Psalm 119:41-46, "Let Thy mercies come also unto me, O Lord, even Thy
salvation, according to Thy word. So shall I have wherewith to answer him
that reproacheth me: for I trust in Thy word. And take not the word of
truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in Thy judgments. So shall
I keep Thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty:
for I seek Thy precepts. I will speak of Thy testimonies also before kings,
and will not be ashamed."
In our fundamental churches and schools we have some rules and standards.
We have rules about dating, rules about hair styles, rules about clothing,
rules about smoking and dancing and rock music, rules about speech and
respect and behavior, rules about contact with the opposite sex, and rules
about many other matters. Immediately the accusations begin to roll: "Legalism!
Legalism! Legalism!" Such statements are often made by men with neo-evangelical
hearts who masquerade in fundamental clothing. Sometimes they are made
by men who have been fundamentalists and yet have become weary of the battle
and yearn to return to the onions, watermelons, leeks and garlic of acceptance.
Then this cry of legalism often comes from the desks of colleges and
seminaries built on a fundamental foundation with walls of compromise and
a leaky roof of pseudo-liberty.
'Tis sad but true, we have grown to desire that our truth be accredited
by worldly error. We want a license from wrong to do right. We want darkness
to approve light. We want the unclean to accredit the clean. We want Belial
to give Christ the right to exist. In so doing, not only are we betraying
the standards of our forefathers, but we are betraying our own standards
of a few years ago. If we cannot have padded pews AND Hell-fire and brimstone
preaching, then let's return to the sawdust trail in a storefront building!
If we can't have organs AND trained choirs without the sevenfold amens
and crusty anthems, then let's go back to the piano and the tuning fork!
If we can't have a marriage of proper grammar and mourner's-bench Christianity,
then let's go back to splitting infinitives, dangling participles and hanging
gerunds! If tiled rest rooms and chandeliers aren't conducive to the old-time
religion, then let's mark off a path, build an outhouse and use 60-watt
light bulbs! If we have to include Kierkegaard, Niebuhr and Brunner in
order to be theologically intellectual, then let's go back to the blue-back
speller, the A,B,C's and the Word of God!
We have listened too much to the worldly psychiatrists and not enough
to the prophets of God. We have listened too much to humanistic philosophers
and not enough to men of God.
The beautiful feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace have historically
been shod with common shoes. The hands that have wielded the Sword of the
Spirit have historically been callused ones. The eyes that look through
the helmet of salvation have been tear-stained ones. The bodies that have
been protected by the shield of faith have been pure ones. Yet sad to say
there are those who would have us forsake our standards of behavior and
they cry, "Legalism! Legalism! Legalism !"
Someone needs to inform these dear souls as to what legalism really
is. Legalism is attaching something besides faith to salvation. Salvation
by faith plus works is legalism. Salvation by faith plus baptism is legalism.
Salvation by faith plus keeping the law is legalism. Salvation by faith
plus communion is legalism. Salvation by faith plus confirmation is legalism.
Salvation by faith plus Sabbath keeping is legalism.
The legalist is not the godly mother who insists that her daughter be
modest. The legalist is not the dedicated old dad who takes his son to
the barber shop. The legalist is not the faithful pastor who insists that
his Sunday school teachers do not drink or smoke. The legalist is not the
godly educator who forbids his students to dance or listen to Satan's music.
The legalist is not the man of God who cries aloud and spares not concerning
the evil of our generation.
Was Paul a legalist when he told men not to have long hair? I Corinthians
11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long
hair, it is a shame unto him?" Was Paul a legalist when he told ladies
not to have short hair? Was Moses a legalist when he gave us the ten commandments?
Was Paul a legalist when he admonished the deacons in I Timothy 3 not to
be double-tongued, and to be the husband of one wife, be honest and temperate?
I Timothy 3:8-13, "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued,
not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery
of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved;
then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so
must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and
their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well
purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which
is in Christ Jesus." Was Paul a legalist when he told pastors to be sober,
the husband of one wife, not given to wine and greedy of money? I Timothy
3:1-7, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop,
he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of
one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt
to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but
patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house,
having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know
not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of
God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation
of the Devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without;
lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the Devil."
