In reading and listening to the radio I have come to see that there is some confusion over the term "moralism."
This is a term that has gained popular usage in some reformed circles, particularly those influenced by the Jack Miller and the ministries he founded - World Harvest Mission and Sonship, Scotty Smith, and Tim Keller. These are the folks I first learned the term from but there are many others who use it. John MacArthur has a sermon titled The Deadly Dangers of Moralism.
Where I have become aware of the confusion has been when certain folks have tried to defend themselves against the accusation that they are moralists.
There has been a serious dust-up at Challies on a recent post where someone was called a moralist. And I remember a time when James Dobson got some criticism for something and a part of that criticism was for his moralism. In both of these cases these folks defended against the accusation by appealing to a dictionary definition of moralism or moralist. I can't remember which definition each party used but in both cases it was something along these lines:
- A teacher or student of morals and moral problems.
- One who follows a system of moral principles.
Given that definition it is a wonder tha tnyone could find fault with someone who is a moralist and in both cases, Dobson and the commenter on Challies, expressed surprise that someone could find fault with them for being moralist. After all, how can anyone criticize the guy in thewhite hat. Also, I don't know about the guy on Challies but Dobson sees himself as the leader of the troops in the great cultural warfare so it is dumbfounding that troops would be taking shots at their leaders when there are so many enemies out there.
But Dobson and the fella on Challies don't realize that the critics are using the term differently.
When I describe moralism or a moralist I want to be careful to say that others may describe them differently. To my knowledge there is not commonly accepted definition of moralism that you might find in a theological dictionary or encyclopedia. So, I'll preface all of what I say here with an "it seems to me that . . . "
Those of us who use terms like moralist and moralism, use them loosely as a synonym for pharisee or pharisaism. There may not be an exact one to one correlation between the terms but it points us in the right directions. Moralists tend to follow the Pharisaic approach to life and ministry. Among other things, the Pharisees were characterized by:
1. A focus on external behavior.
2. A sense of moral superiority toward those who don't meet their standards.
3. A corresponding agenda of moral reformation in the lives of individuals and society.
4. A ministry of condemnation - i.e. it is very important to the moralist/phraisee to denounce sin.
5. A separatist mentality - "the world" as the moralist or pharisee sees it, is a source of corruption and defilement which they must avoid.
We could say more, but you can get the idea by just reading the gospels and observing the characteristics of the pharisees.
Those of us who use the term "moralist" pejoratively contrast the moralistic approach to life and ministry with a gospel centered approach. Hence, we might call ourselves gospelists. In contrast to moralism the gospelist seeks to be characterized by the following.
1. A focus on faith. In other words, external behavior is important, but only as a barometer of what is in the heart.
2. A sense of solidarity with the worst sinners of the world. The gospelist approaches life from a Romans 7 perspective. In other words, the gospelist can never feel morally superior to anyone. Yes, this world is full of wretches, but the gospelist is far more bothered by his own wretchedness than the wretchedness in the world. The gospelist sees himself as the chief of sinners, not someone else.
The gospelist understands that his best deed is no better than the worst "sin" of the "sinner." In his sermon "The Method of Grace," George Whitfield says:
Further: before you can speak peace to your hearts, you must not only be troubled for the sins of your life, the sin of your nature, but likewise for the sins of your best duties and performances.
And:
But before you can speak peace to your heart, you must be brought to see that God may damn you for the best prayer you ever put up; you must be brought to see that all your duties -- all your righteousness -- as the prophet elegantly expresses it -- put them all together, are so far from recommending you to God, are so far from being any motive and inducement to God to have mercy on your poor soul, that he will see them to be filthy rags, a menstruous cloth -- that God hates them, and cannot away with them, if you bring them to him in order to recommend you to his favor. My dear friends, what is there in our performances to recommend us unto God?
To the professing Christian who says "yes, I understand that, and I have repented and reformed," Whitfield goes on:
After we are renewed, yet we are renewed but in part, indwelling sin continues in us, there is a mixture of corruption in every one of our duties; so that after we are converted, were Jesus Christ only to accept us according to our works, our works would damn us, for we cannot pt up a prayer but it is far from that perfection which the moral law requireth. I do not know what you may think, but I can say that I cannot pray but I sin -- I cannot preach to you or any others but I sin -- I can do nothing without sin; and, as one expresseth it, my repentance wants to be repented of, and my tears to be washed in the precious blood of my dear Redeemer. Our best duties are as so many splendid sins. Before you can speak peace in your heart, you must not only be made sick of your original and actual sin, but you must be made sick of your righteousness, of all your duties and performances.
