There is a profound freedom that accompanies spiritual maturity: the ability to look across the aisle, past secondary theological differences and stylistic preferences, and recognise a brother or sister in Christ. For the mature believer, the Kingdom of God is vastly larger than any single denomination. The goal is never to find a flawless congregation—because such a thing does not exist—but to cooperate, worship, and serve alongside fellow believers whenever possible.
But what happens when you step into a community with an open heart, ready to overlook differences for the sake of unity, only to discover that the system itself is engineered to reject that very unity?
Two-Tier Faith
When a church structure operates with a separatist mindset, it inevitably produces a two-tier faith. There are the true brethren, who adhere strictly to the group’s specific traditions and secondary doctrines, and there are the step-brethren—believers who clearly love Jesus but fall outside the denomination’s rigid, self-imposed boundaries. Living within, and eventually leaving, such an environment forces a painful but necessary re-evaluation of what healthy faith actually looks like.
From the outside, highly regimented fundamentalist organisations often appear remarkably successful. Yet when you trace that success to its root, a sobering reality emerges: even the most vibrant fruit can be hollowed out if it is grown in the soil of legalism.
Before pressing further, however, we must define legalism carefully. The word is overused and frequently misapplied.
There is no Hebrew word in the Old Testament and no Greek word in the New Testament for legalism, so whenever anyone uses the word, you must find out what they mean by it and then determine whether their meaning corresponds to something in the Bible.
At its core, legalism substitutes rule-keeping for faith — whether before salvation or after it. The Christian life begins by faith and continues by faith. The walk that pleases God is not a disciplined adherence to external precepts — it is a sustained dependence on Christ through the Spirit. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6), and no amount of behavioural compliance, however sincerely motivated, can substitute for it.
The term “legalist” has been often applied incorrectly to those following biblical directives that pertain to holiness, obedience, and living godly lives. Nobody becomes a legalist by walking in faith. The error lies in treating human traditions as prerequisites for divine acceptance — or, more subtly, in making any form of rule-keeping the measure of one’s standing before God and the church.
Mark Jones offers a useful refinement here. He distinguishes soul-damning legalism from soul-harming legalism — the former destroys saving faith by replacing it with works; the latter damages the believer’s walk without necessarily imperilling their eternal destiny. He also identifies what he calls well-intentioned legalism, where believers end up pursuing righteousness in their own strength, not because they are evil, but because they have not fully tasted or asked for God’s grace. This category accounts for something the present article must reckon with honestly: most legalistic leaders are not malicious. They are sincere people caught in a system that has substituted conformity for faithfulness — and the transition from one to the other is often invisible to those making it.
With these definitions in place, we can examine the fruit of legalism more precisely.
Grace Replaced
Highly structured churches often boast undeniable positive traits—chief among them a robust social and humanitarian footprint. Social work, charity, and volunteerism are beautiful expressions of the Gospel. However, a mature faith compels us to ask not merely what is being done, but why.
In a legalistic framework, these actions are rarely driven by the joyful, spontaneous overflow of grace. They are fuelled by a deep-seated, unspoken conviction that a true Christian must continually perform these duties to validate their standing—before God and before the congregation. Paul dismantles this logic explicitly: we are saved by grace through faith, not of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8–9). Good works have been prepared by God for those whose salvation has already been secured (Eph 2:10), not the rent we pay to maintain it.
This is the precise error Paul confronts in Galatians.
After Paul’s departure, the Galatian churches were led astray from his faith-centred teachings by individuals proposing “another gospel” centred on law-keeping, and the Galatians were receptive to their message.
The majority of modern scholars view Paul’s opponents as Jewish Christians who taught that in order for converts to belong to the People of God, they must be subject to some or all of the Jewish Law—the Judaizers.
The surface issue was circumcision. The deeper issue was the gospel itself. Paul’s argument was not merely about one ritual but about the entire principle: if righteousness comes through law, then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). When performance replaces grace—whether in first-century Galatia or in a twenty-first-century fundamentalist church—believers are placed on a spiritual treadmill, driven less by the love of Christ than by the terror of being seen as lukewarm (another widely misused term in common Christianese speak, but that’s a topic for another day).
