Over the past few years I’ve heard more sermons about “leaving a legacy” than I can count. Parents are told to leave a legacy. Pastors are challenged to leave a legacy. Church planters are urged to build a legacy. It’s become part of the evangelical vocabulary, right alongside “calling” and “kingdom impact.”
Most of those sermons were good. They came from pastors I respect, and they were trying to do something Scripture actually wants done: get people thinking beyond their own lifespan, beyond their own comfort, beyond the next few years. I have no quarrel with that instinct. Scripture shares it.
So what’s the problem? I don’t think it’s anything a pastor would say out loud. I’ve never heard one announce that he’d like his name to be bigger than God’s, and I’d be surprised if many have even thought it. What worries me is quieter, and frankly harder to object to. Say a church names its new fellowship hall after the man who led the building campaign, and he doesn’t stop them. Give it a few years of that kind of thing and the language starts to slide from “glorify Christ” toward “make sure people remember you glorified Christ,” usually without anyone noticing it happened.
Part of what makes this hard to catch is that both goals keep a pastor equally busy. He preaches the same sermons and loses the same sleep either way, so from the outside, and often from the inside, there’s nothing to see. The two only come apart at a decision where his name and Christ’s would pull in different directions, and by then the habit has been forming for years. I suspect most men in that position couldn’t tell you when the shift happened. They’d just find, somewhere around retirement, that stepping aside feels like losing something they can’t quite name.
I’ll give you my conclusion now rather than making you wait for the last page. Scripture wants us building things that will outlast us. What it warns against is making our own name the point of the building. And on the question of whose name gets attached to God’s work, the Bible is surprisingly consistent: God puts His name on people, and I can’t find a case where people are invited to put theirs on Him.
One guess before going further, and I’ll be honest that it’s only a guess. Some of this vocabulary probably migrated in from the business world, where vision, impact, brand, and legacy have been leadership buzzwords for decades. Churches pick up the dialect of the culture around them like any other institution, usually without anyone deciding to. I can’t prove that happened, and it wouldn’t make the word wrong if it did. A phrase can come from a genuinely godly instinct and still be borrowed from somewhere other than Scripture. It just means we should check.
So let’s check. You won’t find the word “legacy” anywhere in the Bible, which means the work here is gathering up what Scripture says about related things like remembrance, reputation, and inheritance, and about faithfulness passed down through generations. Some of that is synthesis rather than straight exposition. I’ll say so when it is.
First, a fair hearing for the word
A pastor friend who read an early draft pushed back on this right away, and he had a fair point. Merriam-Webster defines legacy as “something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past.” If that’s all we mean, the word is about as biblical as it gets, since a good share of the Old Testament is one generation handing something to the next.
Look at whose point of view that definition takes, though. It’s written from the receiving end, where a legacy is something the next generation gets. The sermon version tends to swing the camera around to the person doing the leaving, so the conversation becomes about what you’ll be known for and how you’ll be remembered. As a finance guy I’d put it this way: the dictionary cares about the inheritance, and the sermon cares about the name on the will.
So I have no interest in banning the word. My objection is to one use of it, the one where your remembered name becomes the goal, because that runs against a pattern Scripture repeats over and over. If you mean it the dictionary way, you’ll find most of this essay agreeing with you.
Before building that case, though, it’s only fair to deal with the strongest passages against it. There are several, and they deserve better than a footnote at the end.
The case against my case
The Hall of Faith
I’ll start with the objection I raised against myself. If we’re not supposed to want to be remembered, why does Hebrews 11 exist? Why spend an entire chapter on the greats if we aren’t supposed to want to be one?
My father, who has spent his life preaching, pointed me to an answer inside the chapter itself. “These all died in faith, not having received the things promised” (Hebrews 11:13). They lived as “strangers and exiles on the earth,” looking for a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Nobody gets into Hebrews 11 on accomplishments. They get in on trust, for obeying God before He’d shown them how any of it would turn out, and the chapter says plainly that “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Hebrews 11:6). Read that way, the whole chapter is testimony.
The chapter also has something to say about names. “God is not ashamed to be called their God” (Hebrews 11:16). Notice who is attaching to whom. God had done the same thing centuries earlier, when He told Moses to call Him “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and then added, “This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations” (Exodus 3:15). So God’s own memorial name has Abraham built into it. I find that remarkable, partly because Abraham never asked for it. God volunteered.
