What do you think?
Rate this book
Homiletics and Hermeneutics: Four Views on Preaching Today
Scott Gibson and Matthew Kim, both experienced preachers and teachers, have brought together four preaching experts--Bryan Chapell, Kenneth Langley, Abraham Kuruvilla, and Paul Scott Wilson--to present and defend their approach to homiletics. Reflecting current streams of thought in homiletics, the book offers a robust discussion of theological and hermeneutical approaches to preaching and encourages pastors and ministry students to learn about preaching from other theological traditions. It also includes discussion questions for direct application to one's preaching.
- GenresTheologyNonfiction
192 pages, Paperback
First published December 4, 2018
41 people are currently reading
52 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 3, 2023
A solid survey of the interpretive methodologies underlying preaching. I find Kuruvilla’s (Christiconic) and Langley’s (Theocentric) approaches to be more convincing than Chapell’s (redemptive-historic) and Wilson’s (law/trouble - gospel/grace). Chapell and Wilson privilege a particular theological theme in every sermon, while Kuruvilla and Langley allow for each individual passage to speak for itself. This can especially be seen with Kuruvilla’s pericopal theology and Langley’s exhortation to highlight the action of God in a particular text (acknowledging Trinitarian ontology, but allowing different texts to talk of distinct persons of the Trinity). Kuruvilla and Langley have hermeneutical lenses that can be adapted to the teaching of any individual text, while remaining true to their convictions for Christian proclamation.
September 8, 2020
Reading four distinct approaches to hermeneutics and homiletics in succession helped me see the strengths and weaknesses of each authors approach. Although I didn't find myself sold any one of the represented views it definitely sharpened my thinking on the subject.
August 17, 2020
The more I've explored these "four views on" type books, the more I've enjoyed them. They are informative, the back-and-forth format does a great job sharpening the strengths and examining the flaws of each view, and not matter what I believe coming in or going out of the book, I've found nuggets of truth from every writer.
Thankfully, I'm not alone in that, if the recent proliferation of these kinds of books is any indication. While the most well known are perhaps Zondervan's "Counterpoints" books, this particular volume is not one of them! Instead, Baker Academic decided to get into the game and boy did they do a great job!
Included in this book are four views on interpretation and application of biblical passages. As self-proclaimed "People of the Book," no other subject can be as life-changing and impactful as this. To live by the book means to rightly apply the book, to rightly apply the book necessitates rightly interpreting the book, to rightly interpret the book means to rightly understand it. The best method of examining that journey, from 2,000 year of text to modern living, is paramount to everything we hold dear.
As such, the editor chose four heavy hitters in the field of homiletics.
THE WRITERS
Abraham Kuruvilla and Bryan Chappell have both written preaching books that already belong in my library. A Vision for Preaching and Christ-Centered Preaching came highly recommended to me, and for good reason. Paul Scott Wilson has written several books on the subject, though his The Four Pages of the Sermon is probably the most well known. Kenneth Langley, while not an author, does serve as president of the Evangelical Homiletics Society, has a Doctorate of Ministry in Preaching, and serves as the senior pastor of Christ Community Church in Zion, Illinois.
The book format, if you are unfamiliar with it, is as follows: A generic introduction is written to highlight the importance of the selected subject. Each of the authors was selected to represent and defend his unique views, thus insuring each position is properly represented and ably defended. The first author presents his essay, and each of the others pen a direct response. Then, the second presents, and the others all respond to him. This continues until each author has made his main case and has had the chance to respond to the presentations of the others.
In the case of this book, the four views are, in their author's own words, presented below.
Sadly, none of the four presented a concise, highlighted definition of their view, so the following are more like summaries than single-sentence definitions.
Redemptive-Historic View, by Bryan Chapell
"In its context, every passage possesses one or more of four redemptive foci (that we need not keep strictly segregated for our understanding). The text may be predictive of the work of Christ preparatory for the work of Christ resultant from the work of Christ, and/or reflective of the work of Christ."
"The Bible teaches that our relationship with God is not based on what we do, but on what Christ has done—our faith is in his work, not ours (Gal. 2:20). Thus, a textually accurate description of biblical commands and ethical conduct does not guarantee Christian orthodoxy. Exhortations for moral behavior apart from the work of the Savior degenerate into mere Pharisaism, even if preachers advocate the actions with selected biblical evidence and good intent. Spirituality solely based on personal conduct cannot escape its human-centered orbit though it aspires to lift one to the divine."
Christiconic View, by Abraham Kuruvilla
"Thus, in texts, a view of life, a world in front of the text, is portrayed, and an invitation to that world is extended. Lives are changed as listeners respond by inhabiting that world, abiding by its values. That is, a text’s projected world-vision enables subsequent application. Therefore, the interpretation of Scripture cannot cease with the elucidation of its linguistic, grammatical, and syntactical elements: what the author is saying (semantics). It must proceed further to discern the world in front of the text: what the author is doing (pragmatics)."
