Gospel-Centered Legalism
October 21, 2009 13 Comments
….one of those few ‘must reads’ you come across. - Joel
“Last week, my friend Jared Wilson tweeted an important question: “Is it possible to be legalistic about gospel-centrality?” His question originated in listening to a Christian podcast essentially rip apart a sermon from a Nashville pastor line by line, condemning it for not being “gospel-centered” enough. Now, I’m not going to defend the sermon – even the pastor who preached it admitted it could have been more focused on what Jesus has done for us in the gospel. BUT I do think Jared raises an interesting question and it stirred in me something that’s been bothering me for awhile.
I’m afraid that in the midst of this new wave of “gospel-centered” pastors, church planters, and ministries, we are creating a new clique, and are legalistically condemning brothers and sisters in Christ because they don’t fit with a very narrow view of the gospel and how it affects our life.
To be sure, there are many people out there preaching a message devoid of Christ and the cross, that are truly missing the gospel. They should be avoided and called to return to the center of Christianity, namely “Christ and him crucified”.
But I’m afraid we’re going farther than that.”…
Read the rest here.
Joel,
I know a few things about this controversy. (Im the podcaster that conducted the sermon review that sparked these discussion.)
The sermon in question, was not ‘ripped apart’ primarily because it ‘wasn’t gospel centered’. It was critiqued specifically because the pastor was engaging in eisogesis and what he was “reading into the passage” in real ways contradicted the gospel.
I review 100′s of sermons every month and about 15 to 20 get reviewed on my radio program. Each bad sermon is chosen because it represents one or more hermeneutical or doctrinal errors. Common errors include:
1. The Man-Centered Gospel that God Wants to Help You Achieve Your Dreams (Prosperity Gospel and or Prosperity Lite aka preaching to ‘felt needs’)
2. Eisogesis
3. Incorrect distinction between Law and Gospel
4. Preaching based upon charasmatic dreams and visions that contradict the scriptures
5. Scripture Twisting
For each sermon I correct, I purposely critique it using Law & Gospel in order to demonstrate how Christ & Him Crucified for Our Sins can be found in the passage that the pastor is preaching on. But, I do that for the benefit of my listeners.
I also review a fair amount of s0-so sermons many of which do not ever make it to the air. Most of these are okay and decent expository sermons with a little gospel thrown in. When I review them I generally point out the fact that the sermon could have used a little more salt (gospel) but not in a way where the pastor is painted as being outside the pale of Christendom.
Here’s my beef with the bad preaching that I hear day in and day out… I don’t consider it to be Christian preaching when the pastor twists God’s word, sells the Christian faith by promising people a more satisfying life, when they read in their own ideas into a text rather than exegete the scriptures and when they treat the Bible as a wax nose that can be allegorically bent in any direction they see fit, or when it takes our focus off of Christ and what He’s accomplished.
It is neither legalistic nor incongruent with the Confessions of the Reformation to point these errors out and call people back to Christ-Centered exegetical preaching that boldly & correctly proclaims great doctrines of the Christian faith.
I agree that we can use “gospel-centered”, or at least our perception of the lack of centeredness of others, as a new way to judge other believers. We create these new cliques, which can breed pride. “So and so” is better because 72.3% of their sermon is quoting the Bible directly.
I actually think that it’s a symptom of a larger problem: Bible idolatry. Placing the text above He who the text is about, much how Islam does.
Chris, I’d have to agree with Joel. You give your opinion quite frequently on your radio program. Joel has given his opinion that the pastor was “gospel-centered” enough, and reflected on the danger of us using this bar as a new way of creating ghettos in our faith.
For the record, there are many posts and articles I think fall under the heading of ‘must read’ that I might not necessarily agree with. I’m just sayin…
And joshua, I don’t recall giving that opinion at all. When and where did I do that?
Joshua, you commented that “gospel-centered” could be used as a new way to judge believers, and that it is a symptom of “Bible idolatry”. Actually, you’re wrong.
Using the WORD OF GOD to gauge the true measure of a believer of GOD has been done since the Holy Spirit guided Moses and the other Old Testament writers to put God’s communication down on paper for us mere men to see, read, and obey.
Jesus gauged the faithfulness of those who claimed to be following God, but were not (Matthew 23:1-35). This is not worshipping the Bible, rather, it is obeying the Lord.
Believing that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God is not idolatry, but rather an acceptance by us that we cannot hope to achieve salvation without the Lord’s guidance. Remember, also, that we are study the Word of God in order to avoid worldly and empty chatter, presenting ourselves unashamedly for approval to God (2Timothy 2:15-16).
Finally, remember that God is the Word (Luke 1:1) and the sum of His Word is Truth (Psalm 119:160). So, how can obeying God be idolatry?
