# A helpful article on preaching



## reaganmarsh (Jul 17, 2015)

I was encouraged by this article over at 9Marks and want to share it with y'all:

http://9marks.org/article/a-gospel-centered-sermon-is-a-gospel-shining-sermon/

Hope you find it helpful as well.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2015)

From the article:



> There is a way of preaching the Bible—even verse-by-verse, even the parts about Jesus—that is damning.



Does the article presuppose that chronological verse-by-verse preaching (expository preaching through the books of the bible) is the best method of preaching?


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jul 17, 2015)

Hi Perg,

You raise an interesting question. He doesn't seem to say which approach to exposition is best (ie, v by v or more of a Spurgeonic angle or ____), does he? It seems that he paints more with a broad stroke and wide latitude in his article, sort of a big umbrella of all who would consider themselves to take an expository approach to preaching. 

Upon further reflection, being a 9Marks article, it seems that he assumes the basic definition or practice of exposition as being a given, and is interested in the mechanics and attributes of what qualifies as *gospel* preaching.


----------



## timfost (Jul 17, 2015)

reaganmarsh said:


> I was encouraged by this article over at 9Marks and want to share it with y'all:
> 
> http://9marks.org/article/a-gospel-centered-sermon-is-a-gospel-shining-sermon/
> 
> Hope you find it helpful as well.



Thanks for sharing the article.

Although the intent seems to be well meant in the article, I think it makes some assumptions that shouldn't be overlooked.

1. Sermons revolving around redemption and Christ's work do not necessarily communicate the whole counsel of God. Luke 24:27, often used to justify this kind of "Christocentric" preaching, should not be interpreted as every single passage of Scripture pointed to Christ, but that the Scriptures from start to finish pointed to Him as they do the other two Persons. Since we believe in a Triune God, we need to be careful not to isolate one Person or revolve all Scripture around Him in a way that gives Him preeminence over the Father and Spirit. This leads to all kinds of error.

2. The whole counsel of God does not only emphasize one attribute of God or primarily focus on one attribute. The whole counsel of God emphasizes all of His attributes because the purpose of Scripture is not the salvation of man _in itself_ but the _glory of God._ Since God is glorified not only in salvation, we need to be careful in how we speak about salvation as we often treat it as the most important aspect of God's glory. Rather, salvation is one of the most dramatic expressions of His mercy, which is just one of His attributes. 

3. Preachers should be careful to emphasize the whole counsel of God, because evangelistic sermons are not necessarily "solid food" (Heb. 5:12-6:2). The Levites mentioned in the article did not preach the whole counsel of God because they left Christ out of it!

Hope this is helpful...


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jul 20, 2015)

Hi Tim, sorry I've not been able to reply to your post before now! It's been a busy weekend with an evangelistic outreach, normal Lord's Day worship services, trying to help a couple who is heading toward divorce, and then company in town on top of it all! 

You raise some good points and I certainly agree that the article could use some fleshing out to be more balanced in terms of intentional and visible (ie, not merely assumed) Trinitarianism, a more holistic approach to the attributes of God, and a purposeful design to preach the whole counsel of God. 

Do you think that a Christocentric hermeneutic is *necessarily* at odds with these 3 important goals? Our election and adoption by the Father and our indwelling of the Spirit are only in Christ; the fullness of all that God is (ie, his attributes) dwells in Christ bodily, so that we see the glory of the triune God shining in his face; and all of Scripture is to be understood in light of him in an ultimate fashion (ie, we receive promises and blessings, we are warned and disciplined, we are empowered to serve and given examples of what that ought to look like) as we look at Jesus.

Not picking a fight, just curious for your thoughts. I certainly share your concerns and seek to balance the 3 you listed while employing a Christocentric lens in my own preaching and teaching. But it can definitely be a tension at times. I generally attempt to let the immediate text/context set the expositional agenda and then to read it in light of the person and work of Christ. But I'd love to sharpen my thinking on things. 

Grace to you.


----------



## timfost (Jul 22, 2015)

Hi Reagan,

Sorry for the delay-- it's been a busy week so far. 



> Do you think that a Christocentric hermeneutic is *necessarily* at odds with these 3 important goals?



I'm not exactly sure how you would define "Christocentric." I believe the Scriptures as a whole are "Theocentric," so I think we should always look at Christ in the context of the particular Scripture in view, knowing that we can only come to God through Him. 

