Is Biblical-Nouthetic Counseling Legalistic?: Reexamination of a ...

Is Biblical-Nouthetic
Counseling Legalistic?
Reexamination
of a Biblical Theme
by Edward T. Welch*
Abstract: This article develops the theme of legalism and its opposite, faith.
Rather than describing legalism simply as adherence to a set of extrabiblical
laws, it attempts to expose the prideful motives and purposes behind the legalistic
tendency that is resident in everyone. Legalism then becomes a powerful
perspective on many presenting problems in counseling.
One of the oldest tensions in the Christian life is between license and
legalism. On the one hand license beckons. Many Christians live morally
careless and unashamedly self-centered versions of being a Christian. Many
teachers teach cheap grace, distorting the true gospel of the Savior Who is our
Lord. Licentious church life is careless about discipleship; it nourishes selfindulgence
rather than self-denial. License downplays God’s rule; it exalts the
desires of the flesh for pleasure, power, autonomous freedom, love, and the like.
The flesh opposes God’s law and lives to do what it wants.
On the other hand legalism crushes. Many Christians live overly scrupulous,
compulsive versions of being a Christian. Many teachers teach graceless
distortions of the true gospel of the Lord Who is our Savior. Legalistic church life
is authoritarian and misguided about discipleship; it nourishes allegiance to manmade
codes and standards as the proof of salvation. Legalism downplays God’s
grace; it exalts the desires of the flesh for self-righteous performance, perfectionism,
self-atonement, and judgmentalism. The flesh opposes the gospel of God and
lives to perform up to standards of human making.
Christians frequently oscillate between living as careless sinners and living
as compulsive Pharisees. You probably know Christians who are casual about
holiness, self-absorbed, who view God as the “errand boy of their wandering
*Edward Welch is Director of Counseling at the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation.
4

desires.” You probably know Christians who are obsessed with their own version
of holiness, absorbed with their own and others’ successes and failures in selfdiscipline,
who view God as a taskmaster who must be pleased. You probably
know Christians who embody some of both: they view the Christian life as
legalism they can’t live up to, so they give up trying and live for license.
Counseling that follows the Scripture will address both legalism and license.
This wise pastoral counsel proclaims that the love and grace of God in Christ,
received by faith, produces obedience.
The plot thickens further when we consider the current counseling scene.
The pop psychologies that are invading the church tend uniformly towards
license. They bend the Bible to fit the flesh’s felt “needs,” desires, longings and
demands that God and His universe should cater to self. The “Christianized”
psychologies tend to oppose what they interpret as legalism, any attempt to
establish the specific rule of God over human beings. 1 They typically define the
predominate mode of the Christian life as “healing” or need-meeting, not
repentance. Because nouthetic counseling has insisted instead that the Christian
life is characterized by faith, repentance, and obedience, it has frequently drawn
fire from Christian psychologists. Biblical counselors have accurately seen that
counseling’s goal must be to produce the good works of obedience to God’s
revealed will. This has been frequently misinterpreted by psychologist critics as
legalism. Such critics charge that biblical counselors not only don’t help
legalistic counselees but actually promote legalism.
Is nouthetic counseling legalistic? Does nouthetic counseling somehow
create legalistic counselees? Perhaps the best answer is to show how biblical
counseling addresses and helps legalistic counselees.
This article addresses three intertwined questions. First, what is legalism?
Second, how do you counsel legalistic counselees? The answer to these two
questions will enable us to answer a third question-is biblical counseling
legalistic?
Case Study: Karen and her would-be helpers
Consider Karen, a single, twenty-six-year-old, who came for counseling
with the presenting problem of long-term depression, dating back to childhood
but exacerbated over the past five years. From a nominal Christian, middle-class
home, she was the second of three children (with older and younger brothers).
Her most striking childhood memories consisted of being a small girl who tried
to please her father but who never did. In one particularly vivid memory, her
father, who was a heavy drinker at the time, was capriciously hitting Karen while
she cowered in a corner. In an effort both to please her father and to stop the
5