"The biblical canon as a whole projects a world in front of the text—God’s ideal world, individual segments of which are portrayed by individual pericopes. Taken together, the integrated composite of all such segments is the canonical projection of God’s ideal world in front of the text—the plenary ideal world."
"This is the heart of the preaching endeavor: to recognize the function of Scripture and to bring to bear, pericope by pericope, divine guidelines for life from the Word of God upon the people of God, to align them to the will of God by the power of the Spirit of God, into the image of the Son of God for the glory of God. Through believers’ Spirit-powered obedience, facilitated by preaching, God is glorified as his people display the attributes of their holy God and manifest Christlikeness (Matt. 5:16; 1 Pet. 2:12): a christiconic undertaking."
Theocentric View, by Kenneth Langley
"Preaching should be God centered because God is God centered and wants us to be God centered in everything we do."
"This theocentric emphasis is not more narrowly christocentric. Though some Old Testament prophecies anticipate the Messiah, the effort of some preachers to find the second person of the Trinity in every prophetic pericope is misguided. Peter said that all the prophets testified about Christ (Acts 10:43; cf. 1 Pet. 1:21); but it’s one thing to say the prophets point to Christ, another to say every word they wrote is about Christ. One theological commentary claims, “The book of Jonah is all about Christ.” No, the book of Jonah is all about God."
Law–Gospel View, by Paul Scott Wilson
"The hermeneutic I use in preaching is law and gospel, or, to use somewhat less contentious words, trouble and grace. I assume that the Word of God is dual edged: it both condemns and liberates, binds and frees. The same Word does both. I also assume that the purpose of preaching is to proclaim the gospel, which I define as God’s saving actions recorded anywhere in the Bible that have greatest clarity in Jesus Christ. This purpose is larger than preaching any individual biblical text. Bible texts are treasures in themselves, yet they also provide windows or portals through which we may view the larger faith story."
THE CONTENT
Delightfully, the first three authors are united in their desire to read the text in context and read it as the authors intended. Each one is unrepentantly vocal about that, and while each has their own particular view on exactly how to do that, the underlying mindset is the same. Though there were points of disagreement, I generally found all three to be incredibly helpful and insightful. Each desires for the individual passage of scripture to affect the way they live and how they form their collective theology of the Bible.
The final author, Wilson, takes a very different approach. He not only participates in, but actively encourages, looking at the Bible through your personal lens of experience and desires, then allowing your overarching theology to affect the interpretation of the individual passage. Several dangers are present in that approach. First, he shows little to no regard for what the biblical author was trying to say by what he said. Second, blatant, extreme subjectivity in interpretation leads only to a diversity of contradictory opinions that confuse and puzzle, rather than change our sinful and subject thoughts with the unchanging Bible, he supports shifting the Bible's timeless words according to the whims and cares of any who may happen to pick it up. This does not allow a firm foundation, nor an objective interpretation, not even an authoritative one. While he fails to see this, his view leads to wild ideas and incoherent messes.
For example, he claims one lesson that might be learned from Genesis 22 is that Isaac is never recorded as speaking to his father again, so their relationship was broken by those events, no matter the divine outcome. Though Abraham may be able to trust God, Isaac can never trust his father again. However, Isaac never seems to resist his father during the encounter, and later follows faithfully the God that had previously ordered his death. No signs of bitterness are seen afterward, rendering Wilson's view unsupported and his point subject to doubt.
While his desire to connect with and apply to the lives of his listeners is very valuable, he does so at the cost of actually knowing the scriptures for what they are. His response to Kuruvilla's chapter, for example, strayed little from the argument that Kuruvilla's view was too limiting and distant from modern people, their problems, and their mindsets. He sets in contrast the ideas of being a "preacher" and a "pastor," claiming that slavish devotion to the text does not display the personal love and care of a pastor. He says that scriptural application needs to be tailored to all kinds of mindsets, rather than ask our diverse mindsets to submit to Scripture. In his own essay, he wrote the following:
"In sum, a preacher can preach the Bible and not arrive at God’s Word, or can preach God’s Word as law and not arrive at the gospel. Preaching often puts the burden on humanity, as though Christ’s life, death, and resurrection make no difference to the present day." While he is correct that some preaching lacks application, that is no fault of the text, which was designed for application, (2 Timothy 3:16) but rather, a fault of the preacher. Additionally, setting in contrast the ideas of "the Bible" and "The Word of God" is inexplicable and puzzling. He completely misses that "trouble/law" texts that demand a moral response by hearers do in fact display the grace of God in his opening the way to them, giving them the strength to obey, and even their place in his flock that they may hear his words and respond to him.
He also says "The trouble-to-grace paradigm is not to be confused with problem/solution. We would never speak of the movement from Good Friday to Easter as problem/solution. The move is from trouble to a restored relationship with God in Christ." yet forgets that an unrestored relationship with God is a problem that needs a solution.
However, his view does communicate the necessity to remember direct application in sermons, and I can appreciate the singular focus behind his “TTDNIM” acronym, though that process, as nice as it is to write out each thing, is unnecessary when one actually follows one of the other views of interpretation, for those singular messages and themes would then come naturally.