Eph. 1:3-14 beautifully speaks about each Person of the Trinity according to their individual personalities and properties without compromising their "oneness."

Many people define the "gospel" from Rom. 1:16, but I think that Paul gives us a foundation for defining the gospel in Rom. 1:1-6 (notice the Trinitarian emphasis).



> Our election and adoption by the Father and our indwelling of the Spirit are only in Christ



I completely agree! But I could also just as accurately say that "our redemption accomplished by Christ is only in the election and providence of the Father." Or, "our faith in Christ is only due to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit." In other words, I fear that "Christocentric" preaching can hinder the other Persons so that we single out redemption and mediation as more important than providence and sanctification.



> and all of Scripture is to be understood in light of him in an ultimate fashion (ie, we receive promises and blessings, we are warned and disciplined, we are empowered to serve and given examples of what that ought to look like) as we look at Jesus.



I agree that we receive the promises and blessings through Christ as well as a perfect example for life. But I have trouble singling out Christ from the list, since we receive the promises and blessings because the Father decreed and provided and the indwelling Spirit disciplines and empowers to follow Christ's example. 

I hope that makes sense... This subject has been on my mind due to personal experience. I was part of a church that focused so much on the work of Christ, that I almost entirely forgot about prayer (addressed to "Our Father...") and sanctification. It often manifested itself in interpreting Scripture through allegory so that I could fit it into my understanding of Christ. Once the Scriptures (OT especially) were interpreted through allegory, Scripture became incredibly subjective. However, when I was confronted with Scripture as a whole, it became clearer because I no longer had to impose a "Christocentric" hermeneutic to every passage. 

I explain this so that you can understand my concern. I do not suggest in any way that what you mean by "Christocentric" is the same as my former application.

We may be saying the exact same thing, though from different angles.  

God bless you and your ministry!


----------



## Jack K (Jul 23, 2015)

It's a good article. It rightly points out that some of what passes for "Christ-centered" preaching really doesn't deserve that label. Thanks for sharing it, Reagan.

Tim, I appreciate your desire not to ignore the Father and the Spirit, and I certainly agree with you about the problems of allegorical preaching, but I don't believe it's possible to be too Christ-centered. Looking at Christ, if we do it rightly, shows us all of God.

When the disciple Philip responded to a particularly Christ-centered statement with the argument that it would be good enough to see the Father (and said it to Jesus' face!), Christ corrected him: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” (John 14:9–10). Although we do look to the entire Bible for a full picture of God, the most complete picture we find is Jesus himself. The light of the knowledge of the glory of God is seen in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6). So a focus on Jesus is not just Christ-centered but also God-centered.

Plus, to focus on Jesus is the godliest activity imaginable. John Owen pointed this out quite brilliantly in his _Christologia_: “Nothing renders us so like unto God as our love unto Jesus Christ, for he is the principle object of his love; in him doth his soul rest, in him he is always well pleased." Focusing on Jesus isn’t ignoring the Father—it’s imitating him.

(Notation for the sake of the publisher: These points are lifted from _Show Them Jesus_.)


----------



## timfost (Jul 23, 2015)

Hi Jack,

I really appreciate your points. In no way do I want to denigrate the work of Jesus or ignore the passages you brought up. Christ is the image of the invisible God!

But I still do think that it is possible to effectively separate Christ from the Trinity, not because the other Persons are denied, but because they are not given due reverence. For example, most charismatics I know would not deny the Trinity, but their focus on the Spirit effectively isolates Him from the others so that the primary emphasis of their worship is experiential. Yes, we should experience the Spirit's presence, but the emphasis should be balanced or else it becomes lopsided.

I also think we would be hard-pressed to see a Christocentric sermon preached to the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31).

Thoughts?


----------



## Jack K (Jul 23, 2015)

timfost said:


> I also think we would be hard-pressed to see a Christocentric sermon preached to the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31).



Isn't that sermon designed to lead the listeners to Christ? The fact that Paul got cut short when he started talking about Jesus doesn't mean mean he didn't intend to go there. In fact, I would say the several sermons we have in Acts are all good models of Christ-centered preaching.

You and I may have different impressions arise when we think of "Christ-centered preaching." It sounds like you've heard some sermons that go by that label but were actually poor sermons. That surely happens. Yet, I don't see any evidence in Scripture that the Father or the Spirit would be the least bit concerned that they are failing to receive their "due reverence" because of too much attention paid to Christ. On the contrary, they are delighted when attention is paid to Christ. It is not possible to honor him too much.

