course, we are all prone to invoke the “Legalism!” defense, whether we don’t want to use cloth diapers or we want to be able to drink alcohol, watch R-rated movies, use swear words and dance. I do (or have no issue with doing) all of these things, although it should be noted that while I don’t believe the Bible forbids dancing, I don’t dance in public. It’s for your sake, people.