Is there no new method of self-flagellation that we Protestants will not engage in? Are we so consumed with concern about the harshness of the Gospel (YES I SAID IT GOSPEL) that we can’t declare it as being exactly what it is and no more and no less anymore for fear of sounding legalistic? Isn’t this often the way movements like the Social Gospel, Lutheran Piety, Federal Visionaries, Gnostic Dooyeweerdian ‘Calvinism,’ churches that don’t preach about Heaven and Hell anymore, and other lizards sneak in? The writer seems to be very proud to wear his ‘I’m NOT Legalistic’ t-shirt above all else. Surely his own philosophical splitting of hairs seems a bit legalistic to you?
No man is above reproach, but come on, Dr Horton? His book Christless Christianity brings to light the very ESSENCE of legalism when it forgets Christ. Really, a lot more declaring and a lot less spineless apology is what is in order in our disintegrating faith landscape today.
Chris R, you may not need my vote of confidence, but I will give it. Keep doing what you know is right. I enjoy your show immensely in a sad, but edifying, what is this world coming to sort of way. I have not known you to be guilty of Bible idolatry. It is never easy to point out error in the right spirit while being necessarily exacting.
Joel, I have also known you to be solid thus far. But for someone not knowing your background, posting an article of this tenor could seem to put you on that slippery slope to Latent Default Ecumenicism.
All of us can see that there are people that are steeped in legalism, and having lost sight of the Saviour, are bogged down in rules. But on the other side of the road there are the Anti-Judgy Judges, just as smarmy. They bite their thumb, but they do not bite it at you, sir. They often argue in the idolatry of their own scholarship.
There is such a thing as right theology, as it is laid out in the Bible, and we as humans, with our faulty reasoning and weak grasp, should still do what we can to pursue it, properly, and without incessant apology.
Therefore, I urge all of us nice Protestants who love Jesus and are grateful recipients of the Blood to back away very, very slowly from the Don’t Be Legalistic Guilt Snare. It can hasten the death of rationality in pursuit of acceptance, softens theology that should not be softened, makes us ever-so-subtly question our amount of wiggle room, and gives us a sort ‘widening of inward barriers’ and ‘vaulting unrest’ in a very bad Aschenbach sort of way…
(Personal note: I agonised and edited this for at least an hour but was only partially successful at removing some of the causticity that this subject has brought out in me. I also do humbly apologise also for the indignation that these mere labels ‘Legalism’ and ‘Biblical Idolatry’ incite in all of us. I hope that even though we almost claw each other’s eyeballs out sometimes, that the argument would be righteous and edifying, and that we will always bow before the Throne of Grace with our faces in the dirt.)
Amy,
Thank you very much for your comment. I mean that. Let me make a few things clear, and I won’t beat around the bush with verbage….
1. I posted the article because I think it’s a good read. That does not mean necessarily that I agree with it. I think Arminius is a ‘must-read’, but I do not agree with his theology! I posted this article for the simple reason that it makes you think about what has been said. I have spent a great deal of my life dealing with people who enjoyed others thinking for them, then being spoon-fed regarding what to believe, say and do. That’s wrong. You’re own response to the article makes me happy. You’re thinking.
2. Chris Rosebrough and I have had a few communications. I listen to his broadcasts, specifically, F4F, and to date, I have never heard Chris ‘biff’ a sermon review…ever. I cannot honestly say I have heard every one of his sermon reviews, I’ve not. But the ones I have heard, Chris has been ‘spot-on’ every time. I support Chris and his ministry, and his is much needed.
3. I appreciate your concern/fear of me possibly stepping on that ‘slippery slope to latent default ecumenicism’, but have no fear. Won’t happen!
Joel your comment needed much more verbage and a couple allusions to literary works…
But I’m relieved!
Amy
Nicely written comment Amy! I have to say Joel, when I read this, that I too thought you may be in agreement and I wasn’t really sure where you were going with this. It looked out of character for you, and for what your blog typically stands for. I found myself scratching my head and trying to figure out a way to agree with Chris, question Joel and not lose any friends in the process.
She did it much better than I could have. I heard Chris’s podcast on this sermon review and found it to be quite good and right on.
With so many pastors, that seemed to be fairly doctrinely sound at one time, heading down (to coin Amy’s phrase here) that “slippery slope to Latent Default Ecumenicism”, I hope many that read this can understand why we get concerned and question things that seem “a half a bubble off plumb”.
Whew! I feel so much better that we had this discussion!
…and I won’t throw anything.
It amazes me that you haven’t discerned that I’m perfect yet. Wow…. 
LOL
Thought maybe we were going to have one big pillow fight.
Nah…and if we did…..I’d win.
Subjects always seem to come full circle, and today I found posted on Apprising Ministries an article that springboards nicely from the article posted by you Joel, from Pastor Bill’s fairy tale story blog I will call The Boy Who Cried Legalism:
http://apprising.org/2008/10/accusation-of-bibliolatry-not-so-new/
Amy H
(PS I would win the pillowfight; Circle K Camp trained me well in that)
Okay…I want to be on Amy’s team because she’s got pillow fighting credentials.
Thanks for posting the Apprising article here Amy. Loved it!