Here’s the detail I keep coming back to. After all the famous names, Hebrews 11 finishes with people it never bothers to identify. Some were mocked and flogged, some imprisoned, some sawn in two, and some ended up wandering deserts and living in caves, people “of whom the world was not worthy” (Hebrews 11:36-38). So the Hall of Faith has an anonymous wing, and the author doesn’t seem bothered by that in the least.
The very next sentence then points away from all of them: “looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). The great cloud of witnesses exists to direct your eyes past itself.
So should you want to be one of the greats? In one sense, absolutely. Hebrews tells us to be “imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Hebrews 6:12). You’re supposed to want their faith. You’re just never told to want their plaque.
Hebrews 13:7 and the honor Scripture commands
“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7). That’s a direct command to remember specific people. If Scripture were flatly opposed to being remembered, this verse would be strange.
Look at the purpose clause, though. The leaders are remembered so their faith gets imitated. Abel “still speaks, even though he is dead” (Hebrews 11:4), and what he says is about faith, with very little about Abel. Getting remembered as a side effect of faithfulness belongs in a different category from chasing remembrance on purpose, and Hebrews 13:7 actually helps make that distinction.
The same goes for honor. Elders who lead well are worthy of double honor (1 Timothy 5:17). Paul tells the Philippians to hold men like Epaphroditus in high esteem (Philippians 2:29-30), and he tells the Thessalonians to esteem those who labor among them “very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13). That’s honor, and it’s something the church gives. Legacy, in the sense I’m critiquing, is something an individual pursues for himself. Those aren’t the same transaction. A leader can receive genuine, commanded honor from his church without that honor ever becoming the thing he was working toward. The direction of the gift is what keeps it clean.
Nehemiah’s “remember me”
Four times, Nehemiah prays some version of “Remember me, O my God, for good” (Nehemiah 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31). Of all the passages here, this is the hardest one for my argument, and it deserves an honest answer rather than a quick one.
Start with the word itself. When someone in the Old Testament asks God to “remember,” they usually aren’t worried He’ll forget the facts. It’s covenant language, closer to asking God to step in and act (Genesis 8:1; Exodus 2:24). The audience matters too. Nehemiah addresses every one of these prayers to God, and never once to the people around him.
The timing matters as well. Three of the four prayers come in chapter 13, after Nehemiah gets back to Jerusalem and finds his reforms falling apart. The Levites hadn’t been paid and had gone home to their fields (Nehemiah 13:10), the Sabbath had become a market day (13:15-16), and people had married right back into the alliances they’d sworn off (13:23-27). One of the pastors who reviewed this essay suggested reading these prayers next to Psalm 27:10: “For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the LORD will take me in.” I think that’s right. Nehemiah is watching the people forget, and he asks God not to.
Was Nehemiah also thinking about how history would treat him? Maybe. Good interpreters disagree, and I can’t settle it. The text never rebukes him for asking, though, and he made the request privately, to God, at the moment the people around him were forgetting what he’d done. That reads to me more like trust than self-promotion.
Isn’t legacy just a godly appeal to self-interest?
This is the objection I find most interesting, because it’s partly right.
God appeals to our self-interest constantly. The Father who sees in secret will reward you (Matthew 6:4, 6, 18). God “rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). Moses “was looking to the reward” (Hebrews 11:26). Jesus endured the cross “for the joy that was set before him” (Hebrews 12:2). And in Luke 14, Jesus goes further than I’d have expected. Take the lowest seat at the banquet, He says, so the host will move you up, and “then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you” (Luke 14:10). That’s an appeal to the desire for honor, straight from the Lord.
So maybe legacy sermons work the same way. Maybe they hook our pride and aim it at good behavior. Jesus does something like that with “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). He starts with a category we already have and then quietly takes it apart. It’s a fair question whether legacy language could serve as that kind of on-ramp.
Look at what Jesus actually does with that appetite. He moves the payoff. In Luke 14 the honor comes when the host walks over and moves you up, which is a very different experience from grabbing the good seat and hoping nobody objects. A few verses later He tells them to invite people who have no way of paying them back, “for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14). The reward is real. God hands it out, on His schedule.
Compare what He says about people who give and pray to be seen: “they have received their reward” (Matthew 6:2, 5). The Greek verb there, apechō, shows up in ancient business receipts with the sense of “paid in full.” As someone who teaches finance for a living, I find that wonderfully blunt. If you wanted the applause, you got it. Account settled. Nothing further is owed.
That’s the distinction. Scripture redirects our desire for reward. It never satisfies it with the one thing it condemns, a name we secured for ourselves. C. S. Lewis argued in The Weight of Glory that our problem isn’t that our desires are too strong but that they’re too weak: “We are far too easily pleased.” Being remembered is one of the easy pleasures. God is offering something considerably larger.
