The Dangers of Redemptive-Historical Preaching

Having looked at some of the strengths of redemptive-historical preaching, we shall now consider some of the dangers. Maybe “danger” is too strong a word, but there are at least weaknesses in the way that some redemptive-historical preaching is practised.

1. Under-application
While some redemptive-historical preachers do, eventually, get to personal application in their sermons, it would be fair to say that for many, sometimes inadvertently, application is minimized. For others it is deliberately and unapologetically removed altogether. Advocates of redemptive-historical preaching will often forcefully argue against personal application, as Bill Dennison does in this excerpt:

In redemptive-historical preaching, there is often a focus on history to the exclusion of ethics, an emphasis on the indicative at the expense of the imperative. This has been likened to the way a plane flies – impressive to watch but it does not touch the ground.

2. Confusion of one meaning with multiple applications
Redemptive-historical preachers emphasize the importance of determining the one meaning or sense of Scripture. This is commendable and confessional. Nevertheless, by deducing from one single meaning the imperative for only one single application, they confound two separate ideas. On the basis of this confusion they argue against discriminatory preaching that applies the text’s single meaning to a number of different kinds of hearers. Greidanus demonstrates this confusion when he writes:

Redemptive-historical preachers are, consequently, also opposed to preaching that is directed to one kind of hearer. For example, Greidanus quotes Holwerda: 

3. Limitation of preaching to one style
We agree that redemptive-historical preaching may form part of a sermon, and sometimes might even form the basis for a whole sermon. Where we disagree is in viewing it as the only legitimate form of preaching. We agree that seeing a passage in its wider historical context is an important part of the hermeneutical task, but it is not the end of the task. Redemptive-historical interpretation is a servant of the preacher, but should never become his master. There are many more legitimate genres of preaching warranted by the practice of the Lord and his apostles – and also vindicated by God’s blessing over many centuries.

4. Exclusion of Biblical examples
Advocates of redemptive-historical preaching cannot deny that the New Testament contains “exemplarist preaching.” Richard Gaffin admits that “a subordinate, even incidental, aspect of the Old Testament narrative is taken by James and is used to encourage New Testament Christians to continue patiently in praying….James knew that Elijah was a prophet with a role in the history of redemption, but he also knew that he was a man just like us, a sinner saved by grace, who battled to pray aright.”[5]

It is sad, however, to see some respond that just because the New Testament authors used hermeneutics like this, it does not justify us in following them. Such reasoning itself surely demonstrates that the exclusion of Biblical examples from preaching is unwarranted. Moreover, in Corinthians, Paul drew a straight line from Old Testament examples to his readers (1 Cor. 10; Heb. 12).

5. Overemphasis on definitive sanctification
Bill Dennison, asserted: “When Christ died, I died with Him. There is no imperative beyond that paradigm.”[6] While welcoming this emphasis on the oft-neglected truth of definitive sanctification, one wonders how any reader of the New Testament can ignore the innumerable imperatives of progressive sanctification that also fill its pages. 

6. Overemphasis on eschatology
When an important element of Christianity, such as personal ethics, is removed from Gospel preaching, something must fill the vacuum. That something for redemptive-historical preachers is often eschatology. The personal, the present, and the ethical are replaced with the impersonal, the future, and the historical. The concrete and the practical are replaced with the abstract and the philosophical. To demonstrate this last point, see if you can make sense of this extract from Kerux, the journal of redemptive-historical preaching.

None of us deny the importance of eschatology, but we do deny that it is given priority in the Bible over personal salvation and sanctification.