The gospelist will feel a solidarity with the "worst of sinners" because he is under no illusion that he is any better than anyone else.
3. A gospel agenda in the lives of indiividuals and society. Some whom I might call "gospelists" may in fact advocate withdrawing from society, but I don't believe that is in keeping with the gospel call. The gospelist should be deeply involved in society - in politics, arts, entertainment, education, etc.. But the gospelist goes with a gospel agenda, not a moralistic agenda. J. Gresham Machen understood this when he contrasted the moralistic agenda of liberalism with Christianity:
Only--and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion--the Christian man believes that there can be no applied Christianity unless there be "a Christianity to apply." That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying the Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as at present constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; the Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced.
In other words, the gospelist understands that moral reformation cannot take place without heart transformation. The gospelist is not driven by a desire to coerce sinners into external changes of behavior, but by a desire to reach their hearts with the gospel. The moralist focuses on offering people principles of conduct, the gospelist focuses on offering them Christ.
4. A ministry of grace and reconciliation. This is where gospelists drive the moralists crazy. Many gospelists seem way to soft on sin. And, to be fair, many use their gospelism as an excuse to not name sin as sin. But the gospelist understands that, while Jesus was quick to denounce the sins of the Pharisees, i.e. the moralists, he was surprisingly gracious toward those the Pharisees denounced. When the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus (John 8:1-11) they brought her there to get Him to denounce her. Jesus refused to her. In fact, He called on these morally superior folks to examine their own hearts and took the spotlight off of the woman. In dealing with the woman Jesus first pronounced words of grace and "no-condemnation" to her, then proceeded to address her sin.
In Luke 7:37ff when a sinful woman anointed Jesus feet with oil, Simon and his guests were aghast at Jesus' refusal to denounce her for her sin. He praised her for her adoration of Him and didn't even mention her sinful lifestyle.
Gospelists move toward those in the deepest sin with the grace, not denunciation. They don't ignore sin, nor refuse to name sin as sin, but the grace of the gospel dominates their speech and conduct toward their fellow sinners.
5. The gospelist recognizes that the source of sin is within, not without. Matthew 15:18 says that sin comes from out of the heart, it is not caused by things that come from the outside. James 1:14 says that desire comes from the evil desires within, not from without.
Further, the gospelist doesn't see the world as a source of defilement to be avoided - Paul says in I Corinthians 5:9-10 that we are not called to avoid the sexually immoral people of the world - apparently associating with the sexually immoral people of the world does not defile.
--------------------
I first became aware of my own moralistic tendencies over 10 years ago when I was in seminary. My wife and I were very legalistic in our approach to life. We were planning on homeschooling at the time and were deep into the more separatistic expression of the movement. We didn't have a TV, didn't read the newspaper, and we basically defined ourselves by what we were against.
I wore my poor pastor out. One day he and I were riding down the road and he told me that I could keep withdrawing from the world until nothing in the world could touch me and defile me. But, having completely withdrawn from the world, the sin I took with me into my hermitage would be worse than any sin I had left behind in the world.
That began a long process of learning to be more concerned about the sin within my own heart than the sin out there in the world.
However, a curious thing happens to us gospelists. Now that many of us have been imbibing the fresh air of the gospel for several years under the influence of Sonship and Keller and others we are facing a new sin problem and that is the problem of feeling spiritually superior to moralists.
If a moralist can spot an external peccadillo a mile away a gospelist can spot a moralist a mile away. If a moralist feels morally superior to other "sinners" the gospelist feels spiritually superior to the moralist.
This feeling of spiritual superiority extends to the terminology used as the gospelist calls himself a "gospelist" contra the "moralist." "Gospelist" just sounds so much more Christ like than "moralist" so the "gospelist" can look down on the "moralist" from His exalted perch at Christ's right hand.
The moral of the story (get it, the "moral" of the story) is that we are all equally depraved and all equally in need of God's grace. Thus we need to let our depravity and need for grace guide our view of ourselves and others.
Ya nailed it, and your unpacking of the term roughly nails the secular variant. Frankly, I'm a little surprised this was a term over which there'd be confusion.
Posted by: jpe | May 21, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Very nicely said. I agree 100%.
Here's a verse that I think deals directly with the observations you make at the end:
Romans 14:3 - Don't let him who eats despise him who doesn't eat. Don't let him who doesn't eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him.
The moralist is the one who doesn't eat, and his temptation is to become a judge of those more liberal than himself.