Was Paul a legalist when he admonished Titus to tell the aged men to
be sober, grave, temperate, sound, loving and patient? Titus 2:2, "That
the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in
patience." Was Paul a legalist when he told Titus to tell the aged women
to be holy and temperate? Titus 2:3, "The aged women likewise, that they
be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to
much wine, teachers of good things." Was Paul a legalist when he told Titus
to teach the young women to be sober, love their husbands, love their children,
etc.? Titus 2:4, 5, "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to
love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers
at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the Word of God be
not blasphemed." Was Paul a legalist when he told Titus to tell the young
men to be sober minded, clean, pure, etc.? Titus 2:6-8, "Young men likewise
exhort to be sober minded. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good
works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech,
that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed,
having no evil thing to say of you." Was Paul a legalist when he told Titus
to exhort the servants as to their behavior? Titus 2:9, 10, "Exhort servants
to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things;
not answering again; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that
they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." Was Paul
a legalist when he gave us standards for women's dress? I Timothy 2:9,
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with
shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls,
or costly array."
Now why do we have these rules? Notice Psalm 119:45, "And I will walk
at liberty: for I seek Thy precepts." The Psalmist says here that he walks
in liberty because he seeks God's precepts or because he keeps His commandments.
Modern thought teaches us that if we walk in liberty, we don't have to
keep commandments, but the Bible says the liberty is in keeping the commandments
and not in being free from them.
The Scripture here deals with walls. The Psalmist is likening commandments
to a wall of protection around a city. The ancient Eastern cities had walls
built around them in order to keep the enemy from the people. Now these
walls were not to keep the people from liberty, but to keep the people
in liberty and free from those who would kill them or enslave them. Suppose
an attack were to come from without and the enemy armies would begin to
advance. Where would the people be free? Inside the walls or outside the
walls? Inside, of course! The walls were built around the people in order
that they may be free from the bondage of the enemy attacking from without.
Rules and standards do not enslave; they liberate! The very purpose of
commandments, rules and standards is to build a wall so those things which
could enslave cannot reach our people. We have a rule against drinking
because drinking enslaves. Hence, it is put outside the wall. We have a
rule against narcotics because narcotics enslave. Hence, they are put outside
the wall. We have a rule against stealing because stealing enslaves. Hence,
stealing is placed outside the wall. The very purpose of rules is to build
a place of freedom so those things that enslave us cannot reach us.
There is a commandment that says, "Thou shalt not kill." Now where is
freedom? Inside the commandment or outside the commandment? Inside, of
course! A man may say that he is free to kill, but he loses his freedom
when he kills. The same is true with adultery, dope, drink, smoking, rock
music, homosexuality and other things that enslave.
Humanistic universities often shoot their satiristic barbs toward fundamental
schools and say they are prisons. Nothing is further from the truth! The
humanistic school is the prison. Many of the students there are bound by
liquor, bound by narcotics, bound by homosexuality, bound by immorality,
bound by nicotine and bound by rock music. No one loves them enough and
no one is wise enough to build a wall of standards around them in order
that they may be free from those things which enslave. Freedom is not in
the university which has no rules; freedom is in a university which loves
its students enough to build rules of protection around them. Love is not
breaking down the walls; love is building the walls! Love is not freedom
to go to the captor; love is freedom from the captor!
Recently I was in southern California. It was a beautiful morning, so
I took a walk. I saw a perfect illustration of this point. I walked by
a corner house which had a fenced-in back yard. Inside that fence was a
little Chihuahua dog and outside the fence was a giant bulldog. The little
Chihuahua began to run up and down the fence barking. Then I thought I
heard him speak a little bit. I think I heard him say, "Let me out! Let
me out! Let me out! I want my freedom! I'm tired of being a slave. Let
me out. I want to be free. Let me out!" How foolish that little dog was!
The big bulldog had already put his napkin around his neck and said grace.