Among Christians there is a kind of legalism that teaches that, although we are saved through faith in Christ, sanctification is a matter of submitting to certain rules or standards.
One’s Christian progress is then judged by whether or not one keeps the prescribed rules, but these rules are not a substitute for the fruit of the Spirit. Once again, rules are misused.
Shadow and Substance
To understand why legalism is not merely unhelpful but structurally opposed to the gospel, we need to grasp Paul’s shadow-and-substance argument. In Colossians 2:16–17, Paul writes: Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
In verse 16 Paul mentions four elements of Judaism by which the false teachers were putting down and criticising the church.
The ceremonies of the law served their purpose well; after they fulfilled their purpose, God instituted something better—the reality of Christ.
The Old Testament regulations were not evil; they were pedagogical. They pointed forward to Christ. But to insist on them after the reality has arrived is to prefer a shadow to the person who casts it.
Paul takes this further in Colossians 2:20–23, warning against submitting to regulations such as Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!
Paul regards this as perhaps “the greatest indictment against legalism in the Bible.”
Legalism does not restrain the flesh; it feeds the flesh in a subtle, powerful way: “the most rigorous asceticism can coexist with insufferable spiritual pride, one of the subtlest and most intractable of the ‘works of the flesh.’”
This is the paradox legalistic churches must reckon with: the very system designed to produce holiness becomes a breeding ground for pride. The boundary line, which was supposed to protect the community, becomes the community’s identity—and anyone who questions it threatens the entire edifice.
Unity vs Uniformity
Paul addressed this dynamic with particular clarity in Romans 14.
The overarching lesson is that harmonious relationships in the body of Christ are critical to God; unity in the church is more important than agreement on debatable, less significant matters. Disputable matters should not disrupt Christian oneness.
Paul instructs: “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.”
His instruction runs in both directions: the “strong” Christians were looking down on the weaker ones, and the “weak” believers were condemning the strong. The church was caught up in pride, legalism, and judgmentalism.
What distinguishes a legalistic church from a merely conservative one is precisely this: the legalistic church refuses to recognise the category of disputable matters at all. Every preference is treated as a command. Every tradition is elevated to the status of doctrine.
Personal preferences or convictions become a form of legalism when a pastor or individual enforces their personal convictions as a requirement for salvation and spiritual growth—usually without a clear answer from the Bible.
Examples include reading only a particular Bible translation, mandate attendance to all weekly meetings, forbidding mixing with other denominations, or prohibiting birth control.
The list could extend indefinitely.
Paul’s point is not that convictions are bad—he explicitly honours the conscience of the weaker brother. His point is that elevating human convictions to divine authority is a category error with devastating consequences for fellowship.
Shunning
This performance-based reality bleeds into the fabric of community itself. The famously strong, tight-knit fellowships found in these groups can feel, at first, like a lifeline. But over time the intense conditionality of that fellowship becomes impossible to ignore. The closeness is maintained through strict behavioural uniformity. Dress correctly, speak the accepted jargon, observe the unwritten cultural rules, and you are warmly embraced. Question a tradition, challenge the leadership, or simply step out of line, and the warmth evaporates without ceremony.
Shunning is a divisive and harmful practice. It is an affront to both Christian unity and Christian love. In the heart of the one shunning, it often represents pride, spite, and insecurity, while in the heart of the one being shunned, it breeds hopelessness, worthlessness, rejection, and despair.
Beyond these effects, there is one more group which shunning negatively impacts: the bystanders who live in fear of being shunned.
This is perhaps the most corrosive element—the silent compliance of an entire congregation conditioned to fear the same treatment.
Research classifies religious shunning as a social death penalty that results in long-term detrimental effects on mental health. The brain registers exclusion as physical pain that cuts deeper and lasts longer than bodily injury.
Shunned individuals often experience feelings of depression, helplessness, hopelessness, low self-esteem, suicidal ideation, and self-harming behaviours.