Of course, I would agree that it is possible to ignore the Father or the Spirit to our detriment. But I don't see how we fend this off by backing away from Christ-centered delight. When someone shows kindness to my son I don't get concerned that I'm being overlooked. That person does me no favors by turning his attention away from my son and to me for the sake of balance. His kindness toward my son is already the best possible kindness to me as well. How much more so within the Trinity where love is perfect, and where the Son has been chosen as the One to show us the image of the invisible God.


----------



## timfost (Jul 23, 2015)

Jack K said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > I also think we would be hard-pressed to see a Christocentric sermon preached to the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31).
> ...



It seems that the point of the sermon was to lead them to the sovereign God. Interestingly, Christ is brought up at the end of the sermon as Judge. Many of the other more "Christ-centered" sermons in Acts are to the Jews, who certainly needed to have Christ preached to them since they thought they could come to God apart from Him. 



> You and I may have different impressions arise when we think of "Christ-centered preaching." It sounds like you've heard some sermons that go by that label but were actually poor sermons. That surely happens. Yet, I don't see any evidence in Scripture that the Father or the Spirit would be the least bit concerned that they are failing to receive their "due reverence" because of too much attention paid to Christ. On the contrary, they are delighted when attention is paid to Christ. It is not possible to honor him too much.



Yes, I have heard a lot of poor sermons.  Perhaps it might help if we qualified what "Christ-centered" preaching means. What are your thoughts on the questions below?

1. Should every sermon mention Christ?
2. Should every sermon call people to faith in Christ?
3. Is there a difference between an evangelistic sermon and a weekly sermon given to a more mature congregation?

Thanks so much for your thoughts! We may simply be saying the same thing but coming from different angles.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 24, 2015)

Sure, I'll play.



timfost said:


> 1. Should every sermon mention Christ?



As a general rule, yes. The minister is a minister of the gospel. The gospel is not the gospel without Christ.



timfost said:


> 2. Should every sermon call people to faith in Christ?



As a general rule, yes. This does not necessarily mean that every sermon should call people to _first-time_ faith in Christ. But the entire Christian life, start to end, is a life of faith. Faith is an integral part of all Christian growth, and must continually be nurtured alongside all other Christian endeavors. If we aren't calling believers to faith in Christ, what are we calling them to? Faith in self? Faith in trying harder? Obedience apart from faith? Theological knowledge apart from faith? It is generally a mistake to urge believers to undertake Christian endeavors without also strengthening their faith in Christ as a part of that effort.



timfost said:


> 3. Is there a difference between an evangelistic sermon and a weekly sermon given to a more mature congregation?



Sure, there's a difference, although there also may be considerable overlap and many of the best sermons accomplish both. A good preacher will judge his hearers' needs and spiritual condition, and speak accordingly. Yet, we must not think the needs of the unsaved are completely different from the needs of those who are already saved. All need Jesus, all the time. All need faith. All need to repent. All need the Spirit's work. All need to see both the kingship and the kindness of Christ. It would be a mistake to think believers have moved on from needing to rest in Christ by faith. (Such faith is displayed in many ways and is accompanied by many other qualities that may become part of a good sermon, so don't think of an exhortation to faith in Christ as something just aimed at unbelievers and the particular ways they need to practice faith. A sermon to believers will urge them to practice faith in ways we don't yet expect from unbelievers.)


I would describe Christ-centered preaching, at its core, as preaching which acknowledges that the overall purpose of the entire Bible is to bring glory to God by evoking faith in Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 24, 2015)

If a Buddhist or a rabbi or an atheist preaches an exegetical sermon on a text from _*any*_ part of the Bible, which for content was indistinguishable from some Christian minister's exposition of the same before his congregation--none of the four are engaged in _*Christian*_ preaching worthy of the name.


----------



## timfost (Jul 24, 2015)

Jack K said:


> Sure, I'll play.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes... But is it the gospel without the Holy Spirit? Just because the name of Christ is not mentioned does not necessarily mean that He is denied. How then was the gospel preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8)?


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Should every sermon call people to faith in Christ?
> ...



Yes, I agree that all preaching should urge people to put their faith in God. Whenever we see the works of God, there is implicitly this call to faith. My only question is must it always be _explicit_? If so, what does Paul mean by Heb. 6.1?


> I would describe Christ-centered preaching, at its core, as preaching which acknowledges that the overall purpose of the entire Bible is to bring glory to God by evoking faith in Christ.



