I recently watched the movie Footloose for the first time, and can concur with Peter Parker's response to Star-Lord's assertion in Avengers: Infinity War that it is indeed not the greatest movie of all time. It is, however, an attempt to assert, although through a flawed vehicle, the known truth that Legalism does not work. In the movie, Kevin Bacon's character Ren McCormack moves with his mom to a small town in the Rocky Mountain foothills only to discover that the town council under the leadership of John Lithgow's character, Rev. Shaw Moore, have instituted a total ban on youth dances (along with youth drinking) following a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of several of the town's teens, including Rev. Moore's son. Of course, Ren considers the ban to be oppressive, and is helped in his rebellion against it by the Rev. Moore's own daughter, Ariel (Lori Singer), who rebels against her father through promiscuity, drinking, and a pair of death-wish style stunts. In the end, Rev. Moore realizes his zeal has gone too far when his acolytes organize an impromptu book burning on the steps of the library. Moore reluctantly backs down, fearing the worst but resigned to face it, as the teens enjoy their victory with a senior prom.
You might be wondering, what does a movie about the older generation trying to rein in teens via a ban on dancing in 1984 have to do with the cascade of news about the President of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr? {Jerry Falwell Jr. says he's resigned from Liberty Univ. after sex scandal revelations, confusion over future - Fox News} Footloose is a fictionalized repudiation of Legalism, Liberty University and Jerry Falwell Jr. are a real life testimony. Liberty University under Jerry Falwell Jr.'s leadership has become one of the largest Evangelical institutions in the world, with 15,000 students on campus, and 95,000 students online. As such, they carry tremendous influence, influence that has increased dramatically following Jerry Falwell Jr.'s very public foray into American politics in 2015. Liberty University has an honor called called The Liberty Way, like many Christian educational institutions, which prohibits premarital sex, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and of course, social dancing. The Liberty Way also requires that students submit to random drug tests, and declares that, "Students must dress modestly and appropriately at all times."
To be sure, organizations need rules and regulations. Schools need to set boundaries for their students, parents need to define for their children what is, and what is not, acceptable, and have appropriate consequences when those rules are broken. The opposite of Legalism, Anarchy (Individualism) is certainly not the solution either. But why doesn't Legalism work? Why can't we simply list every possible negative behavior, prohibit them all, and watch people follow the rules?
1. Rules by themselves have no power.
The University that I graduated from, Cornerstone University, had rules. In decades past those rules were not that different from those of Liberty, but from the outside looking in, the attitude behind the use of rules seems very different. At Cornerstone, our professors were consistent in their quest to teach student how to think, not what to think. Why? Cultural mores change, constantly. What belongs on the 'list' of prohibited behavior is a snapshot of today's standards. To teach young people to memorize a list is not to teach then how or why such things end up on the list, and it doesn't help them to understand how to react to situations not covered by the dreaded list. In other words, sustainable and effective morality depends upon enlightened and discerning minds and upon self-awareness and self-control, not upon perfecting a system to take agency away from the individual.
Without a corresponding attitude of the heart, rules will always fail. In the Gospels, Jesus contends with the Pharisees, a 1st Century group of zealous Jews who believed they could legislate their way to a moral society. To be sure, the Law of Moses contains rules, and Jesus was not a rebel who denounced the Law, but he could also see that his opponents were placing burdens upon the people that could not be kept, rather than focusing upon building up the character qualities that would enable people to freely choose to embrace morality.
Matthew 23:1-4 New International Version 23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
2. Making actions forbidden/taboo altogether gives them an allure or mystique.
Romans 7:7-12 New International Version 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
The Apostle Paul, no fan of immoral behavior, recognized the danger associated with making rules, even though many of them are necessary. This is not news to any parent, one need only tell a two year old that they can't do something in order to encourage that very behavior.
Take dancing, for example, rather than forbidding all social dancing, why not seek to educate young people on appropriate forms of dancing? Surely there isn't anything morally objectionable in many forms of dancing, nor to much of the music to which people would dance? If some kinds of dancing, by some people, lead to temptation, must we ban it all for everyone? So, why the total ban, what does it accomplish except to encourage young people to engage in the same behavior, but on the sly rather than in public, off the radar, rather than openly. In other words, Legalism creates some of the very temptation that it thinks that it is suppressing by making the behavior more desirable as an act of rebellion.
3. Rebellion against unnecessary rules becomes its own snare.
Romans 14:16-23 New International Version 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval. 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Continuing with the dancing example. If a Christian is firmly convinced in his/her own mind that social dancing is not immoral, that he/she can engage in it without temptation to sexual sin (the typical rationale for banning it), then he/she should be able to do so, unless that action causes another person to stumble. This is Paul's way of balancing Christian liberty and responsibility to others. However, when an authority over a Christian (parents, church, school) prohibits a behavior, even one that would NOT be sinful for that person to engage in, if that person does it anyway, he or she is still committing an act of rebellion in the process of doing what ought not be for him/her an immoral act. In other words, the existence of the rule requires rule breaking to engage in behaviors that the Word of God has not prohibited, that conscience and the indwelling Holy Spirit have not warned against. An offense is created where none need exist. Rebellion is fostered among those who simply want to be disciples of Jesus.
Back to Jerry Falwell Jr. In the past, Falwell has been photographed at a dance club, apparently enjoying alcoholic beverages, and recently with his arm around a young woman whose pants are unbuttoned, as are Falwell's, while he holds what he assures in the caption is not really alcohol.
 |
| The bottom 1/3 of the photo was cropped, no need to show the whole thing. |
Here's the thing, if Falwell wasn't the head of Liberty University, with its Liberty Way that applies to all students, he would be free to go to a club and enjoy dancing, even drink alcohol in moderation (I know that's taboo for many Evangelicals, but there is no Biblical prohibition on consumption, only drunkenness). The picture with the young woman would have been over the line, but it wouldn't also reek of hypocrisy as he once again flaunts to the world that he doesn't need to follow the rules that he requires of others.
4. Boundaries can still exist without attempting to limit all possible sources of temptation.
When I was in Antigua,Guatemala, many years ago, I saw an odd sight. An arch built over the road. What was its purpose? To prevent the monks in the monastery on one side from seeing the nuns in the nunnery on the other. Lust is certainly a temptation to be wary of, and on guard against, but if the only way that we can tame it is to make sure that men and women don't see each other, we're in deep trouble. Rather than detailed rules that spell out every conceivable temptation and prohibit as much of them as possible, why not teach young people how to think about morality, how to discern between right and wrong, and how to face temptation without succumbing to it? We need guard rails to keep young people, and ourselves, from going off the road to our destruction, rather than straight jackets to keep them (and us) from doing anything but stay in our cell. Legalism doesn't work, it never has. It is far better for the Church, and other Christian organizations, to focus upon teaching and training hearts and minds, and importantly, leading by example.
