In Defense of a Christ-Centered Hermeneutic OR A Reply to Dr. Eric Hankins

Yesterday, Dr. Eric Hankins wrote a piece for SBC Today concerning The Gospel Project (TGP) and Christ-centered homiletics.  Hankins, recently read the dissertation of Dr. Jason Allen.  Allen, is the new president of MBTS.  Hankins was intrigued because Allen’s dissertation was on contrasting human author-centered hermeneutics of Walter Kaiser with that of the Christ-centered homiletics of Edmund Clowney and Sidney Greidanus.  Hankins was actually surprised that Allen sided with Kaiser and “is calling into question the conventional wisdom of ‘Christ-centered’ hermeneutics”. The point of the article seems to be to question the hermeneutic behind TGP. 

It will be my argument that it is not The Gospel Project’s hermeneutic that Dr. Allen is critiquing.  At the end of the day he might.  I do not know.  But I am going to make the argument that the Christ-centered hermeneutics that Hankins critiques is nothing that I have been exposed to, nor is that which he critiques the Christ-centered hermeneutic that is present in TGP. 

I will readily admit that my exposure to Greidanus and Clowney is limited.  I am also fairly limited in my exposure to Kaiser.  Perhaps that is why what Hankins said seems nothing like the Christ-centered hermeneutic that I employ and it sounds nothing like that which I find in The Gospel Project.

The claims that are foreign

Hankins takes several jabs throughout this piece.  They seem to be directed towards the Reformed community.  Caught in the crossfire of these jabs are the writers and editors of The Gospel Project.  I will highlight a few of these jabs.

Hankins refers to those that “pry texts out of context to put in theological presuppositions”.  While I am certain that there are those out there and even those that employ a Reformed Christ-centered hermeneutic I have not been widely exposed to that.  In every class that I have taken and every book that I have read on this topic it is continuously drilled in us to keep the text in its context.  At Southern to accuse someone of eisegesis is like accusing someone with musical taste of being a Justin Bieber fan. 

Dr. Hankins then proceeds to say that such eisegesis will insure that “every text might preach Calvinism”.  That is simply a ridiculous claim.  Sadly, some Calvinists are guilty of this.  But that which I have been exposed to in Christ-centered homiletics and within the pages of TGP such a claim is insulting. 

Throughout the article it is implied that those that use such a hermeneutic are not concerned with taking seriously authorial intent.  At one point he even accuses of “ignoring authorial intent” and “allegorical manipulation”.  Again, everything that I have been exposed to make a huge deal out of the original authors intention.  Goldsworthy, Wellum, Schreiner, and a host of others within the movement abhor allegorical manipulation. 

Lastly, Hankins accuses Matt Chandler of saying that the story of David & Goliath “has nothing to say about faithful living”.  I watched the video three times and did not find Chandler saying that.  Or even implying that.  He is not saying that the Bible is NOT to be used to discern how to live.  What he is saying is that the Bible is not fundamentally a to be sued to discern how to live.  There is a difference between those two statements.  And that is Chandler’s point in the David & Goliath video. 

What Hankins critiques in this article is not the Christ-centered hermeneutic that I am familiar with.  Nor, do I believe that it is that which is employed by the writers and editors of The Gospel Project.  Might some of the writers have been influenced by Greidanus & Clowney?  Perhaps.  But by and large I see them being more influenced by Criswell, Spurgeon, Broadus, and others.  In fact I see the vision of The Gospel Project something similar to the methods employed by those like Dr. Stephen Wellum.

In Defense of a Christ-Centered Hermeneutic

Stephen Wellum argues for interpreting Scripture through three horizons.  The first is the textual horizon.  This is where the interpreter attempts to discover what the original author is seeking to communicate in their texts.  Authorial intent and meaning is the first horizon. 

