Edifying Biblical Instruction VS. Self-Righteous Legalism

[Micah]

This is something I've been mulling over and not been able to quite settle on, maybe someone can help me out.

I know in Purpose-Driven Christianity, it's just a bunch of "Life Principles" that if you follow, will make you and God happy. It's legalism with a smile. Plus, with the plethora of "christian", moralistic, therapeutic, pop-psychology books and talk shows around, how do we seperate from that? How does a pastor approach verses of instruction without making people think they can make God happy by trying hard enough to fulfill the instruction?

I know that ANY Biblical instruction without Jesus is legalism, but how does a sermon look if the text is completely instructive in nature?

Even with guys like Paul Washer. When he preaches on being a husband, it's not that I just feel conviction, but I feel like I need to try harder so I can please God more and I need to do better so I will be a greater man of God. I know that's wrong and it may just be my tendency toward self-righteousness, but it seems that if you are trying hard to follow all these Biblical principles, you're automatically entering into self-righteousness. I don't get the relationship between peity and grace.

I'm a perfectionist, and beat myself up really bad every time I make a mistake. It's hard for me to see God as anything other than disappointed at me when I see all this failure in my life. When I see all this stuff I should be doing better, all I'm doing is setting myself up to fail every time. So if you're a pastor, how do you preach on an instructive verse without making people feel like that?

I just don't understand the balance between edifying Biblical instruction, and moralistic, self-righteous legalism.

Can anyone help me out?

 

[KMK]

I try to follow the pattern established in Paul's letters: Indicative -- "Therefore" -- Imperative. Establish the doctrine, apply it to the individual, and then help the individual express his gratitude through piety.

 

[jwright82]

The Lutheran distinction between law and gospel was helpful for me.
Law= what we are required to do as well as what we do.
Gospel= what God has done and promises to do that we don't deserve.
So when we hear the sweet decleration and promises of the Gospel we respond with obediance, but when we get self-rightous and feel that we deserve something than the law's demands beat us down and we can only find satisfaction in the sweetness of the gospel, keeping in mind that we don't deserve it.

Two semi quotes from Luther are great here: (they may not be exact but they hit the marrow of them)
"In salvation the only thing we contribute is our sin..."
And
"Hanging on the Cross paying the penalty for our sins is the last place in all of creation that Christ deserved to be, and kneeling before the Cross recieving God's forgivness is the last place in all of creation we deserve to be...."
I hope this helps, it also helped me to appreciate the Lutheran tradition, even though they get some things wrong.

 

[Idelette]

You know my Pastor has been preaching through the book of Luke, and just these past two Lord's Days he discussed legalism at great length. In all honesty, they have been the best sermons on legalism that I've ever heard! I think there are so many misconceptions as to what legalism is and what is obedience or sanctification. I highly recommend listening to them:

SermonAudio.com - Woe Unto the Pharisees

SermonAudio.com - Woe Unto the Lawyers

 

[MRC]

I have the same background as you (basically) and discovered that I had been taught to blend/confuse law and gospel. Reading Michael Horton's Christless Christianity REALLY openned my eyes to this issue and helped me see more clearly how to understand the imperatives and the indicatives. It also seriously challenged my understanding of "how" we are to engage in biblical ministry. Check it out.

 

[Jack K]

I know that ANY Biblical instruction without Jesus is legalism, but how does a sermon look if the text is completely instructive in nature?

Micah, thanks for the question. I think it's an important one.

What folks have said about indicative (what God has done for you) leading to imperative (what you must do for God) is very good. This is pretty much the pattern of every epistle and of the entire Bible. But what if there's no indicative in the particular passage you're preaching or teaching on?

I'd suggest the answer is to bring in more context. Expand the context of the passage until you see the grace of God that leads to that particular point. Expand to include the whole Bible, especially the saving work of Christ, if need be. Just as it would be a mistake to ingore particular specific passages, it's equally a mistake to look at a particular passage without seeing the context of (1) the whole book and (2) all the Scriptures. The Bible really wasn't intended to be consumed in verse-sized portions.

Then practice. One reason it's hard to teach the gospel from "instructive" passages is that our hearts are constantly inclined to be proving ourselves in the first place. Living by grace is contrary to our sinful nature. It takes practice and deliberate effort, or we will default into legalism.

You say you beat yourself up when you notice your mistakes in the light of God's commands. A lot of people do that. For such people, a little bit of law teaching goes a long, long way. The gospel of grace needs to be poured into them again and again. We who teach need to remember that, indeed, the indicative leads to the imperative. The best way to help people obey God is not to tell them to obey, but to tell what Christ has done for them.

 

[Micah]

Wow, awesome stuff! Thanks guys.

Here's another question.

What is our view of Christian self-help?

Such as talk shows about applying Biblical truth, mixing it with pop-psychology, and using it to better yourself and your relationships. If Jesus is never really mentioned, isn't this another form of legalistic self-righteousness? What about pastors who do this from the pulpit? Why is this wrong?

 

[KMK]

It certainly isn't the gospel, but I don't think I would call it legalism. Legalism is trying to make yourself more righteous before God by following rules. Some people follow rules, not to establish righteousness, but simply to live a more blessed life. (Or at least diminish the curses)

 

[Jack K]

What is our view of Christian self-help?

Such as talk shows about applying Biblical truth, mixing it with pop-psychology, and using it to better yourself and your relationships. If Jesus is never really mentioned, isn't this another form of legalistic self-righteousness? What about pastors who do this from the pulpit? Why is this wrong?

I'd generally rather Jesus wasn't mentioned. "Christian self-help" is an oxymoron. The essence of Christian faith includes the concept that we can't help ourselves, and to package all that self-help stuff under a Christian label really gives people the wrong idea about Christianity.

Aside from that, I suppose some of it may include wisdom and is okay if you don't take it too far and start to make an idol out of it. Preach it from the pulpit? I hope we're preaching Christ instead.

 

[Micah]

You guys have been so kind. Lots of wisdom. Thank all of you for helping me understand this more and being patient with me. I've been struggling with it for a long time, and now I think I've got it.

I would thank you all, but I need 15 posts! Sorry! I will as soon as I get there!

 

[KMK]

That's OK. You can thank us retroactively.