hitting, Karen started yelling, “Daddy, I’m bad, I’m bad,” and the hitting
stopped. Interestingly, as Karen looked back on that event, she realized that it
captured her lifestyle. Much of her life was spent both being terrified that
something horrible was going to happen and practicing a penance-like ritual
when she felt she didn’t measure up.
In high school Karen placed her trust in Christ and demonstrated some
Christian growth. After high school she went on to college as a business major
and did very well. Throughout college Karen was a conscientious worker with
high moral standards in all areas of life. It wasn’t until her first job that obvious
problems emerged. Though she did well in her work, some unethical practices
by her immediate supervisor led to her being fired. Eventually she was exonerated
and her boss was dismissed, yet the incident threw her into a tailspin of
depression. The problem: she felt that she was nothing if she failed to measure
up to the expectations of others, and the expectations were that she should be a
complete success in her work. A secondary problem was that money had become
a way for her to have control, security, and prestige, and losing her job meant a
temporary loss of income. To put it another way, although she had placed her
faith in Christ, several things competed with her faith. First was her self-centered
law that she had to please everyone and everyone had to be pleased with her. Both
Karen and her employer had violated this law, producing depression and anger.
Second was her subtle love of money and the accompanying sense of prestige and
security. Her loss of income occasioned anxiety and reinforced her sense of
failure and anger.
Karen’s pastor suggested she see a Christian psychiatrist, who immediately
put her on anti-depressant medication and diagnosed her as a “borderline
personality.” Operating out of a neo-Freudian model and believing the problems
to be too deep for biblical counseling, the psychiatrist worked months with Karen
to develop a transference. He believed that the transference would allow him to
re-parent Karen by “mirroring” her “exhibitionistic self,” thereby empowering
her. He also was waiting for Karen to idealize him in order to promote a kind of
psychological “merger.” His theory was that this idealizing would give Karen a
new sense of purpose as she would essentially say, “I want to be like my therapist/
father.” Karen, however, never did transfer her past onto her psychiatrist.
Instead, she became increasingly angry with him, believing him to be “overrated”
and “unhelpful.”
Karen began looking toward her church for understanding and help. There
she encountered three different types of counselors. Her close friends were very
supportive and empathic. They would listen to her for hours, accepting her anger
and empathizing with her feelings of failure and depression. Yet her depression
6

only increased. The “exhorters” of the church also became involved. They too
listened to Karen, but they also tried to offer her direction. They exhorted her to
have more faith and hope, to come consistently to church and singles’ activities,
to be more disciplined in Bible reading and to practice thankfulness. This counsel
was formally consistent with Scripture-biblical counseling would seem to
consist in such exhortations. But such counseling was simplistic and lacked both
biblical depth and specific steps toward teaching Karen how to grow in faith.
Also, it missed three critical ingredients of good counsel: it ignored Karen’s
legalistic and demanding heart; it ignored Jesus and the centrality of the gospel
to motivate repentance and change; and thus it failed to make behavioral change
the fruit of intelligent repentance. Karen’s depression and anger only increased.
At this point a couple who had been very influenced by spiritual deliverance
teachings became involved in counseling Karen. They suggested to Karen
that her troubles were a result of spiritual warfare, and they explained to her that
only in exposing and casting out demons was there hope for change. The husband
and wife had two long sessions with Karen where they attempted to lead Karen
in spiritual warfare and deliverance. These sessions, however, left Karen both
confused and further depressed.
Karen believed that her only hope was her pastor, an idealized figure whose
father-like acceptance became a lifeline. Karen crafted him into her god,
grounding her personal identity in his opinions and acceptance. In counseling the
pastor avoided using Scripture because he believed the Bible’s stress on
obedience would only exacerbate Karen’s perfectionism and guilt, deepening
her depression. Also, recognizing Karen’s dependency on him, he gently
suggested that Karen consider a support group for adult children of alcoholics
and codependents. Although she attended the support group only three times, she
began to talk about her “inner woundedness” and “unmet needs for love.”
Karen’s presenting problem was depression, but depression was not the
sum of her experience. Her life became increasingly filled with anger and
complaints. She would alternate between being consumed with a sense of
personal failure and being consumed with anger because others had failed her.
She was depressed about herself: “I’ve failed.” She was angry at her employers:
“They betrayed me.” Her anger widened. The Christian psychiatrist never
measured up to her expectations: “He was overrated and unhelpful.” She became
angry at her church: “They made my depression worse and they didn’t understand
what I was going through.” Neither the group nor the idealized pastor
provided a strong enough foundation. Eventually Karen attempted suicide using
anti-depressant medication.
Following her detoxification in a hospital, Karen gradually solidified a new
7