So where does that leave legacy sermons? If the hook pulls people toward discipleship and toward God’s reward, fine. The trouble starts when the sermon stops at the hook.
Making a name versus having one made
All right. With the objections on the table, here’s the positive case, and it starts with the sharpest contrast in the Bible.
In Genesis 11 a group of people say, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves” (Genesis 11:4). They weren’t trying to replace heaven. They wanted to reach it and put their own name at the top. God scatters them. I want to be careful about what exactly the story condemns, because most readings see more going on than name-seeking. There’s pride and self-sufficiency in it, and a flat refusal of God’s earlier command to fill the earth (Genesis 9:1). Making a name was one piece of that rebellion. It happens to be the piece that matters for this essay.
Now look at where the story sits. Chapter 11 ends with humanity scattered and confused, chasing a name of its own making. Chapter 12 opens with God speaking to one man and promising, unprompted, “I will make your name great” (Genesis 12:2). It’s hard to believe that placement is accidental. Genesis is a carefully arranged narrative, and the arrangement strongly suggests the author wants readers to compare the two: Babel’s failed self-exaltation sitting directly beside Abraham’s unearned exaltation.
Both stories end with somebody’s name becoming great, which is easy to miss. Babel’s builders went after it and lost everything. Abraham never asked, and God gave it to him anyway. What separates the two is who did the work and who got to decide. Babel’s greatness ended in a scattered population and an unfinished city (Genesis 11:8). Abraham’s was promised to one childless man and is still being talked about four thousand years later.
The rest of that sentence tells you what the greatness was for: “I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing” (Genesis 12:2). The next verse finishes the thought, “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). In other words, Abraham’s name was a delivery mechanism. Babel wanted a name that would serve Babel, and Abraham ended up with one that served nearly everybody else.
None of this means Abraham sat around waiting. He packed up and left his country, his relatives, and his father’s household for a land God hadn’t shown him yet (Genesis 12:1), and then he waited something like twenty-five years for a son. His name cost him plenty. So effort isn’t what separates him from Babel. He obeyed at real cost and still never got to decide how the story would end, and as far as I can tell he didn’t try to.
David and Elijah: preparing someone else’s success
David shows what that posture looks like over a lifetime. He spends two chapters of 1 Chronicles stockpiling gold, silver, and cut stone and handing Solomon detailed plans for a temple David will never see built (1 Chronicles 22, 28-29). The plans weren’t even David’s invention. He says they came “in writing from the hand of the LORD” (1 Chronicles 28:19). And God had already barred David from building it and assigned the job to Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:3). So David is stewarding a plan he didn’t originate in order to hand a finished success to someone whose name would be on the completed temple instead of his. David gets the planning. Solomon gets the credit. Scripture treats that as faithfulness, not as David missing out on something he deserved.
A pastor who read the draft pointed me to Elijah, who gives us another version of the same thing. At his lowest point Elijah tells God, twice, “I, even I only, am left” (1 Kings 19:10, 14). He’s sure the whole work rides on him. God mentions the seven thousand who never bowed to Baal, and then tells Elijah to anoint Elisha “to be prophet in your place” (1 Kings 19:16-18). I find that answer a little funny, honestly. A prophet convinced that everything depends on him gets prescribed a successor.
When the handoff comes, Elisha asks for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit (2 Kings 2:9). Elijah’s answer is refreshingly honest: “You have asked a hard thing” (2 Kings 2:10). My friend’s reading is that Elijah could only pass along what he had, and anything more would have to come from heaven. Then Elisha picks up the fallen mantle, strikes the Jordan, and asks, “Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?” (2 Kings 2:14). The first thing he reached for was Elijah’s God. If you want an example of the dictionary definition of legacy working the way it should, this is about as good as it gets: something real passes from one prophet to the next, and both of them end up pointing at God.
“I follow Paul”: the problem with attached names
If you want to see what happens when people start attaching names to God’s work, read the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians. The church had split into fan clubs. “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul could have enjoyed being on that list. Instead he dismantles it. “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13). He even thanks God he baptized so few of them, “so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name” (1 Corinthians 1:14-15). That’s a man actively detaching his name from God’s work.
Two chapters later he explains why. “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed... I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:5-7). Then he adds the warning that should sober every builder in the church. The only foundation is Jesus Christ, and “each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done” (1 Corinthians 3:11-13). What lasts isn’t whatever has our name on it. It’s whatever survives God’s fire, and God is the one handing out the reward for that (1 Corinthians 3:14).