What presents itself as family is, in practice, a community held together by conformity rather than by genuine grace. The New Testament’s vision of fellowship is radically different. Paul’s instruction in 2 Thessalonians 3:15 is telling: even when a brother is placed under discipline, he is not to be regarded as an enemy but warned as a brother. The goal is always restoration, never annihilation.
Wielding Scripture Wrongly
Perhaps the most deceptive feature of these environments is how they handle the Bible. Deep knowledge of Scripture is a powerful and necessary discipline for the believer. Yet in systems obsessed with boundaries, biblical literacy is routinely weaponised. The Scriptures are not taught primarily as the grand, sweeping narrative of God’s redemptive grace for broken people. They are reduced to an exhaustive rulebook for behaviour modification and boundary maintenance.
Nobody sets out to become a legalist, and yet a great many God-fearing, Scripture-loving, holiness-seeking people inevitably seem to end up there. It happened to the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. They did not set out to miss the heart of the law; they did not set out to become blind guides, and yet, according to Jesus, that is exactly what they ended up doing.
Ultimately, legalism comes from a failure to recognise the supreme interpretive authority of Jesus Christ.
When the interpretive grid shifts from what does Christ teach? to what does our tradition require?, the Bible ceases to function as a living word and becomes a constitution for a religious corporation.
The Woes of Matthew 23
Jesus’ severest recorded words were reserved not for tax collectors or prostitutes but for the religious establishment. In Matthew 23, He pronounces seven woes on the scribes and Pharisees.
These woes function as a prophetic lament and a form of righteous judgement, revealing what happens when outward religion masks inward decay.
Three of these woes bear directly on modern legalism:
First, the Pharisees shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces (Matt 23:13).
The religious leaders kept people from the kingdom of heaven by making human traditions and human religious rules more important than God’s Word.
A church that makes its secondary distinctives a prerequisite for fellowship is doing precisely the same thing—restricting access to the body of Christ on grounds that Christ never established.
Second, they crossed sea and land to make a single proselyte, and then made the new convert twice as much a child of hell as themselves (Matt 23:15).
Jesus condemned the leaders for teaching their converts the same hypocrisy that they themselves practised. They led people into a religion of works, not into true righteousness.
Zealous evangelism is no proof of theological health if the converts are being discipled into a system of performance rather than into the freedom of the gospel.
Third, they strained out gnats and swallowed camels (Matt 23:24)—obsessing over minute details while neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness.
They made a big deal of small things like tithing spices, while they ignored crucial matters and “neglected the more important matters of the law.”
The parallel is unmistakable: a church that can enforce dress codes, jargon, or which holiday is ok to celebrate and which isn’t, while failing to care for wounded members has inverted the priorities of the Kingdom.
Matthew 23 is a mirror held up to anyone tempted to elevate performance over faithfulness, reputation over righteousness, and control over compassion.
The Hidden Cost
This brings us to the deepest and most concealed tragedy of the legalistic machine: the spiritual and psychological damage inflicted on the individual believer. When institutional purity and tradition are prioritised over the messy reality of shepherding broken people, a culture of forced pretence takes root. The unspoken but omnipresent rule is that it is not Christian to have struggles. Doubt, depression, marital strife, recurring sin—these are treated not as human realities requiring grace and pastoral care, but as shameful anomalies signalling a deficiency of faith.
Many churches have become places where believers feel pressure to present themselves as “perfect Christians,” free from struggles and flaws. This culture of perfectionism fosters an environment where people are afraid to be vulnerable about their sins or weaknesses.
In such a climate, hypocrisy is not an accident; it is a guaranteed survival mechanism. James commands believers to confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed (Jas 5:16). But in a legalistic environment, honesty is dangerous. Confession does not lead to healing; it leads to judgement, gossip, loss of standing, or formal discipline. Consequently, members learn to hide. They project an image of unwavering spiritual victory while silently bleeding out.
Paul’s bold declaration—I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me (2 Cor 12:9)—is entirely incompatible with a culture that demands the illusion of perfection.