Chappell's christocentric view takes a high view of Christ and his redemption, and rightly so. His sees the motivation for all our actions to be found in Christ's redemption for us. Weakness, however, are that his focus on Christ's finished work can drown out the need to look also to the work before us in serving him. Also, as he himself says, making every text point to Christ in some way can easily lead to undue and frankly wild and outlandish allegorical fantasies when not kept in check and thankfully writes about limits and cautions to avoid that. His "Fallen Condition Focus" is an incredibly helpful tool that aids preachers of all styles in identifying the tenancy towards sin in man, but the response of God to that.
The christocentric and theocentric views are somewhat similar. One sees God as the center object of all, the one who sent Jesus and sent in motion the redemptive plan. The other sees Christ as the cornerstone on which all acts of goodness and mercy are either a result of or foretaste of, his salvation redemption for all to to whom all things point. While that is a big difference, the two views are otherwise incredibly similar.
Langley's Theocentric view loses the weakness of stretching the original meaning by forcing all texts to point to Christ himself. However, it also introduces the same weakness of resounding wonderful theology over and over, yet with such focus that one may not properly address the needed response and moral struggles of the people that is present in the text. Many of his interpretive questions deal with either the text, or the theology mined from it, yet tends to miss how we ought to respond to that text and it's theology.
Building up from there, and no doubt the most complex, yet most compelling view presented, is Kuruvilla's Christiconic View. He begins the chapter with a delightful example of how two paradoxical ideas can easily be taught from the same simple Bible story, then brings to light the giant, and oft unaddressed gap, between the study of a text and the forming of a sermon. His solution is to study what the biblical author was doing by what he was saying, and thus, he writes "It is only by discerning this theological thrust, the author’s doing, that valid application is possible." After wading through a couple examples, one begins to realize just how confusing this may be. Thankfully, Kuruvulla helpfully adds the following:
"Thus, in texts, a view of life, a world in front of the text, is portrayed, and an invitation to that world is extended. Lives are changed as listeners respond by inhabiting that world, abiding by its values. That is, a text’s projected world-vision enables subsequent application. Therefore, the interpretation of Scripture cannot cease with the elucidation of its linguistic, grammatical, and syntactical elements: what the author is saying (semantics). It must proceed further to discern the world in front of the text: what the author is doing (pragmatics). And this projected world forms the intermediary between text and application, enabling one to respond validly to the text."
While this did take me a time to mull over and finally understand, that's not the hardest part. Actually finding the theological thrust is. Even a cursory glance at his examples shows an understanding of the text far deeper and wider than a great many Christians, myself included. As such, this view is daunting to a beginning preacher, and fear of missing the point by missing a subtle textual clue is a valid concern.
That, however, does not explain the name, a point he gets to later.
"...Jesus Christ alone has comprehensively abided by the theology of every pericope of Scripture. Thus, each pericope of the Bible is actually portraying a characteristic of Christ (a facet of Christ’s image), showing us what it means to perfectly fulfill, as he did, the particular call of that pericope."
As a closing note he writes:
"I submit that Scripture was primarily intended to be used for application, so that God’s people, aligned to the Father’s will, might be conformed to the image (εἰκών, eikōn) of God’s Son in his perfect humanity, by the power of God’s Spirit: a christiconic goal (Rom. 8:29). Therefore, we must rea
Thankfully, I'm not alone in that, if the recent proliferation of these kinds of books is any indication. While the most well known are perhaps Zondervan's "Counterpoints" books, this particular volume is not one of them! Instead, Baker Academic decided to get into the game and boy did they do a great job!
Included in this book are four views on interpretation and application of biblical passages. As self-proclaimed "People of the Book," no other subject can be as life-changing and impactful as this. To live by the book means to rightly apply the book, to rightly apply the book necessitates rightly interpreting the book, to rightly interpret the book means to rightly understand it. The best method of examining that journey, from 2,000 year of text to modern living, is paramount to everything we hold dear.
As such, the editor chose four heavy hitters in the field of homiletics.
THE WRITERS
Abraham Kuruvilla and Bryan Chappell have both written preaching books that already belong in my library. A Vision for Preaching and Christ-Centered Preaching came highly recommended to me, and for good reason. Paul Scott Wilson has written several books on the subject, though his The Four Pages of the Sermon is probably the most well known. Kenneth Langley, while not an author, does serve as president of the Evangelical Homiletics Society, has a Doctorate of Ministry in Preaching, and serves as the senior pastor of Christ Community Church in Zion, Illinois.
The book format, if you are unfamiliar with it, is as follows: A generic introduction is written to highlight the importance of the selected subject. Each of the authors was selected to represent and defend his unique views, thus insuring each position is properly represented and ably defended. The first author presents his essay, and each of the others pen a direct response. Then, the second presents, and the others all respond to him. This continues until each author has made his main case and has had the chance to respond to the presentations of the others.