The pastor friend I mentioned earlier sat under two men who led movements that grew into hundreds of churches, Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel and John Wimber of the Vineyard. He describes both as among the humblest men he ever knew, men who simply wanted to make Jesus famous, and he suspects that’s part of why neither wanted his movement labeled a denomination. Paul would have understood. My friend also noted that in some church traditions the building carries the name of a former pastor or a major donor. His verdict was Matthew 6:2: they have their reward. I’d add one qualification. A congregation that names something to honor a faithful servant may simply be giving the honor Scripture commands. The problem is when the servant went looking for it.
Paul and his reputation
Paul did care about his reputation, and he tells us why. When he organized the collection for the church in Jerusalem, he brought other men in to handle the money with him so no one could accuse him of skimming, since he was aiming at what’s honorable “not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man” (2 Corinthians 8:16-21). Saying goodbye to the Ephesian elders, he reminds them, “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel” (Acts 20:33). He wanted a clean record so his conduct couldn’t later be used against the gospel he’d left with them.
That’s also why the elder qualifications matter here. An overseer must be “above reproach” and “well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:2, 7; see also Titus 1:6-8). That isn’t universal popularity. Plenty of people thought poorly of Jesus. It’s closer to the absence of credible moral accusation, because a leader with a deserved bad name hands the devil an easy way to discredit the man and the message together. Proverbs says the same thing in its own way: “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches” (Proverbs 22:1). In Proverbs, a good name means a reputation for integrity among the people who actually know you, not fame among people who haven’t been born yet. That’s most of this essay’s distinction in a single verse.
Now set all of that next to how Paul talks about himself. He doesn’t even judge himself (1 Corinthians 4:3). He counts everything he once valued as loss for the sake of knowing Christ (Philippians 3:8). He’s been crucified with Christ, and it’s no longer he who lives (Galatians 2:20). If he were still trying to please man, he says, he wouldn’t be a servant of Christ (Galatians 1:10). He tells the church to imitate him only as he imitates Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). He expects to be followed, never to be the destination.
Set those two sides of Paul next to each other and most of the tension goes away. He treats his reputation like borrowed equipment. He keeps it in good repair because damage to it would land on the gospel, and he shows almost no interest in it for his own sake. A man who says he’s been crucified with Christ has no use for a personal brand. He only wants to make sure nobody has a legitimate reason to distrust what he’s carrying.
That combination shows up one last time near the end of his life. Awaiting execution, Paul tells Timothy he has fought the good fight, finished the race, and kept the faith (2 Timothy 4:6-7). Almost none of his concern in that chapter is whether people remember him. It’s whether the work gets finished and whether Timothy keeps going after he’s gone (2 Timothy 4:1-5). A man writing what he knows may be his last letter spends it on the mission, not on his memorial.
Jesus: the pattern itself
Philippians 2 shows all of this in a single life, and Paul is doing more than describing Jesus there. He’s telling the church to think the same way. “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). Everything that follows is the instruction. It was never meant as a theology lecture to admire from a distance.
Jesus existed in the form of God but didn’t treat equality with God as something to grasp for His own advantage. He took the form of a servant and humbled Himself further still, obedient all the way to death on a cross (Philippians 2:6-8). Only then does the passage turn: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name” (Philippians 2:9-11).
Paul isn’t explicitly alluding to Babel and Abraham here, so I won’t claim he is. But the pattern is strikingly similar. Jesus doesn’t grasp. The exaltation that follows is entirely the Father’s doing. John the Baptist said it in one line when his ministry gave way to Jesus’s: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). If you want a working definition of pursuing faithfulness while leaving your name in God’s hands, this is it. Every other example in this essay is a smaller echo of this one.
What Scripture commands us to build
None of this means the future is someone else’s problem. Parents are told to teach God’s commands diligently to their children (Deuteronomy 6:6-9). One generation is supposed to declare God’s works to the next (Psalm 78:4-7; Psalm 145:4). Paul tells Timothy to entrust what he’s learned to faithful people who will teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2), which is about as close as Scripture gets to a direct mandate for succession planning. Titus 2 has older men and women intentionally investing in younger believers (Titus 2:1-8). Proverbs commends leaving an inheritance to your grandchildren (Proverbs 13:22). And Jesus tells His followers to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20).
So I want to be clear here. Christians should absolutely build churches, schools, ministries, businesses, and families that outlive them. I’ve never doubted that we should build. What I keep asking is whether a given project is a monument to the builder or something meant to be handed off to the people coming after him.