Fair point. I will ponder. 

Again, thank you for the discussion. It's really helpful.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 24, 2015)

timfost said:


> Yes... But is it the gospel without the Holy Spirit? Just because the name of Christ is not mentioned does not necessarily mean that He is denied. How then was the gospel preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8)?



Just remember that Abraham, like all people who have ever been saved, was saved through faith _in Christ_. The fact that his faith was in a Savior he could not yet see from his point in time does not mean he was saved by some other means.

It is biblical language to describe the gospel as the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are many things (like the work of the Spirit) we do not wish to ignore within the gospel, but the person and work of Christ are at its core.



timfost said:


> Yes, I agree that all preaching should urge people to put their faith in God. Whenever we see the works of God, there is implicitly this call to faith. My only question is must it always be explicit? If so, what does Paul mean by Heb. 6.1?



I might buy that interpretation of Hebrews 6:1 if the book went on to ignore faith in Christ, but it does not do this. Rather, it continues to weave Christ into every topic and to say much about faith.

I suppose Christ would not have to be explicit in every sermon, but it's hard to imagine many situations where being non-explicit would be more helpful, since what is assumed is quickly forgotten. If the problem is that every sermon sounds like the same old message, then the fault lies with a preacher who only knows a handful of ways to talk about and apply Christ and faith. The problem is not too much Christ, but too little.

I do hope I'm not sounding argumentative. These are good things to discuss. I appreciate the interaction.


----------



## timfost (Jul 27, 2015)

Jack K said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Yes... But is it the gospel without the Holy Spirit? Just because the name of Christ is not mentioned does not necessarily mean that He is denied. How then was the gospel preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8)?
> ...



I agree. However, we should note that Abraham was justified by believing God (Gen. 15:6). Believing God justified him through Christ, but the person of Christ was not necessarily the object of his faith. All this to say that faith in God and faith in Christ should not be a distinction since Christ and His Father are One.


> It is biblical language to describe the gospel as the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are many things (like the work of the Spirit) we do not wish to ignore within the gospel, but the person and work of Christ are at its core.



I agree. However, I'm not sure if we can say "its core" as I do not want to in any way prioritize God's works. Certainly from our perspective Christ is the core. It is also just as accurate to call the gospel of Christ the gospel of God (Rom.1:1).


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I agree that all preaching should urge people to put their faith in God. Whenever we see the works of God, there is implicitly this call to faith. My only question is must it always be explicit? If so, what does Paul mean by Heb. 6.1?
> ...



It seems that often when we consider the work of Christ we focus on redemption. At the end of most of Paul's epistles he applies the doctrines to the lives of his listeners. It seems that a more Pneumocentric emphasis might be in order when preaching through these sections.


> I do hope I'm not sounding argumentative. These are good things to discuss. I appreciate the interaction.



Not at all, Jack. I really appreciate your time and thought. It's wonderful to be able to discuss without arguing. At the end of the day, I really believe we are saying the same thing. I also hope that I'm not coming across as argumentative.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 27, 2015)

Tim, based on your last post I'm actually wondering if maybe you and I do have a substantial doctrinal difference. I don't see any need to qualify the statement that all who are saved find salvation through faith _in Christ_ alone, or that Christ is at the core of the gospel. Your interest in qualifying those statements might help to explain why you and I think differently about Christ-centered preaching. Something to consider.


----------



## timfost (Jul 27, 2015)

My only concern is that we don't isolate Christ from the Godhead. I have no problem with saying that we preach Christ and Him crucified or saying that we are saved through faith in Christ. But Christ is not Christ if separated from the Godhead. I am simply warning against imbalance that could potentially neglect providence and sanctification, for example. If you call it Christocentric preaching but do not neglect these things, the only difference we may have is in vocabulary.

Thanks again for the discussion!


----------



## Jack K (Jul 27, 2015)

Yeah, I don't see how preaching Christ means neglecting providence or sanctification. That would take an awfully truncated view of Christ, and of salvation. Certainly, the guy in the article Reagan linked to in the OP wouldn't do that, I don't think. Not as a 9 Marks guy.


----------



## timfost (Jul 27, 2015)

Wonderful! I've talked to a number of people who said "don't tell me about my sin, just preach Christ." In many ways Christ was pitted against Father and Spirit. It has made me careful to promote the unity of the Godhead.

Great discussion. I have thoroughly enjoyed talking with you about this. God bless!


----------

