'Legalism' as a term.

Do we stretch the term legalism beyond it's boundaries?

I should do something, therefor I do it, but an excess of should do's attracts the anti-religious to issue a warrant of legalism. When the term is broadened beyond the original ills in which it confronts, these ideas [or term in itself] is then made to cut off any kind of faith response. Legalism as a term has been rightfully defined to deter the idea of earning salvation [salvation by merit], but in a more modern sense the term can be abused to discourages any kind of commitment to ones' faith.

 I worship because I'm responding, I pray because I know God is good; God has sent His Son die for 'our' sins, called 'us' into and restored 'our' relationship, so various things I do as a Christian come in response to God's love.  I'm not trying earn anything.

Should I pray? Yes. Why should I pray? Because God is good! Why do I pray? Because I believe God is good, I believe Jesus is Lord, and I believe God provides, but in doing so my riches are in God. This doesn't make me legalistic in infer the necessity of a prayer life. Now if I press forward a formulaic system of salvation, such that one must have an active prayer life to be save, then I'm being legalistic.  I urge others [unlegalistically], those person who is trying to follow Christ, to move forward in responding to God's love as an appropriate means to grow a prayer life. My concern about the lack of a prayer life is a concern for an individual's spiritual health.