Several of the people who reviewed this essay landed in the same place independently, which caught my attention. They said the legacy worth leaving is a testimony, an account of how faithful God has been. The psalmist prays, “Even to old age and gray hairs, O God, do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation” (Psalm 71:18), and James would add that testimony shows up in what you do: “I will show you my faith by my works” (James 2:18). What I like about the word is that a testimony is always about someone else. Try to make one about yourself and you’ve written a résumé.
Why not just keep the word?
If legacy in the dictionary sense is biblical, why not keep the word and clean up the meaning?
You can. I’m not going to wince every time I hear it. But Scripture already gives us better words for nearly everything legacy is trying to describe: discipleship, stewardship, faithfulness, inheritance, testimony, succession. Every one of those words points somewhere outside you, at the disciple, at the Master, at the God being testified about. Legacy, as it’s usually preached, points back at you. Your name, your mark, your remembered impact. Even used carefully, it keeps asking a slightly different question than the one Scripture asks. That’s not a reason to panic. It’s a reason to notice which word a sermon is actually reaching for, and why.
It’s also worth asking why God cares about any of this. “I will not give my glory to another” (Isaiah 42:8). That isn’t divine insecurity. God’s glory isn’t one good thing competing with our good thing for limited space. It’s what gives everything else its life and meaning, the way sunlight isn’t competing with a plant for attention. It’s what the plant runs on. A name we build for ourselves, set up as our own source of meaning and security, eventually stops being ambition and becomes something closer to idolatry: worship aimed at the wrong object.
A few questions to sit with
Everything here comes down to motive, which is awkward, because motive is the one thing Scripture cares about that nobody can see directly. Your congregation can’t see yours. Most of us don’t see our own very well either. So I’ll end this part with questions rather than a verdict. They won’t settle anything, but they tend to surface what more theology leaves buried.
Would you rejoice if someone else became more influential than you, in the same work you’ve given your life to?
Would you be content if no one remembered your name fifty years from now, as long as the work continued?
Would you make the same decision if nobody ever knew you made it?
Where this leaves us
Here’s where I think this lands. In its dictionary sense, legacy is a fine word, and handing something real to the next generation is what Scripture tells us to do. My concern is the slow drift from what we hand down to how we’ll be remembered. In most churches that drift doesn’t look like anyone putting his name above God’s. It looks like a name quietly attached to God’s work. Scripture pushes against that from Genesis on. Babel tried to make a name for itself and was scattered. Abraham received a name so that the nations could be blessed through him. When names get attached in Scripture, God does the attaching: “the God of Abraham,” “the God of Elijah,” a God “not ashamed to be called their God.” I can’t find a passage where He asks us to return the favor.
I’d point back to the people, because they make the case better than I can. David spent years stockpiling stone and gold for a temple with Solomon’s name on it. Elijah, convinced he was the last faithful man in Israel, got handed a successor. Paul was irritated with the Corinthians for starting a Paul fan club, which tells you how badly he wanted one. And Jesus refused to grasp at all, which is why the Father gave Him the name above every name. I honestly expected Hebrews 11, Hebrews 13:7, and Nehemiah to give me more trouble than they did. Read slowly, they don’t. The Hall of Faith closes with people nobody bothered to name. Hebrews 13 wants leaders remembered so their faith gets copied, which isn’t the same as keeping their names alive. Nehemiah was talking to God while everyone else forgot him. Even where Scripture appeals to our hunger for reward, it sends that hunger toward God, and I couldn’t find a single passage that sends it toward a name we built.
Ecclesiastes observes that no one remembers those who came before, and no one will remember those who come after (Ecclesiastes 1:11). That’s a wisdom observation about how unreliable human memory is, not a claim that literally nobody is ever remembered, and the book doesn’t stop there. It ends by saying the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Most pastors will eventually be forgotten outside the congregations they served. Church history is full of faithful men nobody outside their own churches could name today, and Scripture never treats that as a loss. Hebrews 11 even gave them their own section. They were sent to make Christ known, and if they did that well, He’s the one still being remembered.
If any of this is going to change how you actually pastor, it probably won’t happen by agreeing with an essay. Two concrete places to start. The next time you’re preparing a sermon that leans on legacy language, check whether the text actually supports that category, or whether it’s really offering discipleship, stewardship, inheritance, or testimony, and whether one of those words would serve the passage better. And take an honest pass through your own ministry vocabulary. How often do you reach for legacy compared to faithfulness, discipleship, or God’s glory? The ratio will tell you something this essay can’t.
Churches don’t need pastors whose names endure. They need pastors whose ministries make Christ impossible to forget.
Comments
Post a Comment