Hypocrisy and Legalism

I really like Jesus. The more I study the Gospels, the more I think He's the finest preacher our earth has ever seen. My current appreciation revolves around His pointed and pulverizing attack on the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of His day, and the legalistic system of religion they had carefully crafted. Can you imagine a preacher today walking off the stage, and getting into the faces of the religious elite of the day and yelling "woe, woe, woe" and then publicly insulting them for the way they were leading those around them down the path to spiritual death? That's exactly what Jesus did, and you can read all about it. If you want to, take a break from this blog and read Luke 11:37-12:3. I'll wait for you . . .

. . . welcome back! Did you enjoy that? I sure appreciate the way Jesus connects religious hypocrisy to legalism. Here's the way it works. Hypocrisy - especially the "religious" variety - stems from the assumption that living a "double" life is the best way to go. That is, have a public or external personna that people can respect, while reserving the right to host evil in your heart, and even enjoy the pleasures of sin when no one is looking. Of course, this religious hypocrisy, as Jesus states, is quite foolish, for it assumes that God thinks, acts, and sees like men do, and can be fooled by all this. Jesus says as much in 12:1-3: "Your hypocrisy is quite toxic to you and those around you, and - FYI - you're not really fooling Me!"

So, what should we think about hypocrisy? I have often reflected on how funny it would be if we had an organization called Hypocrites Anonymous. Their numbers would be small because once you admit your a hypocrite, you're no longer being hypocritical! "Hi, I'm David and I'm a hypocrite . . . o wait . . . thanks, bye." But even if some decided to come to a meeting, it would almost certainly be out of a desire to help others see their hypocrisy, rather than admit their own. That's the way hyupocrisy works! It is a strange truth, but one that is foundational to hypocrisy, that hypocrites never consider themselves to be bad people. In fact, they believe they are better than most, and superior to many. Stay with me here.

Hypocrities have to believe that they are actually good people despite harboring evil in their hearts and lives. Why? Because they want desperately to be seen and known as good people. If they didn't they wouldn't bother putting up the elaborate facade of external righteousness behind which they hide all the gunk of their lives. They obviously know the difference between good and evil, and they want people to think of them as good because they believe they actually are good! But how can someone who knows the difference between good and evil harbor evil and still sincerely believe that they are good? Here's the point I want to make clear: the answer is that they have constructed their own system of external righteousness which they insists both defines, and displays their intrinsic "goodness."

If we could crawl into the hypocrite's head I think this is what we'd hear: "I am a good person because I am living up to the standards I have decided define and display goodness. And, what is more, there are whole groups of others who have lived before me who have helped gather these standards and practices together, and they have been so kind as to sort through them and bundle them up in different packages for easy selection. I have selected a bundle of rules and standards that I find comfortable, and yet quite compelling in this world."

That's where hypocrisy connects with - in fact spawns - legalism. As a hypocrite, in order to continue believing that you're a good person - even though you are living a double life - you have to create a system that allows you to believe that external goodness more than compensates for the internal sinfulness of your heart. That system probably is made up of rules, and standards, and convictions that can be maintained apart from any true heart-felt spirituality or passion for Christ. Thus, a legalistic system creates the illusion of piety while allowing for impurity to maintain a residence in the heart.

Jesus ran into this combination of hypocrisy and legalism in the religious leaders of His day - the Pharisees and the Scribes. And, in their case, the danger went much further. They not only had constructed a system of externals that promoted and supported their own deluded sense of assurannce before God; they also became authoritative taskmasters who demanded that all around them live up to that system. In so doing, as Jesus points out, they were not only traveling the road to death, they were pushing others down the road in front of them. They were death masquerading as life.

It seems to me that Jesus used His strongest language against those whose hypocrisy had led them to embrace legalism as a way of attaining or increasing spiritual standing before God. They believed that in this way they were moving toward life. But they were deluded; they were actually moving toward death. And so Jesus' strong words here must be seen not as insulting, but as loving. He knew where hypocrisy and legalism would take them, and He cried out to them to think again! This must have been love. And here is where I finally get to my point . . .

. . . I don't think that the texts that speak of curtailing our liberty in order not to offend others are to be seen as referring to the arena of hypocrisy and legalism. Jesus didn't do that. He entered into the house of a Pharisee (Luke 11:37ff) and, knowing that ceremonial washing would be expected, AND that He was being scrutinized carefully, decided not to wash His hands. He did this, not because hand washing was wrong, but because the Pharisee's belief concerning hand washing was wrong. The cleansing rituals that the religious elite had set up were a large part of their system of external righteousness by which they measured themselves and everyone else. Jesus knew what they expected, and He certiainly knew that eating with unwashed hands would offend them. In fact, He was counting on it! Their offense opened them up to the truth that their hypocrisy and legalism were actually foolish attempts to hide their sinfulness from God. But God the Son came to save, and in order to do that, He first had to expose the reality of their hearts.

