Recently in chapel at Baptist Bible Seminary, I spoke briefly on the topic of gospel-centeredness. I took my short sermon from that day and reworked it for this blog entry. Perhaps it may be of benefit to the reader.
Over the last few years I have been doing some thinking about being “gospel-centered.” Much of the motivation for such talk within evangelicalism is positive. This has taken on the aura of a mantra in many quarters. The rise of conferences like Together for the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition have value in calling the evangelical world back to the significance of the gospel of Christ and away from the vapid and vacuous forms of Arminianism that dominate much of the landscape, especially of the Electronic Church. I am not lambasting all Arminians, just those who are radical in their orientation and who present no clear gospel. For example, I often watch Joel Osteen on television to see if he is ever going to present the gospel of Christ so that people will understand it. I have not yet heard it.
On the other hand, I want to expand the discussion somewhat with the following question: “Should we be gospel-centered, God-centered, or Christ-centered?” Arguments can be made for each of these for doing theology. In doing ministry, especially at the local church level, one can see that the gospel would or should be prominent as the church reaches out to its culture. After all, the Apostle Paul told the Corinthians, “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2, NASB). However, should the gospel itself – understood here as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-8) – be the central interpretive motif for our entire theological worldview? I think that is a different question than ministry focus. Paul is not excluding or diminishing the value of other areas of doctrine. Nor is he necessarily saying that one’s entire worldview is built upon the gospel alone as the core.
Some would argue for God-centeredness. Culturally, the need is great. We live in an era where Islam is resurging and New Age mysticism with its Hinduistic ideas has such an influence in the Western world. The issue here is the nature of God. Within evangelicalism there is the open theism debate which also highlights the very being of God as crucial in our time. The debate over sovereignty has heated up with the Reformed resurgence. Biblically, can anyone imagine any theological category in the Word of God that is more important than God?
However, as I think about central interpretive motifs and know that people have a penchant for having them, I remember all the attempts to find the center of the message of the Bible. Some of the candidates for the unifying theme of the Bible have been kingdom, covenant, promise, redemption, dispensation, holiness, already-not yet, the glory of God, etc. To highlight one is sometimes to diminish the others. Does any one of these concepts actually integrate all the others? There exist also agenda-driven theologies such as feminist theology, the social gospel, black theology, and other attempts to take one issue and view all of theology through that one lens. Such an approach to doing theology does not take the text as it was meant to be taken and may devalue other teachings that the Word of God gives.
Lately, I have been talking more and more about Jesus-centered theology although I have an open mind as I continue to consider this issue. The advantage of a Jesus-centered approach over a gospel-centered approach is that it is inclusive of all that Jesus has done, is doing, and will do for His people. Does this succeed as a central interpretive motif? Probably not. However, it does fit with several passages that give gospel appeals. Even in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection chapter, the gospel lends itself to the discussion of the future resurrection of believers. Eschatology along with some of its details is not far behind Paul’s famous definition of the gospel (see 1 Cor. 15:20-28; 50-52).
Of special interest to me is Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17. The outline of the content of Paul’s message is clear: God is the creator; men must repent of their sins against Him; if they don’t, they will be judged; if they are judged, they will be judged by the man (Jesus) whom God raised from the dead (see 17:22-31). The framing of the gospel presentation includes some eschatology. There is a future time of judgment to come. In this way, the entire gamut of what Jesus does is highlighted, not just the Cross-work. The Cross is certainly the basis for the forgiveness of sins. One must depend upon the finished work of Christ on the Cross to be saved. However, the Bible often speaks of the “package” of all that Jesus does across time.
One other major passage which speaks of the career of Jesus, so to speak, would be Romans 8:29-39. There the promise is given that God finishes what He starts based upon the various aspects (past, present, future) of the ministries of Jesus. It is also interesting that both Peter and Paul highlight a future focus as the hope of oppressed Christians (1 Peter 1:4-5, 7, 13, 5:4; 2 Thess. 1:5-12). I doubt that Peter was actually devaluing the Cross when he made the following statement: “Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:13). This focus on the Second Coming was necessary and commanded with clarity. Yet theologically, one might be criticized in today’s theological climate as overdosing on eschatology if one emphasized this truth.
So, I have come to a conclusion. To emphasize the Second Coming at the expense of the First Coming is to spit on the Cross. However, to emphasize the First Coming and the Cross at the expense of Christ’s future glorious work is to deny the glory of the God that we worship. So, at least for the time being, you will find me emphasizing more and more a Jesus-centered theology that glories in all that Christ is and all that He does throughout all of history.
#1 by Stephen Stallard on September 10, 2009 - 10:17 PM
Quote
I had a question about your blog post about Jesus-centered theology. I remember from your class on Dispensationalism that we discussed the idea of a central interpretive motif. If I remember correctly, you asserted the following: the covenant guys have salvation, dispensationalists have God (point #3 of Ryrie’s sine qua non?), and PDer’s have Christ. I believe you said that we should have a doxological center for theology; but also that a return to the Niagara era emphasis upon Christ as a devotional center would be healthy. You thanked the PDer’s for reminding us of the centrality of Christ. My mind may be foggy on the details, and I may be confusing a theological center with a purpose for history…but that’s what I remember.
So, in light of my class recollections…how does that reflect with your blog post? Have you changed anything? Are you moving towards a Christological focus at the expense of anything else?
Would it be appropriate to say that Creation, Redemption & Judgment are the themes of history, Jesus is the central figure of history, and the whole point of history is to bring glory to God?
