Article: YOU ARE LEGALISTIC!

Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 07:27 PM

YOU ARE LEGALISTIC!
By Patrick D. Andrews

We are living in an age of rank categorization. Nothing and no one is exempt as all things are placed into their special little place or category--pigeon holed.

Simultaneously, our vast system of media is working overtime to present their latest sensational fear for the great masses of people. We are told to be afraid of what we breathe, drink, and eat. We must have the sunshine for the essential vitamins that it produces, but it is also to be feared because of sunburns and subsequent melanoma due to the ozone layer that we have depleted using the products that "they" formerly told us would make our life better.

The chemists and medical community present some new treatment for that which ails us, but the chemical composition has some side-effects--oftentimes these are worse than the problem that the medicine or compound was supposed to remedy.

If your blood pressure is OK, your cholesterol is much too high. If you exercise, you are tearing down the joints in your knees, back and feet and if you don't exercise you are either over weight or under weight, but never an ideal weight. When you go to the dentist, you are told that your technique or method of cleaning and flossing is not quite doing the job as evidenced by the new cavities that need to be filled. However, if no cavities are present and no further dental action is needed, it is concluded to be the product a mere chance or luck rather than your efficient program of oral hygiene.

Similarly, I keep hearing the terms of legalism, liberalism, conservatism, and I would suppose that "etcetra-ism" will be labeled soon.

If you or someone you know is capable of reading the scriptures and understanding the specific requirements of those God-given commandments with an expectation that you and others should be obedient to those commandments, then it can be anticipated that someone will place the label of the category as being too legalistic. Simultaneously, if they who take a view of allowing the areas of expediency to be expedient, are presented with another course of action which is equally expedient, but not similar or identical to their own chosen course of action, some of these individuals are quick to label the "other" expediency as being liberal.

I am inclined to believe that the "legalists" are those who condemn those things or positions that are contrary to the non-legalist. In like manner, liberals are those that are too openly willing to accept things that I do not find acceptable. I think this definition will fit if each of us will supplant the I and claim the position as our own.

Let me illustrate. Many years ago in a former career and lifestyle, where I was the Chief of the Quality Assurance Division of the Maintenance Deputate of a specific tactical fighter wing of the United States Air Forces Europe. First and foremost, it must be understood that the only reason that such a position and division existed was due to the failure of some to ensure that what they were doing was technically accurate and specific. This is an issue to which all of us can relate.

When a quality assurance issue was discovered and appropriately documented, it could be expected that the person or persons involved would try to discover some regulation, maintenance instruction, or inspection criteria that was not specific to their fault--displace the blame. They were looking for a loop-hole in the regulations. The criterion objective was for the aircraft to safely take off, fly its mission and safely return.

Regardless of where it is, who does it, or when it is accomplished, when it comes to aviation maintenance that is performed on an airplane in which you are about to be a passenger, each of us without exception, expect the quality of the maintenance to be assured to be correct. We the airplane to make a successful landing for each successful take off. It is something that goes beyond our expectation--it's a public demand. Such maintenance should be precisely accomplished. We expect the technicians to adhere to the principles, guidance, and maintenance data and instructions for every given task. Similarly, we expect the pilot and crew to know and do their job in such a way that the total of airplane's passengers arrive at the prescribe destination at the prescribed time.

Within that discipline and it is probably fair to say all other disciplines, there are those who read the fine print or letter of the law to take advantage of the "loop-holes" within that law or regulation. Contracts are written to ensure compliance and every effort is taken to eliminate any chance of misunderstanding. These "legalists" are seeking the lack of wording that exempts them from compliance although the intent of the contract is understandable without such legal fine print.

Now concerning things spiritual, what is our take on these things that are written in the scriptures? Do we have an expectation of the resultant action of the spiritual action? Jesus was very explicit and its not difficult to understand. John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. We simply call this obedience.

Since Jesus did not specify or exclude commandments, we are left to our own understanding as to our obedience to that which He commanded. Is it legalistic to say that we should obey each commandment which Jesus intended? Or is it legalistic to approach it from the viewpoint that since Jesus did not specify, then the commandments that are obeyed are left to the one receiving the commandment? Is it liberal to liberally apply the need for obedience?

Those who want to obey Him will because they love Him. Others will side-step, stammer, ramble, and maneuver to a position that soothes the conscience. However, it's not a conscience issue! It is an issue that we are either obedient or we are not! We either love Him or we do not!