The second horizon is that of the epochal horizon.  Here the interpreter attempts to read the text in light of where it is in redemptive-history.  This assumes that Scripture is a progressive revelation.  This is not seeing the Bible as made up of different plans or epochs but that there is a unity within Scripture and revelation unfolds in time.  The key here is to see intertextual relationships and to “read texts in light of what has preceded them in reference to God’s redemptive actions and plan”.   

The third, and final, horizon is that of the canonical horizon.  If we are to take serious what the Bible actually is (a unified story) then it demands that we view it in its canonical context.  Therefore, every text ought to be understood in relation to the entire Canon of Scripture.  Wellum argues that “to interpret a given text of Scripture in its linguistic-historical, literary, redemptive-historical, and canonical context”. 

The argument being made for those promoting Christ-centered hermeneutics is that in some form or fashion the central motif of Scripture is the activity of God in providing redemption through His gospel.  Regardless, of how specifically it is worded the argument of those promoting such a hermeneutic are saying that Christ is the center of the revealed Word and everything points to Him (and his redemption) in some form or fashion. 

Exodus 23:19

One commenter on Hankins’ article asked how in the world Exodus 23:19 could be applied to Christ.  I doubt that I would ever choose this as a single passage to preach on, but if for some strange reason I did, here is in sum how I would point it to Christ. 

First, we have to consider the original context (the textual horizon).  Moses’ original intention is quite simple.  Don’t boil a young goat in its mothers milk.  Why did he say that?  Some believe that it had to do with not participating in a Canaanite magical practice.  Others see that it’s a reversal of the created order.  As noted in the ESV Study Bible, “the young goat should drink its mother’s milk and gain life from it, not be cooked in it”.  So, simply put in the text Moses’ intention is to tell the Israelites not to do this particular thing because it inverts the created order. 

But that commandment doesn’t come from nowhere.  It’s found in the middle of a story… 

Secondly, we have to consider its epochal context.  This command is originally given to the Israelites.  We know from the Exodus accounts that the Lord is calling Israelite out from among the Egyptians and other peoples for the sake of blessing them but also as a means to proclaim Himself to the nations.  Part of this means that they must live different from the rest of the world.  So, if this is a Canaanite magical practice then they need to model the ways of YHWH and not the feeble Canaanite gods that really are no gods.  If this is because of an inversion of the created order (which I think it is) then the Israel is to be an accurate representation of the God that redeemed them.  The God that redeemed them out of Egypt is a God that values created order.  Children should be cared for and nurtured by their parents.  As image-bearers of a loving Father this was to be reflected in the redeemed  community. 

But the story doesn’t stop with Moses and the Israelites.  It points to something far greater…

Lastly, we consider its canonical context.  The Israelites were to be image-bearers.  Even down to reflecting God in the way that they boiled goats.  Everything they did in their community was to reflect the Lord.  But as we know from the Bible they did not do that.  We also know that all of humanity is called to be image-bearers.  And just like the Israelites we also fail to accurately reflect God.  We choose instead to worship and serve creation instead of the Creator.  We follow Adam’s suit, as did the Israelites, in spreading our own sinful and rebellious images to the nations. 

Thankfully, Christ came.  Christ is the true Israel.  Christ is the second Adam.  He does what Adam, Israel, and we could not do.  He accurately represents God.  He perfectly obeys the Lord.  Humanity likes to invert the created order.  If our hearts were pure that command would not need to be there.  But it is, because our hearts tend to love what we should hate and hate what we should love.  Christ came to overturn that.  Christ came to provide redemption. 

If I were preaching this sermon (again I doubt I would) then I would be more full in my explanation of what Christ has done.  I would also probably discuss how because of Christ we reflect Him differently in our community than we do in these specific Israelite community laws.  But I provide this here just so that you can see how using these three horizons you can preach a Christ-centered sermon from that text. 