Performance-based Christianity misses the entire point of the gospel: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Until this is grasped at a heart level, churches, leaders, and individuals will continue to press legalism onto their followers in an attempt to conform them to their own vision of perfection. When that vision is marred, they will quickly disown, discredit, and deride the people who ruined their false reality.
From Shepherds to Administrators
In this environment, the spiritual needs of the congregation are chronically neglected because the leadership is consumed by machinery. The institution’s reputation, its administrative purity, its adherence to denominational standards—all of it demands to be fed. The pastor drifts from shepherd tending wounded sheep to administrator managing a religious corporation.
The aim of the Christian leaders is no longer the good of souls and the glory of God but the promotion, protection, and enrichment of a person or an institution. The leader, the church, or the organisation’s existence, reputation, and wealth become the overriding concern.
Jesus condemned the legalists of His own day for precisely this inversion of priorities: They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger (Matt 23:4).
In contrast, Jesus said: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
The contrast is absolute. The Pharisees loaded people down; Jesus offered to carry the load. A church structure that replicates the former while claiming the latter has lost its way.
Abusive churches have a control-oriented style of leadership. The leader may be arrogant and dogmatic, often portrayed as more in tune spiritually with God. These leaders are frequently not accountable to anyone.
The leader of such a church often uses manipulation to gain complete submission from members, employing tactics such as guilt, peer pressure, and intimidation—and may even suggest that divine judgement will result if you question them.
Neither Legalism Nor Licence
A responsible treatment of legalism must acknowledge the danger on the opposite side. But the opposite of legalism is not what many suppose. It is not licence — and the remedy for both errors is the same: faith.
Paul himself anticipates the objection. In Galatians 5:13 he writes: For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. He does not counter the risk of licence by reintroducing law. He counters it by redirecting the believer to the Spirit: Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh (Gal 5:16).
This is the crucial distinction that most treatments of legalism fail to grasp. The solution to both legalism and licence is not a more carefully calibrated set of rules. It is a deeper dependence on the Spirit — which is to say, a deeper walk of faith. The writer of Hebrews states the principle in its starkest form: without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). Not difficult — impossible. No amount of behavioural compliance, however rigorous, can substitute for faith as the engine of the Christian life.
Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:1–5 drives this home with unmistakable force. He asks the Galatians: Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? The question is rhetorical. The answer is obviously no. The Christian life begins by faith and continues by faith. Sanctification does not operate on a different principle than justification. The believer who was saved by grace through faith does not graduate to a second stage powered by effort and willpower. The same faith that received salvation is the faith that produces growth.
This is precisely why the fruit of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control — is not produced by a more rigorous set of rules. It is produced by a deeper walk with Christ, which is a walk of faith in the God who supplies the Spirit (Gal 3:5). Against such things, as Paul drily notes, there is no law (Gal 5:23). Law cannot produce what only the Spirit can grow. And the Spirit works through faith, not through compliance.
The legalist and the licentious believer share a common failure: both have stopped walking by faith. The legalist substitutes human effort; the licentious believer substitutes human appetite. Paul’s answer to both is the same — return to the Spirit, return to faith, return to the Christ who is the object of that faith. Any system that addresses licence by adding more rules has simply traded one form of flesh for another. And any system that addresses legalism by removing all moral expectation has confused freedom with autonomy. The narrow path between them is not a tightrope of balanced rule-keeping. It is the walk of faith — active, dependent, Christ-directed, and Spirit-empowered.
The Anatomy of Spiritual Abuse
What we have described is not merely poor ecclesiology. In its more pronounced forms, it constitutes spiritual abuse.
Spiritual abuse is a form of emotional and psychological abuse. It is characterised by a systematic pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in a religious context.
The Church of England’s safeguarding framework identifies several hallmarks.
People may feel unable to ask questions, disagree, or raise issues, and this can be associated with the need to keep unity or protect the individual, the Church, or God. Requiring unquestioning obedience may include an implicit or explicit suggestion that this equates to obedience to God.