Hypocrisy is all around us, as is legalism. In fact, it probably has leaked under the doors of our lives, and slowly crept into the various rooms of our hearts. Beware the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy (Luke 12:1-3)! Those were Jesus' words. Tell you what, you look in your rooms, and I'll look in mine. Let's determine to rid our lives of all the hypocrisy and legalism we find. And the best way I've found to do that is to do what the Pharisee did: keep inviting Jesus to visit!

Here's a little quote from George MacDonald that will help us fight legalism:

"But first I said, ... 'Some people think it is not proper for a clergyman to dance. I mean to assert my freedom from any such law. If our Lord chose to represent, in His parable of the Prodigal Son, the joy in Heaven over a repentant sinner by the figure of "music and dancing', I will hearken to Him rather than to man, be they as good as they may.' For I had long thought that the way to make indifferent things bad, was for good people not to do them." George Macdonald


Hope this helps,

David W. Hegg

What's In A Name?

Over the past year I have been reflecting deeply on what names really mean. Three years ago I tried to get my daughter to keep our last name as her middle name when she married. Of course, she and my wife laughed themselves sick at the suggestion which - truthfully - was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. But, that got me thinking about names, about belonging, about labels, and about the way that the purpose and usefulness of names seems to be always evolving.

When we were born, our parents picked our names. I assume that they, like me, chose names for their kids based on something, some principle, or some feeling that made one name stick out. Some parents try to instill a sense of history, or legacy in the name they pick which accounts for the ocassional "Hilton Jameson Smyth Lonniger III" that you sometimes hear when they call roll in gym class. Other parents, I am sure, pick a name that carries the ring or sound that they associate with a certain personality type, or strength of character. So, we get all the names for girls that end in "i" because Mom thought it was perky, or the uber-manly names like Garth or Horst that Dad thought sounded strong. Either way, the name was a projection of what the parent hoped the child would be. In the case of naming a child, the name usually is a projection of what the parents hope their kid will eventually become. If you want him to run for Senate at some point, you don't name your son Kim.

Things are much different when the person or thing carrying a name gets to pick it themselves. For example, businesses don't let their customers name them. Rather, they pick a name that projects what they want the customer to think they are. The name becomes the first advertisement. And companies not uncommonly change their names from time to time in order to more efficiently project themselves in the marketplace.

So, in both the case of the parent naming the child, and of the business naming itself, there is no certainty that the name willl actually end up truly describing reality. Whether your name is given to you, or you pick it yourself, there is no way to make sure that the name is telling us the truth about you. Bottom line, names aren't trustworthy in most cases. Not all Trixies are dim-witted anymore than all Garths are courageous. Christian Science is neither, and the same is true for Grape Nuts. Names don't make it so.

What has become clear is that a name has little if any power to shape a person or company. But, what is true is that a person or company can "shape" their name so that, in the minds of others, the name becomes a fountain of positive impressions. So, where am I going with this?

We just recently spent about a year changing the name of our church. Over that time we talked, and prayed, and argued, and reflected, and stopped, and started, and spent hours trying to figure out just why names exist, what their purpose is, and how a name could possibly become an adequate picture of who we are as a called out people of God who are amazingly unified despite our great diversity. Some are old and some are young. Some appreciate the nobility of history, and others think Bono might be the greatest statesman of all time. Some prefer quiet, others can't concentrate without inserting an IPod, and opening IChat, while texting the world. How could any name ever hope to encompass all of our diversity and complexity under one banner? Given that we didn't think a 12 word name would fit on the sign, we had to go a different direction.

And so we learned the lesson that began this post. Names actually aren't trustworthy descriptions, and hardly anyone today thinks they are. Rather, they are simply designations that allow people and companies and churches and everything else to be differentiated from one another. We also learned that names can become fountains of good impressions, but only as those who "wear" them act in a way that others appreciate. When we put all this together, we decided to find a name that was not easily misunderstood by those who considered names to be "descriptions of character", and yet, could still be "shaped" in a beneficial way by us. So, we are now known as Northpoint Evangelical Free Church.

Most have no idea what "evangelical" means, and if they think they do, its most often negative, as in some wacko right-wing political group. That's too bad really, because the word comes out of the Reformation and has a great history, and a strong, necessary message for today. That's why we've kept it even though for those outside our church family, we'll probably just use Northpoint in casual conversation. "Free' is even worse in terms of people understanding it, but we're keeping it because its not bad to be just a little ornery sometimes. Anyway, with Northpoint, we believe we can "shape" it the way we want to. We are pointing away from ourselves, pointing to Jesus, the "true north" of our lives. We'll see how this all works out.

One more thing on names. There is one place where names are trustworthy as descriptions of character, and that is in the case of Almighty God. Throughout the Bible, God describes His character by means of His Name. And unlike all other "named" entities in this world, God never changes, so His Names are a relevant and reliable source of knowledge about Him. Once again, in the midst of shifting sands and a changing world, we have the gift of an immutable God. Praise Him!

David W. Hegg