In the case of this book, the four views are, in their author's own words, presented below.
Sadly, none of the four presented a concise, highlighted definition of their view, so the following are more like summaries than single-sentence definitions.
Redemptive-Historic View, by Bryan Chapell
"In its context, every passage possesses one or more of four redemptive foci (that we need not keep strictly segregated for our understanding). The text may be predictive of the work of Christ preparatory for the work of Christ resultant from the work of Christ, and/or reflective of the work of Christ."
"The Bible teaches that our relationship with God is not based on what we do, but on what Christ has done—our faith is in his work, not ours (Gal. 2:20). Thus, a textually accurate description of biblical commands and ethical conduct does not guarantee Christian orthodoxy. Exhortations for moral behavior apart from the work of the Savior degenerate into mere Pharisaism, even if preachers advocate the actions with selected biblical evidence and good intent. Spirituality solely based on personal conduct cannot escape its human-centered orbit though it aspires to lift one to the divine."
Christiconic View, by Abraham Kuruvilla
"Thus, in texts, a view of life, a world in front of the text, is portrayed, and an invitation to that world is extended. Lives are changed as listeners respond by inhabiting that world, abiding by its values. That is, a text’s projected world-vision enables subsequent application. Therefore, the interpretation of Scripture cannot cease with the elucidation of its linguistic, grammatical, and syntactical elements: what the author is saying (semantics). It must proceed further to discern the world in front of the text: what the author is doing (pragmatics)."
"The biblical canon as a whole projects a world in front of the text—God’s ideal world, individual segments of which are portrayed by individual pericopes. Taken together, the integrated composite of all such segments is the canonical projection of God’s ideal world in front of the text—the plenary ideal world."
"This is the heart of the preaching endeavor: to recognize the function of Scripture and to bring to bear, pericope by pericope, divine guidelines for life from the Word of God upon the people of God, to align them to the will of God by the power of the Spirit of God, into the image of the Son of God for the glory of God. Through believers’ Spirit-powered obedience, facilitated by preaching, God is glorified as his people display the attributes of their holy God and manifest Christlikeness (Matt. 5:16; 1 Pet. 2:12): a christiconic undertaking."
Theocentric View, by Kenneth Langley
"Preaching should be God centered because God is God centered and wants us to be God centered in everything we do."
"This theocentric emphasis is not more narrowly christocentric. Though some Old Testament prophecies anticipate the Messiah, the effort of some preachers to find the second person of the Trinity in every prophetic pericope is misguided. Peter said that all the prophets testified about Christ (Acts 10:43; cf. 1 Pet. 1:21); but it’s one thing to say the prophets point to Christ, another to say every word they wrote is about Christ. One theological commentary claims, “The book of Jonah is all about Christ.” No, the book of Jonah is all about God."
Law–Gospel View, by Paul Scott Wilson
"The hermeneutic I use in preaching is law and gospel, or, to use somewhat less contentious words, trouble and grace. I assume that the Word of God is dual edged: it both condemns and liberates, binds and frees. The same Word does both. I also assume that the purpose of preaching is to proclaim the gospel, which I define as God’s saving actions recorded anywhere in the Bible that have greatest clarity in Jesus Christ. This purpose is larger than preaching any individual biblical text. Bible texts are treasures in themselves, yet they also provide windows or portals through which we may view the larger faith story."
THE CONTENT
Delightfully, the first three authors are united in their desire to read the text in context and read it as the authors intended. Each one is unrepentantly vocal about that, and while each has their own particular view on exactly how to do that, the underlying mindset is the same. Though there were points of disagreement, I generally found all three to be incredibly helpful and insightful. Each desires for the individual passage of scripture to affect the way they live and how they form their collective theology of the Bible.
The final author, Wilson, takes a very different approach. He not only participates in, but actively encourages, looking at the Bible through your personal lens of experience and desires, then allowing your overarching theology to affect the interpretation of the individual passage. Several dangers are present in that approach. First, he shows little to no regard for what the biblical author was trying to say by what he said. Second, blatant, extreme subjectivity in interpretation leads only to a diversity of contradictory opinions that confuse and puzzle, rather than change our sinful and subject thoughts with the unchanging Bible, he supports shifting the Bible's timeless words according to the whims and cares of any who may happen to pick it up. This does not allow a firm foundation, nor an objective interpretation, not even an authoritative one. While he fails to see this, his view leads to wild ideas and incoherent messes.
For example, he claims one lesson that might be learned from Genesis 22 is that Isaac is never recorded as speaking to his father again, so their relationship was broken by those events, no matter the divine outcome. Though Abraham may be able to trust God, Isaac can never trust his father again. However, Isaac never seems to resist his father during the encounter, and later follows faithfully the God that had previously ordered his death. No signs of bitterness are seen afterward, rendering Wilson's view unsupported and his point subject to doubt.
