kaleobill.com » Gospel-Centered Legalism

Gospel-Centered Legalism

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.

I’m a part of the Acts 29 network, which is at the forefront of what has been called the “new Calvinism” and the “young, restless, and reformed (YRR)” (both of which are horrendous labels that reek of too much editorial spin to sell books and magazines). This is the tribe I run in, and I love it. God is doing something very unique, and I am thrilled to play a tiny part of it. But in the midst of it all, there is this danger:

I think we’re in danger of making “gospel-centrality” an idol.

We’ve replaced “gospel” with a very distinct understanding of theology, essentially drawing a circle around a small part of the body of Christ, and then we throw verbal stones at those who are outside of the circle. We’ve created a sub-culture of language and jargon that makes us unique, and if people describe things in a different vernacular we hold them in suspicion.

(<Side rant>: seriously, can we please stop using “gospel” as a verb? And could we please stop putting the word “gospel” in front of everything as if that somehow makes it more holy? “Gospel-Centered _______, or Gospel-Driven _______, or even just “Gospel-you fill in the blank”.. Guys, let’s be honest. Nobody (or almost nobody) talked like this five or six years ago. The amount of jargon has increased a hundredfold as Tim Keller’s influence rose to a national stage. I love Tim Keller, for sure, but we’re in danger of making him the pope of the reformed world. Let’s stop, please. </end side rant>)

Probably the most recent and clearly articulated criticism I’ve seen of what’s happening is John Frame’s recent critique of Michael Horton’s book Christless Christianity. Far from being from a widely different theological camp, Frame is a reformed scholar who has served as a professor at both Westminster Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary). While I agree with much of what Horton says, the critique by Frame put into words much of what has been bothering me. (While the critique is of Horton’s book, it also critiques the mindset of many of the “YRR” that the book articulates. Frame summarizes in his conclusion:

Horton considers adherence to [his distinct views of what is means to be gospel-centered] essential, so that departing from them constitutes Christlessness, and failure to emphasize them sufficiently leads to a false gospel. But not one of these principles is found in any Reformed confession. And in my view, none of them are Scriptural.

So Christless Christianity is essentially an evaluation of the American church, not from the standpoint of a generic Protestant theology, but from what I must regard as a narrow, factional, even sectarian perspective.

There it is. That’s what’s bothering me. I don’t agree with everything Frame’s critique asserts, and I affirm much of what Horton says is wrong with American Evangelicalism today, but I fear that Frame is correct in his conclusion. Whether you agree with the conclusion or not, Frame’s critique needs to be read, wrestled through, and considered by anyone who is a fan of Horton’s book.)

Let me affirm again: there is so much good that his happening right now in the recovery of the centrality of the gospel of grace in all things. We should seek to apply the gospel to every part of our lives and minstry. We must continually guard ourselves against thinking that it is anything but the grace of God that both creates and sustains our faith.

But in our adoration of this great Gospel, let’s make sure to carry with us the grace that it deserves. Let’s remember that within the “YRR” and “gospel-centered” movements, we listen to a relatively small group of thinkers. We read the same books. We subscribe to the same podcasts. We go to the same conferences. And although God has used these mightily to bring life and health to our souls and chuches, we must not allow ourselves to condemn outrightly (or more commonly criticise, demean, and tear down through our arrogance and sarcasm) our brothers and sisters who don’t use the same jargon we do or take a different view of preaching than we do.

Yes, by all means, let’s strive to center our lives and ministries on the gospel of Jesus Christ. But let’s not become so reformed that guys like Calvin and Luther wouldn’t pass our test of what it means to be “gospel-centered”. Let’s make sure our love is for the gospel itself, not our particular articulation of what it means to love the gospel.

33 Comments so far
Leave a comment

I think we’re in danger of making “gospel-centrality” an idol.

Amen.

could we please stop putting the word “gospel” in front of everything as if that somehow makes it more holy? “Gospel-Centered _______, or Gospel-Driven _______,

Crud. I gotta scrap my blog?

[...] Kaleo Church Houston’s Bill Streger on the danger of legalistic “gospel-centrality.&#822… I’m a part of the Acts 29 network, which is at the forefront of what has been called the “new Calvinism” and the “young, restless, and reformed (YRR)” (both of which are horrendous labels that reek of too much editorial spin to sell books and magazines). This is the tribe I run in, and I love it. God is doing something very unique, and I am thrilled to play a tiny part of it. But in the midst of it all, there is this danger: [...]