A spiritually abusive culture is characterised by a pattern of coercion and control, in which an individual’s fear of disobeying God is used to require them to act without free consent.
Spiritual abuse rarely occurs on purpose, as those involved generally start out with the best of intentions.
This is a crucial observation. Most legalistic leaders are not malicious. They are deeply sincere people who believe they are protecting the flock. But sincerity does not neutralise harm. The road from protective zeal to coercive control is paved with good intentions, and the transition is often invisible to those making it.
Abusive churches are first and foremost characterised by strong, control-oriented leadership. These leaders use guilt, fear, and intimidation to manipulate members. Followers are led to think that there is no other church quite like theirs and that God has singled them out for special purposes. Other, more traditional evangelical churches are put down.
The gravity of this error deepens when we recall whose church it is. Paul reminded the Ephesian elders to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Leaders who impose their own conditions of acceptance are not safeguarding the flock — they are claiming authority over a people they did not buy and a household they do not own. The church belongs to the one who bled for it, and every requirement added beyond what he has set is an act of presumption against his ownership.
Beyond the Boundary Lines
Walking away from this kind of environment is not rebellion, backsliding, or a failure of commitment. It is an act of spiritual self-preservation—a conscious, deeply biblical decision to affirm that the Gospel is better, wider, and infinitely more gracious than the suffocating confines of legalism. Paul’s charge stands: For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Gal 5:1).
There is a derivative meaning of legalism that may be even more common: it is the spirit and the life that flow from a failure to be humbled, broken, amazed, and satisfied by the grace of God in Christ.
The remedy for this spirit is not a lighter set of rules. It is a deeper encounter with the grace that produces both freedom and obedience—not as competing forces but as expressions of the same reality.
We do not leave because we hate the people inside. We leave because we love the true Gospel too much to pretend that a system built on conditional love and spiritual performance is an accurate reflection of Jesus Christ.
To the step-brethren who find themselves exhausted from forcing themselves into a mould Christ never asked you to occupy: there is abundant, breathing life beyond the boundary lines.
And to the systems that elevate tradition over the transformative, messy grace of God: the machine may run with impressive efficiency, but an engine built without grace will eventually break the very people it was designed to carry.
Bibliography
Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. New International Commentary on the New Testament; Eerdmans, 1984 (commenting on Colossians 2:23).
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Carson, D. A. Matthew. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Chen, Z., Williams, K. D., Fitness, J., & Newton, N. C. “When Hurt Will Not Heal: Exploring the Capacity to Relive Social and Physical Pain.” Psychological Science 19, no. 8 (2008): 789–795.
Church of England. Responding Well to Domestic Abuse: Safeguarding Policy and Practice Guidance. London: Church House Publishing, 2017.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. “Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion.” Science 302, no. 5643 (2003): 290–292.
Forde, R. “Experiencing Religious Shunning: Insights into the Journey From Being a Member to Leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses Community.” Pastoral Psychology 72 (2023): 503–521.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Greenberg, M. “How Religious Shunning Ruins Lives.” Psychology Today, 2024.
Keener, C. S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Luther, R. “What Happens to Those Who Exit Jehovah’s Witnesses: An Investigation of the Impact of Shunning.” Journal of Religion and Health 62 (2022): PMC 9803876.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books, 1982.
Open Minds Foundation and University of Roehampton. Mandated Shunning Research Project. 2025–2028.
Piper, John. “What Is Legalism?” Desiring God, 2012.
Probe Ministries. “Abusive Churches.” Richardson, TX: Probe Ministries, 2002.
SEDAA. “The Practice of Shunning and Its Consequences.” 2016.
Sproul, R. C. “Legalism.” Ligonier Ministries, 2009.
Williams, K. D. Ostracism: The Power of Silence. New York: Guilford Publications, 2001.
Williams, K. D. “Ostracism.” Annual Review of Psychology 58 (2007): 425–452.
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. “Ostracism: Consequences and Coping.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 20, no. 2 (2011): 71–75.
Leave a Reply