Would Moses be ticked off about that and say, “That’s not what I meant in that text?”  I doubt it.  Because I was faithful to his original command.  I also placed it within its progressive story.  And lastly I showed how Christ fulfilled the command.  Moses wouldn’t be upset by that—he’d be astounded that the One that they were looking for accomplished every piece of the Law even down to reflecting God in the way goats are boiled. 

5 Great Things About The #GospelProject

The leaders of The Gospel Project decided to engage the world in a Twitter chat today using the hashtag #GospelProject.  It quickly began trending on Twitter.  A few folks came into the chat wondering about this Gospel Project thing. 

I do not have any vested interest in The Gospel Project other than my respect for the people behind the project and my love for the gospel.  I’m not a Lifeway employee or anything of the sort.  I’m simply an associate pastor in Indiana that has decided to get on board with The Gospel Project curriculum. 

Before I give you my five great things I want to share a little of my story.  I have been doing student ministry for over ten years.  In the beginning I used a good amount of the curriculum that was pushed my way.  I tried all of the latest and hippest material to get our students engaged in the Word.  Most of it stunk.  So, frustrated with the moralistic therapeutic deism that was passed off as Christian curriculum I gave up on curriculum.  When I opened the pages of The Gospel Project and began teaching our students I was using curriculum for the first time in over 5 years.  And I love it.  Here are 5 reasons why (in no particular order):

1. Every week the teacher is encouraged to pursue additional resources.  These are great resources that will expand the teachers knowledge of the gospel and the topics covered. 
2. Everything is tied back to Christ. This is not just a cute little saying but in reality they just give Jesus a few props at the end of the lesson.  You can tell that the entire point of the lesson is Christ and His accomplishments.
3. My son loves it.  Isaiah is a growing little boy.  He’s loving Bible stories and he’s beginning to slowly understand the gospel.  Previous curriculum taught him how to be a good little boy.  This curriculum is teaching him every week of his need for Jesus.  I love that my son can tell me each week why Jesus was the hero of the story.  He’s a bright little boy (4) so I’m not surprised that he is able to following along really well.  But he can usually tell me the story, he loves the cards, and he gets that Jesus is the main point. 
4. It tells the Bible’s story.  Most other curriculum feels rootless.  What I mean is that you’ll hear the story of David and Goliath 10 times over a 5 year span.  You’ll talk about the day to day problems that we all face over and over again.  Yet, seldom are these grounded in the Bible’s big picture story.  The Gospel Project tells the Bible’s story and I love it.
5. God’s mission is always explicit.  We are never left with simply thinking about how this applies to my day to day life.  That is good and that is addressed.  But the thing that I love about The Gospel Project is it always expands my view of God’s work.  It draws me out of my own little world and helps me to see that God has a much bigger mission than making sure I get a good parking spot at Wal-Mart.  God’s mission of redeeming lost sinners is always explicit in every lesson. 

I could have given you a few more reasons but if you are looking for a curriculum to use for your Sunday school, your small group, or your mid-week Bible studies, then look no further than The Gospel Project.  It is a Christ-centered curriculum that tells the Bible’s story in an engaging way and always encourages the reader to a gospel-centered response of mission and life change. 

Check it out.

How I Explained the God-centeredness of God to a Group of Teenagers

All of the Sunday school classes in our church are going through The Gospel Project.  Last week we reflected on the statement, “In all God does, His first aim is to glorify himself”.  I asked the students whether they agreed with that or not. 

Some of them dutifully nodded their heads.  A few expressed consternation.  Something didn’t seem quite right about that statement.  So in an attempt to get everyone a little uncomfortable with this truth I shared with them a bogus reason for preaching the gospel. (Part of the illustration I tweaked from this Piper sermon)

I told them that my hopes in preaching that morning was that whenever I was finished everybody would give me a standing ovation and bask in my awesomeness.  I told them that every point that I made I expect worship for my artistry.  Whenever I make a point that is helpful to them it is my hope that they will continue to realize that I am a storehouse of helpfulness and that they will continue to come back to me for all their information.  My goal that morning in preaching is simply for their praise. 

