Is it possible to be legalistic about gospel-centrality?
The day I first chewed on that question most seriously was the same day my friend Pete Wilson (no relation) posted a link to a podcasted critique of one of his sermons. Now, Pete’s ways are (generally) not my ways. I have serious concerns about the general ecclesiological “genre” of the church he pastors (which is a genre I myself lived and ministered in, both as a layperson and as clergy, for almost 15 years), but CrossPoint Church in Nashville gets a whole lot more right than most places, and aside from that, I love Pete and I love his heart and I know he loves Jesus.
But if you asked me if Pete and CrossPoint could use a healthier dose of gospel, I’d say yes. (Who couldn’t, right?) So this podcast critic could have had me at hello. Instead I wanted to punch him in the throat. (Podcastorily speaking, of course.)
The same day I was thinking specifically about whether it’s possible to be legalistic about urging gospel-centrality I heard this merciless, unfunny (despite continuous efforts at “humor”), pedantic, grating, soulless critique of Pete’s sermon and found the answer to my question was “yes.” If you’ve never heard a Pharisee opine on gospel-centeredness, give it a listen. He’s got the letter of the gospel but not the spirit. (And in a few cases, he gets the letter wrong in his zeal to not let Pete go on too long uninterrupted.)
I think this is the real crux of the “mean tone” criticism some of us get from time to time (some of us more than others, eh Frank? — but I have received it myself and it’s something most of at least the Reformed persuasion have heard at one time or another). “Cage phase” stereotypes and mercurial matters of “tone” aside, is it possible to be a legalist about the gospel and thereby screw the whole proclamation up? I try to check myself on this frequently, so that by contending for the gospel I am not making the gospel sound less than good.
I think this (sort of) concern may lay behind the meatiest portion of John Frame’s recent critique of Michael Horton’s Christless Christianity: the section marked “Christ and Other Things” and in Frame’s Conclusion.
October 20th, 2009 | 5:25 pm | #1
Dr. Frame has obviously been listen to me yelling at my iPod while listening to WHI last year.
October 20th, 2009 | 5:27 pm | #2
And I actually like it that people on the internet think I am
wrongmean. it’s vindicating.October 20th, 2009 | 6:33 pm | #3
James sounds a lot like a legalist. So do Paul, Peter, John and Jesus, if you want them to.
I think a little more charity of judgment would be in order from the podcaster, but then again, I have a problem with self-appointed prophets who think they’re courageous truth-tellers when they really just coming across as angry, self-righteous jerks (about the gospel, of all things).
So, to answer your question, Yes.
October 20th, 2009 | 7:00 pm | #4
James sounds a lot like a legalist. So do Paul, Peter, John and Jesus, if you want them to.
Jeff, how so?
I am not talking about sounding harsh or “tone” or rebukes or anything of that sort. I agree there’s plenty of positive examples of those things in the biblical record.
I agree with you that angry, self-righteous jerks are problems. How do we tell the difference? It surely can’t always be expressed content (because gospel-centrality is good) and it can’t always be harshness (because that is called for sometimes), so what is the litmus test?
I wonder if the apparent inability to let someone go is a sign? A relentlessness evincing mercilessness.
Once the podcaster has made his initial point and continues to run out of things to say so keeps saying the exact same thing (trying to make it sound different with growing contemptuous inflection) — and keeps playing that ridiculous moo’ing clip — I think his self-righteousness is showing. But it was there before he began.
October 21st, 2009 | 10:39 am | #5
Jared,
I confess that I didn’t listen to the whole podcast. What seemed harsh and legalistic on the podcaster’s part was what appeared to be an assumption of Wilson’s bad motives combined with arrogant self-assurance.
For example, Wilson bewails a lack of spiritual transformation, evidenced in lack of love towards others. The podcaster takes that as evidence of a legalistic demand to love. However, Jesus, John, Peter, Paul, and James all say similar things. Are they legalists? Why not take Wilson’s comments in context and not assume he’s preaching law?
The podcaster assumes that people are not transformed because they’re not hearing the gospel preached regularly (which becomes a platform for condemning styles of ministry he doesn’t like), instead of showing a graciousness and humility which recognize that spiritual growth can come painfully slowly in the best of churches. If hearing the gospel is all that we need to be transformed, then we can drop the second half of all of Paul’s letters, right?
You’re right that there are examples of harshness and anger in Scripture, but I think the destructive consequences of unrighteous anger are so significant (and the witness of grace and unity so powerful) that we should be very careful here.
Even if Wilson is leading people astray into legalistic moralism, doesn’t the gospel compel the podcaster to approach him in love with the goal of winning him over, instead of sneering at him from a distance?
So if pressed to come up with a litmus test, I guess I would look for self-righteousness, pride, a lack of charity, and a love of judgment towards others.
October 21st, 2009 | 11:10 am | #6
Also, re: litmus tests:
Prophets in Scripture (the ones who bring the wrath and judgment messages) have been tested and approved by God — signs and wonders, life of holiness, etc. — and are available to have their life and ministry tested in public.
Given how easy it is to start a website and put oneself in a position of self-appointed authority, I’m going to be suspicious of an anonymous podcaster. A pastor has normally gone through theological studies and a process to become ordained, and has somebody watching his life and doctrine (or should). Where’s the accountability here?
October 21st, 2009 | 12:18 pm | #7
Thanks for the link to PCR. I couldn’t stop listening to the sermon reviews last night. The best was his dismantling of Perry Noble’s sermon….talk about mythologies.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact