Legalism

For a while now I’ve been working through “Celebration of Discipline” with a friend, and I have to say that it’s extremely challenging as well as helpful. The premise of the book is that, for all our efforts to change ourselves, there are some things that we just can’t do by our own efforts, and that living a Christian life (in the fullest sense of being like Jesus) is one of those things. So instead we need to ask God to change us, and we engage with this through the practice of the Disciplines. There’s a lot more than that, including ideas like Bonhoeffer’s “cheap grace”, but basically the idea is that the disciplines help to put us in a place where God can work in and through us.

One of the other themes of the book is the temptation to legalism, and it's that I've been thinking about recently. Richard Foster describes a narrow path with a precipice each side. On one side of the path is the temptation to believe that there's nothing we can do to change ourselves, and just have to sit back and wait for God to do things to us. On the other is the belief that we can earn salvation by keeping lots of rules. It's this legalism to which I am tempted to stray at the moment: I'm discovering what a delicate balance it is between wanting to do more of something positive and using my failure to do those things as a stick with which to beat myself.

I wonder how many things there are that change from "should" to "ought". I should lose some weight - I'd be healthier and likely to live longer if I did - but the guilt after eating pizza and ice cream definitely comes from the (slightly, but vitally) different "I ought to lose weight". I think there's something here about our willingness to do what's right: if the things we should do are in fact going to be good for us, whether that's getting enough sleep, being honest or recycling plastic bottles, then surely we should want to do them. Of course, we don't; we do things that are bad for us and those around us. So we surround ourselves with rules and laws to keep us in line, which we then break. I remember reading about Foucault's use of the panopticon as part of an argument of how we internalise control and keep ourselves under surveillance, and I think that there's some truth in that, but more than that I think that there's a human tendency to keep moving between two ideas: that I am rational and given freedom to make choices I will make the right choices for me and society, or that I am flawed and likely to make poor choices, and therefore need guidance, correction and discipline from others. Oversimplifying massively, I think the first leads to free market economics, laissez-faire, humanism, religion that emphasises grace, equality and education-as-improvement; the second leads to education-as-instruction, protectionism, an increased role for the State and religion that emphasises guilt.

So here's my question for myself today: what am I doing that is a choice based on knowing what will be best, that I can feel satisfied with after doing it, or can freely choose not to do if I so wish, and what am I doing that is based on feeling that I really ought to be doing it whether I want to or not, that I might feel miserable about having to do or will feel guilty about not doing?