They were, rightly, appalled. 

Then I shared with them a little from Ephesians 1.  I had them note that according to this text the fundamental reason why God does what He does in our redemption is “to the praise of his glorious grace”.  That means that God saves us and does us good ultimately so that we might give him a standing ovation when he is finished. 

Is that appalling? 

It seems that way at first doesn’t it?  Because when humans do things like that it seems off putting.  But it’s off-putting simply because we are not the most wonderful and precious being in the universe.  God is.  And to make anything else our hearts treasure and joy is fundamentally ripping ourselves off.  So, God is deeply loving to be God-centered and to transform our hearts in such a way that we are too. 

The Loveliness of the God-centeredness of God Illustrated

I feared they were a little confused still, so I tried sharing an illustration. 

Imagine that you and your family were going on a trip.  You pick the destination.  Pick something beautiful.  Something that would be breathtaking.  You can go to see the Grand Canyon.  Or a beautiful national park.  Or travelling in space.  Or seeing Niagra Falls.  Or the Rocky Mountains.  Or travelling overseas to see all of the awesome history, architecture, and things that you cannot see here in America.  Now imagine—which ever of these amazing places that you want to vacation--that your parents have one stipulation…

The entire time you have to stare at a mirror.  Everyone else in the family enjoys the beautiful sunset.  The glaciers.  The caves.  The mountain peaks.  But for the entire trip, except for driving through Kansas, you have to look at this mirror. 

You know that is a rip off because even though you are “the crown of creation” and uniquely made in the image of God it’s not your physical being that’s so awesome.  It’s that you are part of something bigger.  You weren’t made to spend your life looking in a mirror.  You were made to worship.  You were made to see these great and grand things, to marvel, and to see the beauty of the Creator.  It’s loving to let you enjoy the Grand Canyon and to be swept up by it’s magnificence. 

How much more, then, the Lord of glory who created the Grand Canyon? 

My Biggest Problem With the SBCToday Critique of The Gospel Project

It could easily be argued that the Conservative Resurgence was a battle for the Bible.  We fought hard to ensure that Southern Baptists would continue to be a “people of the book”. Through those tumultuous years Baptists displayed that we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture. 

Fast forward to the year 2012. 

Calvinism and Traditionalism is all the talk within the SBC.  The Gospel Project curriculum from Lifeway has been one prominent locale for this battle to wage.  And that is my biggest problem with the SBCToday critiques, thus far, concerning The Gospel Project; it’s more about whether or not it’s written by those with Calvinistic convictions than if its biblical. 

As noted in an article yesterday the first substantive critique from Pastor Ralph Green is filled with logical fallacies.  What bothers me most about that is not the existence of logical fallacies but the prominence of the genetic fallacy.  The genetic fallacy is “committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.” 

The center of the argument so far has been that more non-Southern Baptist theologians (often Reformed) have been quoted instead of Southern Baptist theologians that are not Reformed.  Therefore, the material is Calvinistic and ought to be rejected by Southern Baptists that are not Calvinist. 

It has yet to be considered whether or not what John Piper says in a quote is biblically correct.  Or whether Matt Chandler is proclaiming the gospel and biblical truth.  Or if at this point Francis Schaeffer absolutely nails it.  No, what has been considered is whether or not they are Reformed.  And that bothers  me because it means that we are no longer “a people of the book” because our criteria for accepting or rejecting an argument appears to no longer be the Scriptures but a particular theological leaning.

If you go through the Gospel Project and honestly find that it is not biblically accurate or biblically dangerous then by all means lets reject it.  But if it proclaims biblical truth, exalts Christ, and promotes a solid biblical theology let us embrace it even if we don’t agree with every jot and tittle of the theology of every contributor and person quoted. 

Are we a “people of the book” or a people that are more concerned about someone being Baptist than biblical?