7. Mystical view of Christian life
Listen to this from Dr Bill Dennison, a prominent redemptive-historical preacher, and ask yourself if any ordinary person can possibly understand the inherent mysticism:

Jay Adams notes with alarm the Barthian parallels in such reasoning:

8. Dehumanizing of the Bible
Redemptive-historical preaching tends to de-humanize the Bible. It does this in two ways. First, as Tristan Emmanuel warns, it de-humanizes the Bible characters.[10] It does this by minimizing the full-blooded detail of their personal lives, by placing little or no value in them as historical persons, and by insisting that their only homiletical value is in how they relate us to the over-arching theme of redemption. Emmanuel goes on:

Second, as we have mentioned before, it fails to apply the Word in a realistic and personal way to the hearers. John R De Witt expressed concern about the lack of personal application in some of the preaching he was hearing. He traced this to the influence of redemptive-historical interpretation:

The great awakenings and revivals of the past touched the lives of ordinary men and women. Redemptive-historical preaching, generally, is not touching everyday human lives in a transformative way. It is often done by academics for academics.

While our priority is Christ and His promises, rather than the Christian and his experience of them, it is unhealthy to exclude preaching on valid Christian experiences such as strengthening assurance, and engaging in self-examination.

9. Failure to distinguish between morality and moralism

Advocates of redemptive-historical preaching confuse morality, which is biblical and Christ-honoring, with moralism, which is Christ-less and unbiblical, and end up condemning both. Biblical morality requires ethical change empowered by thankfulness for Christ’s forgiveness and prayer for Christ’s grace. Moralism is simply legalism or pharisaism – it sets out God’s requirements and requires obedience. It fails to point the believer to Christ as the reason, basis, and power for this obedience.  While we must shun moralism, we must promote morality and its Christ-centered basis. It is wrong to set up a false dichotomy between biblical history on the one hand and ethics or morality on the other.

10. Danger of Christomonism
While Christ is central and preaching Christ is vital, redemptive-historical preaching’s often exclusive focus on Christ runs the risk of substituting biblical trinitarianism with Christomonism. Even Richard Gaffin says, that some history of redemption sermons “seem to be a hermeneutical scavenger hunt for who can discover most Christological types and allusions.”[13]

Conclusion
Having looked art some of the strengths and weaknesses of redemptive-historical preaching, we must come to a decision about the place we will give it in our own ministries. I would suggest that we neither exclude it, nor use it exclusively. Redemptive-historical interpretation has an important part to play in many, if not most sermons. It can transform Christless moralistic sermons into Christ-centered sermons that empower biblical holiness. Also, we might, from time to time, preach a sermon that is largely redemptive-historical in method and style, as long as we avoid the dangers outlined above.

Tomorrow I want to look at Jonathan Edwards’ version of redemptive-historical preaching.

[1] Bill Dennison, from a report of a debate at Greenville Theological Seminary, entitled Redemptive-Historical or Traditional Preaching. Internet. Available from http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?119; accessed 27 November 2009.
[2] Can anyone help me find the source of the second part of this quote?
[3] S Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 166.
[4] Benne Holwerda, Wijsheid die Behoudt. Comp D Holwerda (Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1957), 77. Quoted by Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura (Toronto: Wedge, 1970), 100.
[5] Richard Gaffin, quoted by John Carrick in a debate at Greenville Theological Seminary, entitled Redemptive-Historical or Traditional Preaching. Internet. Available from http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?119; accessed 27 November 2009.
[6] Bill Dennison. Greenville Seminary debate.
[7] Kerux, Biblical Theology Primer. Internet. Available from http://www.kerux.com/primer.asp. 27 November 2009.
[8] Bill Dennison. Greenville Seminary debate.
[9] Richard Gaffin, quoted by Geoffrey Thomas, “Learning from the Life of Dr Klaas Schilder (Part IV)” in The Banner of Truth. Internet. Available from http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?617; accessed 27 November 2009.
[10] Tristan Emmanuel, “Redemptive-Deconstruction: Anti-System & A-Historical Currents in Redemptive-Historical Preaching,” The Chalcedon Foundation. Internet. Available from http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0112/011210emmanuel.php; accessed 27 November 2009.
[11] Ibid.
[12] John R De Witt, “Contemporary Failure in the Pulpit,” in Banner of Truth, Issue 210, March 1981.
[13] Richard Gaffin, quoted by Geoffrey Thomas, “Learning from the Life of Dr Klaas Schilder (Part IV)” in The Banner of Truth. Internet. Available from http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?617; accessed 27 November 2009.