law. Initially, Karen’s law was fairly narrow: people had to be pleased with her.
If they were not, she would become depressed and angry. Now, however, her law
became larger and more demanding: “People must meet my needs.”
A complex stew of issues. Karen experienced a pervasive sense of failure,
constant anxiety, depression, a desire for control, an insatiable craving for
approval, a conviction that she was ultimately needy, and anger that could move
toward rage. She lived in a world where everyone wore a mask of her father
(whom she wanted both to judge and to please). Except for those she would
periodically and temporarily idealize, whose approval helped her attain her law
of being perfect and successful, she was constantly angry and critical. No one
could reach out in a way that met her expectations. Furthermore, she seemed to
close the door to most spiritual issues by saying that even though she had
struggled occasionally with her faith, she was proud of the fact that she had gone
through tough times with her faith still intact. As a result Karen resisted most
suggestions that there were spiritual roots to her struggles.
In short Karen presented a peculiar paradox. On the one hand there were
tragic elements to her story. She was treated harshly by her father: she longed to
be loved by him yet wasn’t loved. She had been betrayed in the work place: she
worked hard yet was fired. She had been taught psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological
models of explaining and solving her problems. Therapy reinforced
her self-perception that she was fundamentally needy and traumatized;
medication left her persuaded that her depression was biological. Karen had been
abused, betrayed, and misled. But her story was more than tragedy. There were
also more aggressive and responsible elements to her problems. She was a
woman who placed many demands on others, on God, and on herself. Karen was
a proud legalist.
It is against this backdrop of the complex nature of personal problems,
criticisms of biblical counsel, and simplistic uses of the Bible in counseling that
we examine the biblical teaching on legalism.
God’s Courtroom and the Goodness of the Law
To understand legalism we need to understand the Bible’s legal or courtroom
language and its congruence with how the human heart works. The
courtroom metaphor is one of the most dominant in Scripture. Early in the Old
Testament we are ushered into the divine courtroom where God made a legal
treaty or covenant with His people. God said, “I will be your God and you will
be my people” (Exodus 6:7). This arrangement carried certain requirements. The
people were to imitate God; they were to be holy as God was holy. The legal
covenant also brought blessings and curses. If there was obedience, God
8

promised blessing and life; if there was disobedience or rebellion, He warned of
death.
But God, the Divine King, made a covenant different from any other
ancient treaty. In an unprecedented act of love, God swore to take the curses of
unfaithfulness upon Himself (e.g., Genesis 15, Isaiah 53). If there was disobedience,
He would pay the ultimate price. God would provide the lamb to be
sacrificed. This is exactly what Jesus did. Through His “passive obedience” He
bore the curse of death for sinners. God’s courtroom has a way to punish sin and
to forgive at the same time (Romans 3:26). Furthermore, through His “active
obedience” Jesus obeyed the law on our behalf. God’s courtroom has a way to
give us the goodness-the performance-of Jesus.
These loving and gracious promises certainly did not abolish the law.
Rather, they sapped the law of its condemnatory power over sinners purchased
by the blood of the lamb of God. They gave God’s people the freedom to pursue
the law wholeheartedly and without fear. But the uses of biblical law quickly
were distorted. Ever since God made His gracious covenant, people have
preferred to look for righteousness that comes through law-keeping rather than
grace. We have a Pharisaical instinct to “let go of the commands of God” and hold
on to “the traditions of men” (Mark 7:8). Called “works-righteousness” or
“legalism,” this is an example of how sin takes something honorable and holy
(the law) and changes it into a vehicle for self-worship.
This practice has given different meanings to the word “law.” “Law” can be
biblical shorthand for something that may be either praiseworthy or heinous. We
must be careful to define our terms.
The word “law” can be used in four different ways. First, it refers to the
universal and enduring moral law. As summarized by “love God and love your
neighbor,” this law is something holy and good because it reveals the character
of God and His wise and true counsel. As such, the Psalmist says, “Your laws are
my delight, they are my counselors” (Psalm 119:24).
A second use of the law is as the schoolmaster that leads us to Christ. By
revealing the character and counsel of God, the law reveals the character of man:
“So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by
faith” (Galatians 3:24). Without the law we would have only a vague awareness
of God’s holiness and our sinfulness. We would sense little need for a savior. The
law spotlights our failure to measure up and leads us to find our righteousness in
Christ alone.
A third use of law is the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law fulfilled in
Jesus. This is a variation on the theme of the law-as-schoolmaster. The ceremonial
laws, such as the sacrificial system and circumcision, emphasized the