The gospelist is the one who eats (not too worried about external behavior). But as you pointed out so nicely, our challenge is to not despise the moralists, but show by precept and example what is so great and glorious about freedom in Christ.
Of course, the liberal isn't addressed here -- Romans was written to believers, not the world.
By the way, I homeschooled too, and can identify with your personal journey. I still don't have a TV... but I'm not a moralist!
By grace,
Richard
Posted by: Richard Kindig | May 22, 2006 at 07:58 AM
Thank you so very much for presenting the distinction of Gospel-Centrality. It is EXACTLY what I needed to read this morning - especially the reminder of the Gospelist's tendency to despise Moralists (as Richard also points out). As I mention in my post pointing to your article, "There is more mercy in Christ than sin in us" (Richard Sibbe).
Posted by: Cruv | May 22, 2006 at 08:56 AM
Excellent! My husband and I grew up in a very liberal denomination with few boundaries - where "sin" was called "a bad choice" and false doctrine was tolerated. As we grew in our knowledge and understanding of Scripture, we became moralists. Two decades later, I hope and pray that we are best defined by your final statement, having an acute awareness of "our (own) depravity and need for grace (that) guide(s) our view of ourselves and others." We, too, still homeschool, but don't think of ourselves as superior because of it. Blessed, for sure, but certainly not superior!
Posted by: Patricia | May 22, 2006 at 09:30 AM
Well said. Good warning, also, about the danger of feeling superior to the "moralist." But it's so hard not to :-)
Posted by: Rod | May 22, 2006 at 11:31 AM
I recently heard a Biblical scholar (from UNC, Chapel Hill I believe) say that the story that begins John 8 is not in the earliest manuscripts and very likely was added by a later scribe. Of course this does not bear upon the point you wish to make, but you do make reference to that famous story.
Posted by: Franklin Mason | May 23, 2006 at 09:08 PM
Jolly, you have misused the term moralist. I don't know if that is an American usage, but it is confusing and wrong to equate it with 'moralizing' which is usually a negative term for a person who is judgmental and probably legalistic, your term for that attitude too. Note that *without* law there is no understanding of sin or morality.
The term 'Gospeliser' is not in any way to be preferred [I haven't heard of it anyway] since it sets up a *false dichotomy* with a person who simply has a keen interest in morals [a moralist].
Most of Proverbs is about morality and wisdom, a closely-linked term. Aesop's Fables are too. Written by 'moralists'.
To preach the Gospel effectively is not possible without the conviction of sin, so sin must be talked about and named, from God's point of view, not ours.
Easy-believism is 'responding' to the gospel without assimilating any conviction of sin and repentance.
The modern world is more and more confused about God's standards, so it is *in need* of good moralists in the pulpit and out.Our grandmothers were goos at it..
Morality is nothing to be ashamed about, only pharisaism..
Read similar comments of mine on Evangelical Outpost.
Posted by: Barrie | June 02, 2006 at 10:55 PM
Hi,
I am a musician who has been impacted by Keith Green and I would be honored if you would check out my music, all music is free to download. I just wanted to share my music with People who love Jesus. www.SeanDietrich.com
I don't want to be a pest, so if this really annoys you, please delete it and accept my humble apology.
Thanks so much,
-Sean
____________________
www.SeanDietrich.com
"All my music is free."
Posted by: sean | July 09, 2006 at 02:34 AM
Is there an online resource where I can read George Whitfield's sermon, "The Method of Grace" in its entirety?
Posted by: Don Engle | August 31, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Well done. I recently heard a sermon wherein this term "moralism" was used, and frankly, compared to the "moralism" (I would contend "immoralism") of Islam. I was offended by the word (and still am offended by the comparison)in part because it was not the academic use of that term. I think we have to be careful not to 1)use jargon too freely without definition and explanation, and 2) compare Bible-believing and Christ professing Christians to other systems that do not have a Biblical basis and are therefore immoral. I also believe that you hit the nail on the head about self righteousness. I felt an arrogance in the sermon that seemed to imply that if we are trying to think Biblically and willing to consider and love the law of God (despite our depravity) that we are therefore moralists, and thus somehow less "christianly" than gospelists. It almost seems to indicate that God is gracious, and that's it...no other characteristics (not to diminish that he actually IS graceful.) He gave us the law, is the author of justice and called himself "I Am." We cant limit him - or "morally" restrict ourselves or others in seeking to understand the God that we serve - in ALL of his moral perfection.
Posted by: christina | December 09, 2009 at 10:35 AM