Just looking for some clarification,
Stephen
#2 by Mike Stallard on September 11, 2009 - 8:39 AM
Quote
Stephen,
Thanks for reading my musings on this point. I tend to word Ryrie’s 3rd point a little differently. I call it the doxological purpose to biblical history rather than the doxological unifying theme of the Bible. The difference may not be great in what they mean. However, I am trying to do justice to the later 1800s and early 1900s dispensationalists who got it right when they talked about the biblical purposes (plural) of God in history. The rubric under which I state it is the doxological purpose of biblical history. Although this encompasses much and some dispensationalists see the ultimate uniqueness of dispensationalism in its philosophy of history, I do not see this as the same issue as what is the center of one’s theology or worldview. I see it as one aspect. As my article suggests, I am hesitant to affirm that there is “one” central theme of the Bible which integrates all else. Devotionally that is another matter since around God and Christ revolves all of our devotion and worship. So I am trying to separate some things here that are sometimes combined in theological discussions.
Mike S
#3 by Stephen Stallard on September 11, 2009 - 7:22 PM
Quote
I guess I’m a lit confused by the difference between a Central Interpretive Motif and the center of our theology. You said Christ was “probably not” a satisfactory CIM. But you also said you were moving toward a Christ-centered theology.
In your response to my comment, you mentioned a devotional center, contrasted with a theological center (I do remember this distinction from class). Is this the answer? Are you making a subtle distinction here between various centers, if in fact, we have one at all?
#4 by Mike Stallard on September 11, 2009 - 8:22 PM
Quote
I view the CIM or center of our theology from the vantage point of a theological system. It is what integrates the bulk of one’s system. I believe we all gravitate to something, but that we should resist the urge to some degree so as not to overpower other areas of theology with our choice of integrating theme. I advocate balance as much as possible.
#5 by Luke Johnson on January 31, 2011 - 11:11 PM
Quote
Could I ask what your take is on the Christ-centered preaching emphasis (e.g. Dennis Johnson, Bryan Chapell), particularly popular among Presbyterians? I have a friend studying at Westminster and I’ve been introduced to this distinctive. There seems to be a lot of merit to it and a biblical precedent. In Luke 24, Jesus explained to the two disciples how all the Hebrew Scriptures testified of the Messiah’s death, resurrection, and entrance into glory. Plus, the subsequent apostolic preaching in the book of Acts seems to reflect this emphasis which Jesus had taught to his disciples. I would be interested to hear a dispensational perspective on how it is that all the Scriptures testify to Christ and how that informs our preaching. Maybe you could suggest to someone to review one of the major works by the authors mentioned above or even mention to doctoral students or seminary profs the idea of a new work from a sovereign grace dispensational perspective on Christ-centered preaching that takes into account the model of apostolic preaching. I’m throwing around some thoughts because it seems to be profoundly important for a biblical view of Christian preaching.
Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Luke
#6 by Mike Stallard on February 1, 2011 - 5:16 PM
Quote
I have some trouble with the way that Luke 24 is sometimes used. It is used to suggest that you read every verse in the Old Testament through a prior Christological grid. I don’t think that is what Jesus is saying. He is not saying that every verse says something about him. He is saying that throughout the OT there are references to the Messiah (in various forms) and he is the fulfillment of those promises that come from all areas of the OT (e.g., Gen. 3:15; Deut. 18; Isa. 53; Dan. 7, etc.). We can still be Christ-centered in our theology without overstating the Christology of the OT. We do this by recognizing all that Christ has done in both the First Advent and Second Advent and how he fulfills various passages for each.
#7 by Luke Johnson on February 2, 2011 - 6:41 PM
Quote
Thanks for your thoughts. I realize that there are many attempts to find Christ in the Old Testament which end up mistreating the text. What about ways in which the OT gives expectation of the Messiah other than direct reference: types, themes, etc? Obviously, divine judgment for sin, substitution, reconciliation, regeneration (although national), faith, repentance, perseverance, the coming reign of Christ, and so on are major themes in the OT. I understand that too often covenant theologians read the Bible backwards. Dispensationalists attempt to read it forwards through the progress of revelation. Perhaps there’s a way to accurately exegete and exposit a passage in its OT context first, then bring the fullness of biblical revelation to bear on the themes and doctrines of the passage. We would be reading the Bible forward, yet pointing towards the fullest revelation God has given us in His Son. This may not be too hard for, say, Genesis 22, but there might also be other opportunities to preach the OT in relation to Christ without allegorizing.
Just another thought. I believe I remember reading in one of your articles that older dispensationalists often put more emphasis on typology than many are comfortable doing today. What’s your take on their typology?
Thanks again for you help.
#8 by Mike Stallard on February 2, 2011 - 7:16 PM
Quote
A couple of thoughts here. I did my Ph.D. dissertation on the theological method of Arno C. Gaebelein, one of the associate editors of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909). His typology is embarrassing and in many cases is nothing but allegory. I respect much of what he does but not that. He imposes the pattern of the panorama of the ages upon almost any narrative at will. We must be careful that theological conclusions which stem from a synthesis of one or more passages are not used to actually govern exegesis (top down as opposed to my preferred bottom up — inductive Bible study). That is the danger. Typology in my view is a NT issue. The exegesis of the NT helps us to see the type-antitype. I do not view it as necessarily being available for OT audiences. I limit types (with few exceptions) to those actually mentioned in the NT. This does not devalue Christ in the Old Testament but helps us see the OT as it really is instead of forcing prior theological conclusions upon it. A true inductive Bible study of the OT will yield a proper Christology rooted in the text. The truth will never denigrate Christ. It is the Word of His Spirit and we should take it as it is given and not with prior commitments to certain ways of expressing Christ.