holiness of God, His hatred for sin, and His mercy. These foreshadowed the High
Priest, Who would make a final sacrifice for sin and circumcise the heart. When
Jesus completed His atonement for sin, the purpose of those laws became
realized. The ceremonial law was abolished in Christ (e.g., Philippians 3:2).
A Courtroom of Our Own Making: Legalism as Pride
The final use of the law is synonymous with legalism. It is the insidious
practice of using the law as a means to attain personal righteousness and merit
some degree of divine favor. The principle of legalism is human performance:
“I can do it.” The formula for legalism, which usually is apparent only in practice
rather than in stated belief, is “justification = faith + law.” In the context of
Galatians, the formula was “justification = faith + circumcision” (e. g., Galatians
5:2, 4).
At first glance the apostle Paul’s repugnance for this misuse of the law is
startling. After all, legalists are good performers. Like Karen, their lives are
rarely punctuated by gross immorality. But Paul stated without equivocation the
absolute inadequacy of the law as a means of salvation. In Galatians, after a brief
greeting he quickly proceeds with “I am astonished at what you are doing.”
Regarding the preachers of circumcision, he wished they would “emasculate
themselves.” What was it in legalism that Paul found so offensive?
Paul’s indignation arose from his insight into the machinations of the
legalistic heart. The implicit assumption of legalism is that we actually have
some innate righteousness, as if we were morally weak rather than incorrigible
rebels who need grace. Although it is subtle and sometimes very religious
looking, there is a deep arrogance in the legalistic heart. As such, it is not
surprising that the apostle Paul harshly denounced legalism. Because of Paul’s
understanding of the hopelessness of sin’s corruption and his appreciation for
Jesus’ once-for-all atonement, he could not tolerate the pride that presumes we
can work for our righteousness. He made it clear that a foundation of Christ and
our own works was no foundation at all and was simply a euphemism for selfrighteousness.
Pride fueled Karen’s depression. Behind her sense of failure was the
expectation, “I can do it.” Although she continued to proclaim faith in Christ, in
practice Jesus was an addition to her own sense of measuring up to the law. She
purposefully and instinctively sought to add her work to the complete work of
Christ. Her new, distorted legal system, however, was very different from the law
of God. In order to have an attainable system, Karen gently massaged the law.
She had reduced it to a behavioristic, doable, harmless code that divorced
dependent faith from daily living. She had reconfigured the divine courtroom. As
10

law-giver, Karen had erected a number of working standards: make a certain
amount of money, be professionally respected, be courteous even if you are very
angry with the other person, be appreciated by others, and so on. Karen also
included biblical law, but her reconfiguring of the Ten Commandments and the
law of love left her convinced that she had performed the way God intended.
Legalism, however, complicates our lives immensely. The twisted courtroom,
where we are the law-giver, will not let us be “successful” legalists forever.
Karen could not even measure up to her laws. She stood condemned; she was a
failure. Then, with the true gospel relegated to observer status, Karen discovered
another principle in her courtroom: “If I fail, I bear it or repair it. I must pay for
my own sins and failings.” Instead of repentance that relies on the mercy of the
cross, failure in the new courtroom must be accompanied by man-centered
penance. In Karen’s case the depression itself became a form of penance. That
is, she would repair her failure by feeling despair. Miller commented insightfully
on present day penance.
Penance is not merely a sacrament of the Roman Catholic
Church. Rather, it is a religious attitude deeply rooted in the human
heart which prompts men to attempt to pay for their own sins by their
good works and sufferings... The man doing penance is sadly mistaken.
Things cannot come right for him. He cannot pay for his sins
because he poisons all the best gifts of God...For in his heart of hearts,
he is proud-infinitely proud-perhaps without having the slightest
idea of his basic problem. 2
Penance is a central operating principle in the courtroom of legalism.
Legalism carries not only personal implications but social ones as well. For
example, the principle “if I fail, I pay” is closely followed by “if you fail, you
pay.” As such, Karen passed judgment on herself in the form of depression, and
she passed judgment on those who failed her in the form of anger. She believed
that others owed her: her father owed her love; her employer owed her pleas for
forgiveness; her psychiatrist owed her perfect therapy; and her church owed her
perfect acceptance, understanding, and counsel. As law was constantly over
Karen’s head, waiting to judge, so law was her rule in personal relationships. In
fact, the authorization to judge others, especially her father, was the prime “perk”
that made legalism so attractive to Karen. It was as if Karen was willing to accept
the difficulties of living under the law as long as she could place others in a
similar position.
These are the essential qualities of the recreated, legalistic courtroom: (1)
the prideful heart denies the active obedience of Christ and says, “I can do it”;
(2) God’s laws are sapped of their penetrating power and new laws are added; (3)