While his desire to connect with and apply to the lives of his listeners is very valuable, he does so at the cost of actually knowing the scriptures for what they are. His response to Kuruvilla's chapter, for example, strayed little from the argument that Kuruvilla's view was too limiting and distant from modern people, their problems, and their mindsets. He sets in contrast the ideas of being a "preacher" and a "pastor," claiming that slavish devotion to the text does not display the personal love and care of a pastor. He says that scriptural application needs to be tailored to all kinds of mindsets, rather than ask our diverse mindsets to submit to Scripture. In his own essay, he wrote the following:
"In sum, a preacher can preach the Bible and not arrive at God’s Word, or can preach God’s Word as law and not arrive at the gospel. Preaching often puts the burden on humanity, as though Christ’s life, death, and resurrection make no difference to the present day." While he is correct that some preaching lacks application, that is no fault of the text, which was designed for application, (2 Timothy 3:16) but rather, a fault of the preacher. Additionally, setting in contrast the ideas of "the Bible" and "The Word of God" is inexplicable and puzzling. He completely misses that "trouble/law" texts that demand a moral response by hearers do in fact display the grace of God in his opening the way to them, giving them the strength to obey, and even their place in his flock that they may hear his words and respond to him.
He also says "The trouble-to-grace paradigm is not to be confused with problem/solution. We would never speak of the movement from Good Friday to Easter as problem/solution. The move is from trouble to a restored relationship with God in Christ." yet forgets that an unrestored relationship with God is a problem that needs a solution.
However, his view does communicate the necessity to remember direct application in sermons, and I can appreciate the singular focus behind his “TTDNIM” acronym, though that process, as nice as it is to write out each thing, is unnecessary when one actually follows one of the other views of interpretation, for those singular messages and themes would then come naturally.
Chappell's christocentric view takes a high view of Christ and his redemption, and rightly so. His sees the motivation for all our actions to be found in Christ's redemption for us. Weakness, however, are that his focus on Christ's finished work can drown out the need to look also to the work before us in serving him. Also, as he himself says, making every text point to Christ in some way can easily lead to undue and frankly wild and outlandish allegorical fantasies when not kept in check and thankfully writes about limits and cautions to avoid that. His "Fallen Condition Focus" is an incredibly helpful tool that aids preachers of all styles in identifying the tenancy towards sin in man, but the response of God to that.
The christocentric and theocentric views are somewhat similar. One sees God as the center object of all, the one who sent Jesus and sent in motion the redemptive plan. The other sees Christ as the cornerstone on which all acts of goodness and mercy are either a result of or foretaste of, his salvation redemption for all to to whom all things point. While that is a big difference, the two views are otherwise incredibly similar.
Langley's Theocentric view loses the weakness of stretching the original meaning by forcing all texts to point to Christ himself. However, it also introduces the same weakness of resounding wonderful theology over and over, yet with such focus that one may not properly address the needed response and moral struggles of the people that is present in the text. Many of his interpretive questions deal with either the text, or the theology mined from it, yet tends to miss how we ought to respond to that text and it's theology.
Building up from there, and no doubt the most complex, yet most compelling view presented, is Kuruvilla's Christiconic View. He begins the chapter with a delightful example of how two paradoxical ideas can easily be taught from the same simple Bible story, then brings to light the giant, and oft unaddressed gap, between the study of a text and the forming of a sermon. His solution is to study what the biblical author was doing by what he was saying, and thus, he writes "It is only by discerning this theological thrust, the author’s doing, that valid application is possible." After wading through a couple examples, one begins to realize just how confusing this may be. Thankfully, Kuruvulla helpfully adds the following:
"Thus, in texts, a view of life, a world in front of the text, is portrayed, and an invitation to that world is extended. Lives are changed as listeners respond by inhabiting that world, abiding by its values. That is, a text’s projected world-vision enables subsequent application. Therefore, the interpretation of Scripture cannot cease with the elucidation of its linguistic, grammatical, and syntactical elements: what the author is saying (semantics). It must proceed further to discern the world in front of the text: what the author is doing (pragmatics). And this projected world forms the intermediary between text and application, enabling one to respond validly to the text."
While this did take me a time to mull over and finally understand, that's not the hardest part. Actually finding the theological thrust is. Even a cursory glance at his examples shows an understanding of the text far deeper and wider than a great many Christians, myself included. As such, this view is daunting to a beginning preacher, and fear of missing the point by missing a subtle textual clue is a valid concern.
That, however, does not explain the name, a point he gets to later.
"...Jesus Christ alone has comprehensively abided by the theology of every pericope of Scripture. Thus, each pericope of the Bible is actually portraying a characteristic of Christ (a facet of Christ’s image), showing us what it means to perfectly fulfill, as he did, the particular call of that pericope."
As a closing note he writes:
"I submit that Scripture was primarily intended to be used for application, so that God’s people, aligned to the Father’s will, might be conformed to the image (εἰκών, eikōn) of God’s Son in his perfect humanity, by the power of God’s Spirit: a christiconic goal (Rom. 8:29). Therefore, we must rea
September 5, 2020
Solid overview of a few different approaches to exegesis and preaching. The contributions of four authors provide helpful contrast to draw out the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches.