Jared, I almost hesitated to include that because I didn’t want to seem like I was slamming your blog title.

Great post Bill.

The newly Reformed folks on the internet are getting a front-row seat on a disagreement that divides the academic Reformed community. We saw it a lot at RTS-Orlando when a visiting professor would come in who wasn’t in the Frame-Pratt-Kidd model of Reformed Theology. Frame’s mention of the 3rd use of the law is significant. It gets to the heart of many things, including how we preach the entirety of the scriptures. (And also addresses the podcaster whom Jared referred to in his post.)

Frame is wonderful at forcing the Reformed community to turn the lens of critique back upon ourselves.

Here’s how I would summarize his critique:
Evangelicalism may be sick but we should be careful about the model of health that we use; our remedy may cure chicken pox but introduce swine flu into the body.

“The amount of jargon has increased a hundredfold as Tim Keller’s influence rose to a national stage. I love Tim Keller, for sure, but we’re in danger of making him the pope of the reformed world.

What, you mean he’s not? :p

Actually, I’m pretty sure the last thing Rev. Keller would want is for us to make an idol out of him, especially considering the great irony that would be.

Way to gospel them Bill. The gospellation you gave was to the point, and to be quite honest, gospellicious.
For the Gospel,
Tom

Bill, I totally agree man. Maybe a litmus test of this is to start asking the people in our churches what they mean when they use the language of “gospel-centered”: i.e. what is the gospel? It seems to be thrown around a lot in our church, but I often wonder how many people actually know what it means to “center” not only our doctrine but our practice in the gospel. Slogans can be good to simplify things, but tradition without ongoing explanation is pretty dangerous territory.

Tom, I just spat Diet Coke through my nose because of your comment. “Gosepellicious”? Nice.

Bill,

This is a dead on assessment, and one that I struggle with on a nearly daily basis. It’s difficult to so thoroughly believe something (in this case, the Doctrines of Grace), that the idea of believing something else is almost inconceivable.

As a Reformed Baptist, I struggle with this in areas like baptism, continuity/discontinuity of covenants, etc… with those who are also Reformed, but then that gets magnified even more when I step outside of the Reformed camp.

I have been aware of my tendency to idolize theology for a while, and I have to combat it by doing the following:

But Lord, didn’t I preach good, solid, reformed theology? And I will say to them, depart from me. I never knew you.

But, this has also taught me to embrace my distinctions. I no longer try to hide the fact that I am Baptist. I do not hide that I am reformed. I wear both titles. However, I try to think of them more as accents. That enables me to have the grace to say, we re speaking the same language (the Gospel) but I speak with a Reformed Baptist accent. If you hear that, don’t think I’m trying to convert you… that’s where I’m from.

Jared,

You probably know by now that I love and respect you. You probably even think I’m that weird stalker guy… so I, like Bill don’t mean this to criticize you. But I see Bill’s point about the vernacular.

That guy down the street might do ministry to the homeless, but we do Gospel-Ministry to the homeless.

Most of it comes across as that silly. It’s a way to puff ourselves up. It’s a way to manipulate others into serving, like good pharisees, in our programs… um, I mean… Gospeling our city.

That’s not always true, but, I am willing to admit that I have tried to change the language to promote a ministry before. We do it all of the time. We don’t have volunteers who help set-up, we have a Road Crew. Nothing wrong with that. But, when we add the word Gospel, we create a false distinction, and a false elevation/dichotomy of the secular vs. the sacred. One that Luther and the other Reformers freed us from…

It’s interesting to see this after our conversation yesterday.

[...] Read the rest http://kaleobill.com/?p=727 [...]

Reminds me of what Keller said in this month’s Christianity Today.

“One of the religious idols is your moral record: “God accepts me because I’m living a good life.” I’m a Presbyterian, so I’m all for right doctrine. But you can start to feel very superior to everyone else and think, God is pleased with me because I’m so true to the right doctrine. The right doctrine and one’s moral record are forms of power. Another is ministry success, similar to the idol of achievement. There are religious versions of sex, money, and power, and they are pretty subtle.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/november/1.71.html

Ouch!