Christ’s passive obedience is replaced by legalistic self-atonement that says, “if
I fail, I pay”; and (4) instead of the wrath of God as the true Judge, the legalist
brings judgment and anger on others, reminding them, “if you fail, you pay [me].”
These principles have appeared in every legalistic court from Old Testament
times to the present. However, there appears to have been some development of
this tradition in our present psychologized times. Perhaps we are witnessing a
development from the Jewish “religious” legalism to a secularized legalism.
In our present psychologized culture, there has been a secularization of the
legalism equation. Many people will not recognize themselves in the formula,
“justification = faith plus .” Instead, justification has been replaced by
psychological contentment. Justification, or being right with God, is, in practice,
secondary to a desire for personal meaning, identity, self-esteem, purpose,
pleasure, or happiness. The formula is then reduced to this: “feeling good about
myself = personal accomplishments or the way others meet my needs.” This
certainly seems like a distant echo of the apostle Paul’s theme of legalism. The
old legalism at least wanted to be right with God! The new secularized legalism
wants to be right with myself! But the biblical diagnosis and core dynamic are
the same. People still want to find something in themselves in which they can
glory and trust.
In Karen’s case being justified before God to the praise of His glory was not
a ruling motive. Although her profession of faith remained, she had made herself
central in all aspects of the courtroom drama. Her goal was to be respected,
admired, and worshiped by others. She wanted to feel good about herself. Her life
was summarized this way: “Feeling good about myself = measuring up to all laws
(especially mine and others’).” With this her twisted courtroom was complete.
God’s voice was no longer clearly heard. The legalistic equation ruled Karen’s
life.
The Reign of Darkness
One of the most striking consequences of legalism is its invisibility to the
legalist. Legalists tend to be blind to their own legalism. People will never come
for counseling naming stubborn legalism as their problem. It always seems to be
a problem for someone else or the church down the street. This is, in part, a result
of legalism’s tendency to follow laws of our own making. For example, Karen
sees herself as hardworking-and she is. She sees herself as having kept her faith
in difficult circumstances-and she has in that she continued to verbally
proclaim faith in Christ. When these laws and other such doable statutes become
part of our code, we gradually believe that we are morally good people who
occasionally do bad things. With such a foundation Karen has no practical need
12

for Jesus. Yet there is another reason for her apparent blindness. What Karen and
other legalists experience is a darkness that reveals both the blinding and the
surreptitious nature of sin.
The truth is that legalism is a plague that affects us all. Each of us has some
remaining tendency to “want to be under the law” (Galatians 4:21). Legalism is
a “temptation that is common to man” (I Corinthians 10:13). It is not extinguished
at conversion. Although we are sinners who are forgiven and empowered
to fight against sin, our sin continues to exert itself. One persistent form of
sin is to look for some foundational righteousness in ourselves, even if it is only
a little righteousness. The true law and gospel are in constant battle with our
desire for a self-glory that comes through perceived legalistic righteousness.
Implicit in receiving grace is the ongoing need to humble ourselves before God
(Matthew 5:3). The residual pride resident in us all continues to quietly wince at
the thought.
So, legalism is woven into the fabric of every sinner; we are all in varying
states of blindness to it. How then are we able to see it and repent? Often it can
be detected by noticing some of the more obvious consequences. Legalists might
recognize an experience that the apostle Paul refers to as slavery (e.g., Galatians
2:4, 5:1). This slavery metaphor is initially somewhat confusing in light of the
self-exalted posture of legalists. But Paul’s use of slavery reminds us that
legalism is not just prideful rebellion; it is also pitiable servitude. While legalists
reconfigure the law to their liking, they have unknowingly established a system
which they themselves must serve. Karen must be pleasing to other people...to
unpleasable people! That is a horrible slavery. Furthermore, along with the
consequences of their own laws they maintain an awareness, albeit suppressed,
of God’s divine nature and an accusing conscience (Romans 1:18-29; 2:15).
They live in a courtroom. They soon find they are surrounded by standards (from
self, others, or God) that they can never attain. The sin of legalism deceives; it
promises freedom via the law, but it holds us captive and makes us its slave; it
delivers misery. We become alone, trapped, and living in fear (Romans 8:15). As
Galatians indicates, legalism leaves us as slaves instead of sons. With this added
perspective to legalism, counselors now have two perspectives on legaliststhey
are both rebels and slaves-and both perspectives are necessary in order to
have a counseling methodology that is full of both truth and compassion.
At first glance slavery might not sound like a powerful way to organize
human experience. After all, this generation has never witnessed slavery.
However, our language is peppered with slavery images. For example, consider
how the following experiences associated with slavery permeate our society:
Fear reigns.
13