March 28, 2019
I want to begin by saying I greatly enjoyed the writing of the various authors and their approach to preaching. Hearing a variety of styles is one thing, but understanding the mentality behind the delivery, why a minister may choose to preach a certain way, is something that I truly have not had the chance to study lately, and this book helped renew my love for the “science behind the delivery” of God’s word, a thought some of the more charismatic brothers in my denomination may scoff at.
With that said, I do have a few comments of contention between myself and the authors. While I do not doubt their desire, their zeal for preaching the Bible, nor their intelligence or wisdom (perhaps these statements may reveal more about myself than the writers?), I found the book to begin with a more “textbook” approach, one that would be difficult to read for the average minister who is used to his Max Lucado and John Piper. The writing style is, for most of the authors - I found Abraham Kuruvilla’s chapter the easiest to flow through and follow at times - technical more than practical. At least, this is my perception of the writing. That is not to say that I did not appreciate it, nor that I had trouble following the authors once I understood this to be their methods. However, I was left with the belief that if they preach the way they write, are the congregations able to keep up with them? I by no means want to disrespect the authors, and accept that they are incredibly intelligent people, and would thus speak so, but, for example, upon giving my other copy of the book to our youth pastor to read (who has anxiety towards public speaking, and my belief was it may help him find a method that worked for him, and therefore encourage him to preach more often to adults), he related that he had a very difficult time following the text and only was able to “get through” the first chapter, not picking it up again, feeling even more defeated. Again, I do not believe this was the authors’ intentions, but it was the outcome for our part-time youth pastor whose day job is a full-time mechanic.
With all of my criticisms aside, I was thankful for the opportunity to read “Homiletics and Hermeneutics.” While I followed Kuruvilla easily, it was actually chapter four’s Paul Scott Wilson who delivered the Law-Gospel approach to sermon delivery. If I understood his chapter correctly, the Law-Gospel method is rooted in the Lutheran and Methodist movements, of which I freely admit I have little to no experience or background in (I’ve grown up in the Assemblies of God my whole life, with only a little time spent in a Methodist church as a teenager). And, since I have no background in this method, believe I will find it to be useful as I preach and pastor in North Dakota, a place predominantly known to be Lutheran. In fact, as a pilot once joked to me, “Even the Catholics in North Dakota are Lutheran.” I have not yet tested this method, but fully intend to in the near future and will definitely keep note of the results.
To conclude, I am very glad I was given a chance to be a part of this book club. I’ve found “Homiletics and Hermeneutics” to be technical, yes, but highly beneficial and something that will challenge my preaching going forward. As ministers, I believe it important to always strive to improve our preaching, and to constantly use whatever methods may speak a little more clearly to our people. I believe this book will help me continue to hone my craft, but most importantly, I believe it will help point many others to Christ in a way that will help them receive the message in a familiar way, bringing them closer to God the Father and giving Him glory. Ultimately, that is what we’re all about in the end, isn’t it?
June 15, 2019
Written in the popular "four views" style this book examines the underlying philosophies that drive how preachers craft sermons. The editors and the authors are all skilled preachers and scholars so their thoughts on these things are worth noting. The central topic is the tension between proclaiming the gospel and teaching the word. Should we follow the Charles Spurgeon's tactic and take every passage to the cross or should we "privilege the text" and let is speak for itself? As you read through these essays you realize that there are several other points in between. Though the writers come from different church traditions all together they still represent a fairly narrow slice of evangelicalism. Yet they use different words and almost deliberately misunderstand each other, which is why the responses are absolutely vital. The responses are gracious and allow each person to clarify what they agree and disagree with. Still they often restate their own philosophies.
There seems to be an ongoing tension in all the comments between preaching as gospel proclamation and preaching as presenting the text. They all make fine points. But I think that the lure of gospel centered preaching as shared by Brian Chapell comes from the nature of 21st century church behavior. Most people don’t come to church each week, not to mention more than once a week. Hearing a sermon twice a month is considered regular attendance so Chapell’s method is practical even if it can’t be defended in all cases exegetically. None of the other commentators seem to understand what Chapell is really getting at. Each author has valid criticism of Chapell (and to a certain degree Wilson). They note that Christo-centric preaching often makes for overly individualistic sermons, as if “personal salvation is all that really matters” (p.104). It is a good point but there are concerns the other way as well; leaving Christ out of a sermon might cause people only to strive harder only in their own effort to be obedient. Or worse, it might describe believers as monotheists instead of trinitarians. And this is concern isn’t it? We don’t need to preach Christo-centric sermons if we know that everyone listening is already a Christian and understands grace. We don’t need to stress the gospel if we know that the congregation will hear three sermons this week. But in our world where people come to church once a week at best, and often only twice a month, it is too risky to leave Christ out of a sermon.