“I think we’re in danger of making “gospel-centrality” an idol.”

Is it possible, Bill, that we are actually in danger of going even further and making the gospel itself an idol?

The gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, is supposed to point us to Jesus Christ through whom we have relationship with the Father. I fear that sometimes there is so much emphasis on the “right” gospel (that of the new-Calvinist/YRR persuasion) that it takes centre stage rather than God himself.

Just a thought…if that happens (the gospel becomes our idol) does it not then cease to be the gospel. Even if there is 100% factual accuracy in our assertions about what constitutes the gospel, it is possible that all of our attention is on having the gospel accurately expressed rather than on God.

Whoopie…so I had all the facts right! Where is the eternal good news in that?

Also, Frame’s review of Horton’s book is legiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

[...] and in so doing let us not be arrogant about what the gospel is (see Bill Streger’s blog, Gospel-Centered Legalism). The gospel is a historical fact and event that we can all agree upon. Jesus lived a perfect [...]

When we use “gospel” as an adjective, we also run the risk of cheapening it, much the same way we did with the word “Christian”. The gospel is too important and too robust a thing to make trite.

Isn’t an “idol” anything that takes the place of God in our lives? If we are to make the Gospel number one in our lives how is this an idol? Furthermore, if you want to call being gospel-centered an idol, how could that possibly be a bad thing? I would hope I pursue aligning my life to the Gospel with even more fervor than I do than any other “idol”. Making gospel centeredness idolatry seems to fall apart at their respective definition roots.

I know a few things about this controversy. (I’m the podcaster that conducted the sermon review that sparked these discussions.)

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.

[...] reading Frame, I found it fascinating to read someone reflecting on the question “Is it possible to be legalistic about gospel-centrality?” The question [...]

This is what I understood from your post…

“Blah Blah, I hate Tim Keller, Blah Blah”

Did I understand your post correctly?

So…

We should do The Law/Good Works/works of righteousness/walk the talk/sancified life. It is God pleasing. It is not optional for christian or pagan. It cannot be extolled enough. I really mean that!

but…

“…even the pastor who preached it admitted it could have been more focused on what Jesus has done for us in the gospel.”

Ok. So what am I missing. Is there EVER a case where were our focused “enough” on what Jesus has done for us? Shouldn´t everyone (like the pastor quoted correctly seems to do), welcome criticism that there is ALWAYS room to be MORE focussed on what Jesus has done?

calling something “gospel-centered or christ-centered (fill in the blank)” Looks like that. not!

So what is it again that we are in danger of? Too much focus on what Jesus has done? Is that even possible? It IS very dangerous and very very subversive I agree!

By the way that is not “what Jesus has done in the gospel.” That is a wierd formulation. What Jesus has done for us and outside of us IS the Gospel. NOTHING else is the Gospel narrowly and precisely speaking.

What in the heck would that look like?

“what Jesus has done in the gospel” implies that the “gospel ” consists of what Jesus has done along with some other stuff done by other people doesn´t it?

The phrase is not useful or meaningful or specific. It betrays a certain confusion over the content of that word “Gospel.”

“Let’s make sure our love is for the gospel itself, not our particular articulation of what it means to love the gospel.”

Doesn´t love for “The Gospel” mean artilating accurately what the Gospel is and defending it from false articulations that call something “Gospel” that is not that?

Besides, I don´t love “the Gospel” as a noun, verb or adjective.

I love Jesus. Gospel=Jesus. How perversely wierd to say then Gospel=Idol.

The Gospel is simply a shorthand word for the life,death and resurrection of Jesus, whom I love.

The Gospel is Who Jesus is, what he did, why he did it, and what the result of that all is.

I would laugh at the level of this discourse if I did not take what is at stake so very very seriously.

Agreed, it like saying “I feel like I focus too much on what God has done for me.” I imagine God smiling down and saying, “You haven’t even come close to understanding what I have done for you.” Its like people who don’t read their bibles for fear of being legalistic; I say if that’s your struggle then, BE legalistic about reading your bible but while doing that, read passages about how our salvation is not contingent on our works. And pray that the Spirit opens your eyes.
Too focused on being gospel centered?! Oh may it be the case!

I did not read Bill to be saying you could be centered on the gospel too much.