Intimacy is impossible.
No one can be trusted.
There is no security or hope.
Punishment and condemnation loom.
The taskmaster is never pleased; we must be performance-oriented.
There is a sense of powerlessness.
Enslavement in the form of various addictions abounds.
Pain can be avoided only through escape (such as drugs).
You must get in with the right people.
Notice how penance, one of the principles of legalism, fits very easily in the
larger context of slavery. Legalists/slaves believe that they must repay any debt
of disobedience or imperfection. As a result, they engage in penance rather than
repentance. In penance pride takes on many forms, some of which even appear
religious: sorrow for sin, depression, purposeful failure, even suicide. Yet its
roots are still a commitment to trust in self-righteousness rather than place faith
in Christ.
Penance, like slavery, also includes the dual aspect of sin. On one hand,
penance belies a self-exalted heart and exposes the pride that believes in worksrighteousness;
but on the other hand, penance is a very sad condition. Penitents
are trapped; they know of no other way to deal with sin and guilt; their eyes have
been blinded to the truth about themselves and God.
A Model of Legalism
Legalism is a universal expression of pride that operates according to
certain principles and has various consequences. It is the root for a host of modern
struggles that are expressed in living rather than avowed theological propositions.
Figure 1 (next page) summarizes its nature and consequences.
Legalism contains two aspects. “Successful” legalism (#l, Figure 1) says
“I’m OK.” Unsuccessful legalism (#2, Figure 1) says “I’m not OK.” Typically,
both are present. People will simultaneously find personal meaning and selfrighteousness
in meeting the requirements of their distorted laws; and they will
demonstrate depression, despair, or hopelessness as they know they fall short of
the standards of others or the true law of God.
The list of consequences or “fruits” is certainly not exhaustive, but it does
highlight common consequences of modem legalism. Consider perfectionism.
Ask a group of Christians to tell you what they are like as people. You will
undoubtedly hear “perfectionist” as a common trait. The meaning may vary. For
example, perfectionism could simply mean that a person likes to do a job as well
14

Legalism Its Fruit
#l I have measured up to the
requirements of a law (Mark
7:8). Therefore, I deserve
, and I will judge those
who don’t measure up.
#2 I have not measured up [to
the standards of others or God].
Therefore, (a) no one else will
measure up either, (b) I will do
penance, and/or (c) I will look
for affirmation from others
and idealize (i.e., make God)
those who affirm me best.
Figure 1. A Model of Legalism
Superiority
Anger
Being critical
Perfectionism
Self-confidence
Despair
Misery
Rage
Jealousy
Anorexia
Fear of failure
Fear of people
Inferiority
“Codependency”
as possible. But it is often shorthand for an underlying legalistic belief that says,
“My foundation in life equals faith plus errorless work (or being perceived as
being successful).” Or “perfectionist” may mean that I am very demanding of
myself and others and highly critical of failure. In such a case perfectionism is
simply a morally neutered word for legalism. How might this perfectionism
manifest itself? Common symptoms include eating disorders and depression.
Fear of failure is another sign of legalism. In fact, no other theme in
Scripture describes the experience of fear of failure as well as legalism. Fear of
failure points to a concern for our performance and reputation. It betrays a
theology that says, “I must measure up so I can find personal meaning in myself.
Also, I must measure up so others will think I am successful.”
Subtle bargaining with God and resultant anger is also a sign that the pride
of legalism lurks beneath the surface. “I have been a faithful tither. How, God,
could you ever let my business fail? You owe me.” “I will go to the mission field
if you give me a wife.” These statements belie an underlying belief that persons
have some righteousness in themselves with which they can bargain with God.
15

Critical persons are easily understood through the lens of legalism. Such
persons are claiming that they have measured up to some legalistic standard.
Their works-righteousness has put them in a position where they feel justified in
judging others.
The modem idea of “codependence” can be recast biblically by way of
legalism. Codependents are described as persons whose view of self is attached
to the opinions of others. In other words, in their pride they must do something
to find an identity in themselves and apart from the grace of God. Like the
Pharisees they are substituting their own performance and human approval for
the gospel.
A person’s language often points the finger toward legalism. For example,
consider the following phrases:
“I have a right to ”;
“I have worked so hard to do what’s right; I don’t know why
God would ever bring this suffering on me”;
“I will forgive him when he starts acting differently.”
Almost anytime you hear these expressions, legalistic pride is the motivating
force. People feel like they have a right because they have earned it. They believe
they have met the requirement of some law. As a result, they also feel entitled to
judge those who fail them and their laws.
Other revealing language communicates the sense that something or
someone is up above the person, relentlessly judging and giving no grace.
“Life is one constant obligation”;
“I am a failure”;
“I can’t measure up to my parent’s expectations”;
“I can’t take the pressure”;
“I’m tired-weighted down.”
These are not the only red flags that warn of legalism. Indeed, legalism can
be a component in most spiritual problems. The possible manifestations of it are
endless. But when these experiences or behaviors are present, receptive counselees
will report that the biblical diagnosis of legalism “feels right.” It will describe
their experience. It will provide a tailor-made way of leading them to greater faith
in Christ and freedom to obey.
A Model of Faith
Against this background, faith emerges vigorously. Faith and its synonyms-love
for God, confidence in God, trust in Christ, obedience to God,
serving God, and the fear of the Lord-stand opposed to legalism. Legalism is
16