There seems to be an ongoing tension in all the comments between preaching as gospel proclamation and preaching as presenting the text. They all make fine points. But I think that the lure of gospel centered preaching as shared by Brian Chapell comes from the nature of 21st century church behavior. Most people don’t come to church each week, not to mention more than once a week. Hearing a sermon twice a month is considered regular attendance so Chapell’s method is practical even if it can’t be defended in all cases exegetically. None of the other commentators seem to understand what Chapell is really getting at. Each author has valid criticism of Chapell (and to a certain degree Wilson). They note that Christo-centric preaching often makes for overly individualistic sermons, as if “personal salvation is all that really matters” (p.104). It is a good point but there are concerns the other way as well; leaving Christ out of a sermon might cause people only to strive harder only in their own effort to be obedient. Or worse, it might describe believers as monotheists instead of trinitarians. And this is concern isn’t it? We don’t need to preach Christo-centric sermons if we know that everyone listening is already a Christian and understands grace. We don’t need to stress the gospel if we know that the congregation will hear three sermons this week. But in our world where people come to church once a week at best, and often only twice a month, it is too risky to leave Christ out of a sermon.
August 9, 2019
It would be unfair to say that I was disappointed in this volume because I knew what the book was about when I began reading it. It does a fair job of discussing popular approaches to biblical interpretation and preaching from an (American, and mostly Baptist) Evangelical perspective.
Bryan Chapell puts forward what he calls the "redemptive-historical" paradigm, which essentially serves as a summation of Sidney Greidanus' work (although more of his newer works and not The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, which is where Greidanus lays out his paradigm of biblical interpretation and preaching). I found this quite odd since Chapell is so much more known for being a Christocentric homiletician.
Abraham Kuruvilla puts forward the Christocentric paradigm, which essentially serves as a summation of Bryan Chapell's book Christ-Centered Preaching and is the accepted approach of contemporary Evangelical homiletics in that all preaching must focus on Jesus regardless of where the text comes from or what the text is actually talking about.
Kenneth Langley puts forward something of a salvaging rejoinder to Chapell and Kuruvilla with the theocentric view, which essentially serves as a summation of Paul Scott Wilson's work (although with references to other writers who have attempted to colonize Wilson for American Evangelical pulpits). This view, which takes its cue from Jesus' own words, argues that preaching should be about God, first and foremost, and what God does through Christ. The problem that God gets lost in the chapter because, frankly, Langley is much more versed in Christocentric preaching.
Paul Scott Wilson concludes by putting forward his "trouble-and-grace" paradigm, here labeled poorly by the editors as "law and gospel," something Wilson alludes to in the opening words of his chapter. Not only does this serve as the clearest summary of Wilson's paradigm, it is the only chapter in the book that actually provides a practical homiletic.
Overall, the book is helpful in establishing where the Evangelical pulpit sits, which is in a largely Christocentric stance, even at the expense of the biblical text. However, if one is looking for much else, one may need to look elsewhere.
Bryan Chapell puts forward what he calls the "redemptive-historical" paradigm, which essentially serves as a summation of Sidney Greidanus' work (although more of his newer works and not The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, which is where Greidanus lays out his paradigm of biblical interpretation and preaching). I found this quite odd since Chapell is so much more known for being a Christocentric homiletician.
Abraham Kuruvilla puts forward the Christocentric paradigm, which essentially serves as a summation of Bryan Chapell's book Christ-Centered Preaching and is the accepted approach of contemporary Evangelical homiletics in that all preaching must focus on Jesus regardless of where the text comes from or what the text is actually talking about.
Kenneth Langley puts forward something of a salvaging rejoinder to Chapell and Kuruvilla with the theocentric view, which essentially serves as a summation of Paul Scott Wilson's work (although with references to other writers who have attempted to colonize Wilson for American Evangelical pulpits). This view, which takes its cue from Jesus' own words, argues that preaching should be about God, first and foremost, and what God does through Christ. The problem that God gets lost in the chapter because, frankly, Langley is much more versed in Christocentric preaching.
Paul Scott Wilson concludes by putting forward his "trouble-and-grace" paradigm, here labeled poorly by the editors as "law and gospel," something Wilson alludes to in the opening words of his chapter. Not only does this serve as the clearest summary of Wilson's paradigm, it is the only chapter in the book that actually provides a practical homiletic.
Overall, the book is helpful in establishing where the Evangelical pulpit sits, which is in a largely Christocentric stance, even at the expense of the biblical text. However, if one is looking for much else, one may need to look elsewhere.
January 4, 2025
As I further my training and re-examine my own preaching, I've found the four views books to be incredibly valuable. There is something about taking diverse views, throwing them against the wall, watching the four authors evaluate one another, and realizing that you don't agree 100% with any of them, which is what it should be.
Even though I very much disagreed with three of the positions I found their chapters to be challenging and helpful. While I appreciate their gospel-centered hearts I still think that if you approach the text with any sort of template, you will force the text to match your cookie-cutter to some degree. While that cannot be helped overall, it should be avoided as much as possible.
Each author clearly presented their position. The interaction was respectful and clarifying. I highly recommend this for any pastor who wants to seriously think through their own preaching as well as today's homiletical landscape.