I don’t believe it’s possible to be too God-centered, too Christ-centered, too gospel-centered.

I read Bill to be saying we can be centered on the conceptualization of “gospel centrality” so much we actually miss real gospel centrality. I think some of the comments demonstrate this, and I believe Chris’s critique of Pete Wilson’s sermon demonstrated it vividly.

Jared just summed it up really well.

Let me be clear: The gospel is the center of our faith, it is the beginning and end of Christianity, and we can never be too focused on the finished work of Jesus on our behalf. Any sermon that calls us to action but does not herald the redemptive work of God through Christ on behalf of His people is incomplete. The gospel can never be assumed or implied - we must make it explicit. (Which I hope you will hear if you ever listen to me preach.)

My worry is not that we would be to centered on the gospel, but that rather than actually being centered on the gospel itself we would become enamored with “Gospel-Centered” as a catchphrase that includes all of our own theological distinctives and excludes those who don’t share them.

My fear is that we will create insider language and jargon that becomes the qualifiers for whether or not we judge someone to be orthodox, rather than what they actually believe.

My fear is that “gospel-centered” would become “the next big thing” in Christian marketing and countless pastors will use it as a badge of honor to wear (much like “missional” has become over the past decade) rather than a true state of our hearts.

My fear is that instead of actually being gospel-centered we would settle for simply talking about it.

I see your point. And whereas I agree it would be dangerous to simply talk about being gospel centered and not live gospel centered, isn’t this true of every doctrine? There is danger of taking any theological truth and holding its understanding of its role in our lives as more important than the practical implementation in our daily lives. (My understanding of my salvation humbles me vs. Hey my understanding of my salvation is better than yours) Is the proposed solution to speak less of gospel centeredness?
The idea of Gospel centered parenting is somewhat a new one, an idea that parenting can be done in light of preparing a childs heart for the reception of the gospel by creating a culture of being unable to follow the law completely - the need for a savior. We shouldn’t be overly wary of a practice that has “gospel centered.” It doesn’t necessarily make it bad.

Steve Mccoy,

Was your comment,
[This is what I understood from your post…“Blah Blah, I hate Tim Keller, Blah Blah” Did I understand your post correctly?] an inside joke, sarcasm, or a legit expression? Curious,
Robert Baxter

Fascinating discussion as I loved Horton’s Christless Christianity until I got to the end where he showed his Reformed-in the-narrow-sense cards. His sacramentalism, etc. Being “more Reformed than thou”. His diagnosis is so right-on but the prescription left something to be desired. It was anti-climactic. I’ll read Frames review now. I have Horton’s new one and I’m sure I’ll have a slightly different perspective now, but enjoy it nonetheless. I was actually going to begin reading it today. Wow! Can you say Providence?!

Robert, Steve may not check back, but I am 99.9% sure he is joking. That’s how he rolls.

Thanks Jared. This whole thread is a good topic, and I didn’t ‘get’ that comment. Have a great weekend everybody!

[...] Is it possible to be legalistic about gospel-centrality? [...]

Ouch. This is convicting… You very clearly defined a very fine line. It’s something thats been bothering me (about my own views!) and that I haven’t been able to put my finger on until now. Thanks.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Welcome to the blog of Pastor Bill Streger. I'm the Lead Pastor of Kaleo Church in Houston, TX. I love my wife (Shannon), my baby girl (Mirabelle), and my city (Houston).

Email Me

Are works of mercy today directly parallel to the miraculous healings and exorcisms performed by Jesus and the Apostles? Why or why not? 1 hr ago
Time for lunch with one of my oldest friends - looking forward to catching up. 5 hrs ago
New Post: The Sunday Hype Machine http://billstreger.com/?p=957 8 hrs ago
RT @ShannonStreger: It's official! Bill and I are headed to NYC for a weekend trip on the 25th-28th.. Just booked our flights and hotel. 21 hrs ago
Any day I get to eat steak for lunch is a good day. Thank you, buy one get one free coupon from Logans Roadhouse! 1 day ago
More updates...

My Amazon Wishlist

feeds

Copyright

If you steal any content and claim it as your own, expect them stealth ninjas at your door within a matter of minutes. You've been warned.

Gospel-Centered Legalism

about

Links

Search

Archives

feeds

Copyright