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.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
