Selective Obedience in Christianity: Legalism or Loyalty to God?
Why Some Sins Offend and Others Don’t
The Double Standard in Modern Christianity
On July 10, 2025, Back to the Frontier premiered on Magnolia Network. The new reality series, created by Chip and Joanna Gaines, follows three families living as 1800s pioneers. One of the featured families is a same-sex couple with children—a casting choice that quickly drew backlash from prominent Christian voices.
“Promoting sin,” they called it. Social media lit up with calls to boycott the show, the network, and the Gaines brand entirely. And to be clear, the Bible does define homosexual behavior as sin. That’s not in dispute.
But here’s what is worth questioning: Why are some sins treated as rallying cries for moral outrage, while others—sins that are also clearly addressed in Scripture—are brushed off or even defended?
Say that breaking the Sabbath is sin, and many of those same Christians will respond:
“That law was fulfilled—we don’t need to keep it. And anyone trying to obey it is just being legalistic, trying to earn salvation.”
So is the issue really about honoring God’s Word—or just defending cultural norms?
Selective Conviction: Legalism for Some, Liberty for Others
There’s a strange inconsistency at play in many Christian circles.
If you strive to obey certain biblical commands—like honoring the Sabbath, keeping God’s Holy Days, or avoiding unclean foods—you’re accused of legalism, Judaizing, or trying to earn salvation.
But if you ignore those same commands—especially by replacing them with traditions rooted in paganism like Christmas, Easter, or Sunday worship—you’re applauded for embracing grace and Christian liberty.
The same voices that protest one sin as “an offense to God” will defend other practices that Scripture also identifies as sin—especially when it comes to blending pagan customs into worship, replacing God’s appointed times, or ignoring His commandments in the name of tradition.—often because they’ve been practiced for generations in church culture.
God repeatedly warned His people not to adopt the religious customs of the nations around them (Deuteronomy 12:29–31, Jeremiah 10:2–3), yet many traditions celebrated in churches today come straight from those very sources.
It’s not about faithfulness to Scripture. It’s about what’s convenient or culturally accepted.
“Fulfilled” Doesn’t Mean “Canceled”
A common justification is,
“Jesus fulfilled the law, so we don’t have to keep it.”
But that misunderstands what Jesus meant. In Matthew 5:17–19, He said:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill… whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments… shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”
To fulfill something in this biblical context is to keep or embody it—not to abolish it. Jesus didn’t “abolish” the commandment against murder so we could now kill freely. He didn’t “abolish” honesty so we can now lie.
So why is “fulfillment” used to dismiss the Sabbath or the Holy Days?
The truth is: “Fulfilled” has become a theological excuse to sidestep any command that challenges Christian tradition or personal comfort.
The Straw Man: “Are You Keeping All 600 Laws Then?”
This argument is as tired as it is misleading:
“Oh, so you keep the Sabbath? Are you keeping all 613 laws from the Old Testament?”
No one today is trying to reinstitute the Levitical priesthood or run a theocratic nation. Many biblical laws dealt with sacrifices, temple rituals, and civil governance—things no individual could carry out today even if they wanted to.
I’m not a priest. I don’t offer sacrifices. I don’t execute judgments in a biblical court. Those laws were for specific roles and times. God never expected every Israelite—let alone a modern believer—to perform them all.
But the laws that still define holiness and set apart God’s people—like the Sabbath, clean and unclean food, and biblical festivals—can still be kept, and they were never revoked.
So the real question isn’t, “Are you keeping all 613 laws?”
It’s, “Why are you ignoring the ones that still apply—and still reveal God’s will?”
What This Really Reveals
This isn’t about salvation by works vs. grace. It’s about our attitude toward God’s Word.
Modern Christianity tends to condemn sins that clash with the culture outside the church—but defend or dismiss sins that challenge the culture inside it.
If the church hates it, we call it sin.
If the church loves it—even if it came from paganism—we call it tradition.
If a believer tries to obey God more fully, we call it legalism.
If a believer dismisses obedience, we call it liberty.
But God doesn’t give us that kind of selective authority over His commandments. Faithfulness means being willing to submit—even when it’s inconvenient.
Conclusion: The Call to Consistency
Jesus didn’t obey His Father’s commandments to abolish them. He obeyed them to show us the path of righteousness. His sacrifice cleanses us from sin—it doesn’t give us license to keep sinning (Romans 6:1–2).
If sin matters because it separates us from God, then we can’t afford to ignore the parts of His Word that challenge our traditions. We’re called to walk in obedience—not as a means of earning salvation, but as a response to grace.
So the next time someone gets angry about sin in culture, let’s ask:
Are we just as passionate about the sins we’ve justified in the church?
God isn’t asking for perfection—He’s asking for humility, faith, and faithfulness. Not selective obedience. Not convenience. Not tradition. Just His Word.