Now where was the freedom for the Chihuahua? Inside the fence or outside
the fence? Inside, of course. There are millions of young Americans like
that Chihuahua. "Let me out. I want to be free. Woof! Woof! I want to be
free. " Then they are allowed to leave the freedom provided by the fence.
They leave what they think is slavery and are soon captured by those things
from without which hitherto were not allowed to reach them because of standards
and rules built as a fence for their protection. When I was inducted into
the Army in World War II, the first night I slept in a tent in Ft. Sam
Houston, Texas. A sergeant came to me and said, "Private Hyles, do you
see that fence over there?"
I said, "Yes, I do."
He said, "Those men on the other side of that fence are the worst of
the German prisoners of war. You are not allowed to go over there."
Brother, he wasted his time and effort in making that last statement.
I wasn't about to go over there, for my freedom was provided by that fence.
The boundary itself gave me freedom. To go across the boundary would be
a loss of freedom.
Many years ago when I was pastoring in Garland, Texas, I had a daily
radio broadcast. Ordinarily the broadcast was live. However, on occasion,
if I were scheduled to be out of town for a day or so, I would make a tape
and take it to the radio station located on the eleventh floor of the Stoneleigh
Hotel of Dallas, Texas. On one occasion I took a tape to the station. When
I got on the elevator, I told the operator, who was an attractive young
lady, that I wanted to go to the eleventh floor. She didn't hear a word
I said! She was in a daze because Elvis Presley had just ridden her elevator.
Finally I convinced her that I needed to go to the eleventh floor, and
all she talked about was the fact that she had been alone with Elvis Presley
for a few minutes. She finally gathered herself together and took me to
the eleventh floor. She waited as I took the tape across the hallway to
the station and then took me back to the main floor. On the way, however,
she stopped the elevator, and Elvis Presley got on. He had on a green satin
suit and at that time was in his heyday. I introduced myself to Elvis,
we shook hands, and then I asked him, "Elvis, do you know, if you died
today, you would go to Heaven?"
His answer was startling. "I certainly do," he said. "I was saved when
I was a child." Then he proceeded to tell me the circumstances. As best
I remember, he said that his grandmother or some other relative had taken
him to hear an old-fashioned Gospel preacher. He had received Christ as
his Saviour. He told me in clear, positive language of his salvation.
I then looked him square in the eye and said, "Elvis, how could a person
who is born again live the kind of life that you are living?"
He said, "Jack, I got tired of the rules. I wanted to be free."
Need I say more? The very type of death that he died is living proof
that though he thought he was leaving slavery to go to freedom, he was
leaving freedom to go to slavery.
We have the idea that freedom is detachment, but this is not so. Freedom
is being delivered from one master to a higher form of servitude to our
Deliverer. Freedom is deliverance from the law for a higher law. Freedom
is a higher law liberating me from a lower one. Romans 8:2, "For the law
of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of
sin and death." Freedom is deliverance from that which God did not intend
for me to do in order that I may be a servant to that which God intended
me to do.
Jeremiah put it this way. Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou
shalt make for them yokes of iron." (Jeremiah 28:13b) Abstinence from liquor
is a yoke of wood; when it is broken, its place is taken by alcoholism
which is a yoke of iron. Abstinence from narcotics is a yoke of wood; but
when it is broken, it is replaced by the yoke of iron which is addiction.
David said, "I will be free," and in so doing, he became a slave to
his passions. Lot said, "I will be free," and in so doing, he became a
slave to the sins of Sodom. Samson said, "I will be free," and in so doing,
he was bound to the mill with his eyes blinded. Solomon said, "I will be
free," and in so doing, he became a slave to lust.
I thank God for an old-fashioned wall-building mother who built around
me a wall of rules that kept me free from those life-ruining things that
would have enslaved me. I thank God for an old-fashioned wall-building
preacher who preached multitudes of "thou shalt not's" and in so doing
kept me free from the captor. I thank God for old-fashioned schools, churches
and preachers who still in this permissive society build little places
of freedom and wall these places with rules so that our young people cannot
be captured by the enemy.
Choose if you will, the bondage of compromise, but build for me the
liberty of fundamental separation, or as one has previously said, "Give
me liberty, or give me death!"