trust in yourself. While legalism bends toward self-reliance, self-glory, and selfjustification,
faith centers on the cross of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Faith stands against the twisted strivings of legalistic righteousness. It allows the
law to be a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ. Then, faith receives and depends
on God’s power and performance (e.g., Romans 4:18-22). It rejoices that all
debts have been paid at the cross and all legal standards have been attained
through Jesus. This gives us the freedom to see our sin, repent, and move on in
the power of the Spirit.
Faith is knowledge passing into conviction, and it is conviction
passing into confidence. Faith cannot stop short of self-commitment
to Christ, a transference of reliance upon ourselves and all human
resources to reliance upon Christ alone for salvation. ...it is the
engagement of person to person, the engagement of the sinner as lost
to the person of the Saviour able and willing to save....it is not simply
believing Him; it is believing in Him and on Him. 3
This does not mean that faith is simply another form of works. We are not
saved by the quality or amount of our faith. Faith is not the ground or cause of
justification; it simply points to the object on which justification rests. As Martin
Luther indicated in his commentary on Galatians, we are recipients of a “passive
righteousness.” Faith leaves no room for boasting in ourselves and our faith.
Furthermore, faith itself is a gift of God; it does not rise out of our own insight.
In the same way that legalism and slavery are companions, faith is
inseparable from freedom and sonship. Sonship is Paul’s preferred contrast to the
slavery of legalism. Slaves under the law have now received “the full rights of
sons...so you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has
made you also an heir” (Galatians 4:5, 7). The juxtaposition is dramatic. The
experience of an adopted child includes:
An unfailing relationship characterized by love;
Acceptance based on the performance of Christ rather than our
own;
Forgiveness rather than repayment;
Being known and understood;
The promise of even greater things (an eternal inheritance) so
there is no need to worry about the future;
Transformation into the image of the Father by the indwelling
Spirit of sonship; therefore, there is power to change.
As compared to the slavery of penance, the lifestyle of faith/sonship is
characterized by repentance. In fact, repentance and faith are difficult to
distinguish; both include turning away from self and finding mercy in Christ
17

alone. Faith presumes a turning from sin and emphasizes reliance on Christ and
His finished work; repentance presumes a reliance on Jesus and emphasizes a
turning from sin. Repentance is distinct from penance in that the motive is the
Lordship of Jesus and the endpoint is Jesus, not ourselves. Where penance is
exposed by a dominating self-focus, repentance is characterized by a vision of
Christ that is larger than our view of our own sin (e.g., Isaiah 6:l-8). And where
penance ends in slavery and misery, repentance ends in joy (cf. Figure 2).
Faith Its Fruit
I do not measure up to the Freedom
glory of God; therefore, I will Joy
put my hope in Jesus, the One Love
Who has measured up on my Patience
behalf. Also, I will treat others Kindness
the way I have been treated in Self-control
Christ. I will no longer be law- Humility
giver and judge.
Figure 2. A Model of Faith
Applications
Karen certainly fits the legalistic framework. With her composite experience
of anger and depression, the perspective of legalism unified her symptoms
into one biblical theme.
As a successful legalist (#l, Figure l), Karen continually reformulated the
law until it became a seemingly harmless, doable code: “Be intelligent, courteous
(even if you hate the person), professionally respected, financially stable,
responsible, well-dressed, and in control.” Attaining these laws, in a behavioristic
fashion, gave her a sense of personal meaning and affirmation because she
had measured up. She was thus “authorized” to be highly critical and angry with
those who had not measured up.
As an unsuccessful legalist (#2, Figure l), Karen experienced the consequences
of her sin. She knew she didn’t measure up to God’s laws, her laws, or
the standards that other people had set for her (her father, teachers, employers,
church leaders, and so on). Instead of going by faith to the cross of Christ and
knowing that the condemnatory law was abolished, she opted for a more selfcentered
route. (a) She found in her failure the authority to judge others. (b) Her

depression served as a form of penance or self-atonement; it was her adult
version of “Daddy, I’m bad.” Then, having atoned for her failure, she could
judge others. (c) To “feel good about herself,” she received her identity from
others. Those who were particularly affirming were idealized; that is, they took
the place of God.
As one way of dealing with Karen’s resistance to facing the truth about
herself, the counselor spent time understanding her history. Without doubt,
Karen had been sinned against by her father, and it was important for her to know
God’s perspective on her as one who had been oppressed or victimized. It was
actually new to Karen to realize that God came to her as a God of sympathy and
compassion for the afflicted as well as a God Who would judge sinners justly.
This began to break through her accusatory questions about God “allowing” her
father’s sinful behavior.
The discussion then moved to her sense of failure and how Jesus already
had met the requirements of the law on her behalf. But at this point she seemed
unaffected. In fact, whenever her counselor would speak of God’s grace toward
her, she would be absolutely unmoved, seemingly indifferent. Why was there
apparent coldness in the face of truths that were so full of life, especially in her
situation? Could it have been that Karen actually did not want to know of grace?
The counselor offered a tentative observation: “Is it possible that there is
something distasteful to you about God’s grace? Sometimes it seems like you
purposefully avoid it.” Immediately, in a flash of unprecedented insight, she
responded, “If I really believe that God has forgiven me, then I must forgive my
father-and I won’t do that.” In other words, in Karen’s pride she preferred to
live under the law because, even though it led to deep depression, it authorized
her to judge her father or anyone else who hadn’t met her sense of need. She knew
the implications of trusting Christ: she would have to stop playing God. With that
insight Karen knew that her battle was not with the symptoms of depression. Her
battle was with her own pride.
Karen began to see the pervasive legalism in her life. Although her mouth
said that justification before God was through grace and by faith, her life kept
saying otherwise. According to her actions “real life = attaining certain standards
and being praised for meeting those standards.” She saw that her natural
tendency was to embrace a law because, in her mind, only her own performance
up to a law could give her personal meaning. With this backdrop of conviction
of sin, faith began to take on central significance. Once proud of her faith, she
now realized her problems stemmed from a lack of faith and knew that freedom
could only come from looking away from herself and unto Christ.
Counseling times increasingly uncovered the works-righteousness behind
19

her depression and anger and led to finding freedom through faith and then
walking out the implications of faith for concrete obedience. Karen began to
recognize her spiritual helplessness and the rebellious bent of her heart; she saw
that her depression and anger were essentially legalistic expressions of her pride.
She began to turn in humble reliance to Jesus and to forsake her commitment to
be superior to others or to trust in an idealized father-figure (an idol).
In some counseling cases these insights lead to radical and rapid change.
In Karen’s case the process was more gradual. For example, sometimes even her
repentance from sin was twisted into a legalistic framework. Turning away from
sin is undeniably part of obedience, but it is a response to the gospel (the death
and resurrection of Jesus), not commensurate with it. When Karen elevated
repentance to be equivalent to the work of Christ, her operating belief became,
“Justification equals faith in the finished work of Jesus plus my own repentance.”
The result: repentance was transformed into man-centered penance, and depression
soon followed. As Karen became aware of this tendency, she grew less and
less discouraged. She came to realize that this was going to happen in her
sanctification. As is the case with everyone, her walk of faith needed daily
exhortations (from others, herself, and the Scripture) to beware of sin’s deceitfulness,
to fix her eyes on Jesus, and to serve the Lord Who loved her.
There was other good fruit in Karen’s life as well. Karen became much less
critical of her boyfriend. She became quick to pray when fear seemed overwhelming.
She sought forgiveness for her anger rather than justifying it. She
forgave her father, employers and certain counselors at the church. She realized
that she had misjudged many church friends, past and present, and began to serve
them in love. Finally, her depression was replaced by growing faith, love, and joy.
Summary
Was Karen’s counseling legalistic? Did it emphasize obedience at the
expense of grace? Did it deal superficially with the issues of her heart? Did it
shape a compulsive Pharisee? I think not. Biblical nouthesis literally means to
“place before the mind” the life-giving Truth of God. Such truth teaches,
convicts, and transforms both licentious and legalistic counselees into disciplesmen
and women who live out “the obedience that comes from faith” (Romans
1:5). This was the goal with Karen. Nouthetic counseling provided a biblical
framework that penetrated the depths of the human heart. It defined legalism as
the human tendency to manipulate and distort the law and the gospel for our own
purposes. Its many variations can usually be reduced to the formula, “justification
in my eyes, others’ eyes, or God’s eyes = works (in the case of non-
Christians), or faith + works.” The motive of legalism is our human pride; the
20

goal is personal righteousness, self-vindication, or “self-worth.”
The treatment of legalism began by exposing the nature of Karen’s twisted
courtroom and how she viewed God, the law, herself, and Christ. It then presented
Christ as the object of faith-the risen Lord Who paid the penalty once and for all.
Any treatment without this explicit Christocentric focus is legalistic. A biblical
approach calls legalists to exalt in the righteousness of Christ and repent of
strategies to find self-righteousness. They then learn the obedience to the law of
God that is freedom.
Footnotes
1. e.g., Ellens, H. God’s Grace and Human Health, Nashville: Abingdon, 1982.
2. Miller, C.J., Repentance and Twentieth Century Man, Fort Washington, PA: Christian
Literature Crusade, 1980, pages 19-21.
3. Murray, J., Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955, pages
111, 112.
21