Even though I very much disagreed with three of the positions I found their chapters to be challenging and helpful. While I appreciate their gospel-centered hearts I still think that if you approach the text with any sort of template, you will force the text to match your cookie-cutter to some degree. While that cannot be helped overall, it should be avoided as much as possible.
Each author clearly presented their position. The interaction was respectful and clarifying. I highly recommend this for any pastor who wants to seriously think through their own preaching as well as today's homiletical landscape.
September 3, 2023
6/10
A helpful read for beginning homileticians. Hermeneutics is essential for preaching and exegeting a passage. This book looks at perhaps the most popular views and presents a few frameworks for interpreting and preaching scripture. I would argue that most preachers need to think more thoughtfully about this and should thus read this. I didn't fully understand Dr. Kuruvilla's position and argument until I took a class with him! Each time I read this book, I understand the similarities between each hermeneutic more and more. However, there are stark differences between each position, and I would encourage preachers to think very carefully about their strengths and weaknesses. I found the "Christiconic" and "historic-redemptive" to be the most compelling, but I gained more sympathy for "theocentric" and "law-gospel" preaching.
A helpful read for beginning homileticians. Hermeneutics is essential for preaching and exegeting a passage. This book looks at perhaps the most popular views and presents a few frameworks for interpreting and preaching scripture. I would argue that most preachers need to think more thoughtfully about this and should thus read this. I didn't fully understand Dr. Kuruvilla's position and argument until I took a class with him! Each time I read this book, I understand the similarities between each hermeneutic more and more. However, there are stark differences between each position, and I would encourage preachers to think very carefully about their strengths and weaknesses. I found the "Christiconic" and "historic-redemptive" to be the most compelling, but I gained more sympathy for "theocentric" and "law-gospel" preaching.
October 17, 2025
All of these "four views" books are of mixed benefit, but at least this one had decent contributors.
I don't know if I walked away from this book a better expositor, or just a more confused and vaguely judged one. I think all four views have their strong points, but 3 out of the 4 also have their nasty moments in the form of combative tones and tear-downs.
Wilson was the most routinely pastoral of the four. Langley was the most frustrating to read since on the first read he felt more combative than the rest and also seriously wrong about Trinitarian relations.
Kuruvilla and Chapell are the views I most closely aligned with before reading, and they've remained the same, though I think a more rigorous version of Wilson's would be interesting.
All in all? It's just another bit of required reading I'll probably forget about.
I don't know if I walked away from this book a better expositor, or just a more confused and vaguely judged one. I think all four views have their strong points, but 3 out of the 4 also have their nasty moments in the form of combative tones and tear-downs.
Wilson was the most routinely pastoral of the four. Langley was the most frustrating to read since on the first read he felt more combative than the rest and also seriously wrong about Trinitarian relations.
Kuruvilla and Chapell are the views I most closely aligned with before reading, and they've remained the same, though I think a more rigorous version of Wilson's would be interesting.
All in all? It's just another bit of required reading I'll probably forget about.
August 16, 2022
A solid “four views” book on how hermeneutics shape preaching (homiletics). There’s more here on homiletics than hermeneutics. This would be a good entry point for pastors who studied in seminary and want to do some more reading along a certain/different path. For me, Chapell, Kuruvilla, and Langley are most appealing. At some point, and depending on the text, I think most preachers probably lean into the various perspectives. In fact, I think a helpful takeaway from this resource is to explore different ways to move from exegesis to exposition. Most preachers (and churches!) probably need such a challenge.
December 4, 2023
Helpful Guideline for Discovering a Personal Method
This book was certainly helpful in allowing me to think through my own personal method of teaching/preaching. That said, a little bit more “color” could’ve been added to the book itself to make it a slightly more engaging read. Perhaps the addition of a few more personal stories/narratival examples would’ve helped.
Nevertheless, it was helpful!
This book was certainly helpful in allowing me to think through my own personal method of teaching/preaching. That said, a little bit more “color” could’ve been added to the book itself to make it a slightly more engaging read. Perhaps the addition of a few more personal stories/narratival examples would’ve helped.
Nevertheless, it was helpful!
September 4, 2024
I came in very appreciative of Chappell's work and familiar with Kuruvilla. I appreciate their work the most, and I found Langley and Wilson's critiques insightful (especially related to how the entire service works together to supplement the sermon). I am still prone toward Christocenric/Christiconic/Christotelic preaching, though. If anything, I think the critiques for each view should make preachers very skeptical of their own preaching if they can't learn from their unpreferred methods.
April 19, 2019
A vital theme but sadly quite a limited range of contributors not least because they are all male and western. Recognising both the implicit and explicit assumptions we bring to preaching is vital for truly biblically informed communication.
August 6, 2022
Helpful, well structured approach to exploring different view on preaching. Definitely a stronger emphasis on content of preaching as opposed to the ‘craft’. I particularly enjoyed the interaction between the contributors - respectful and thought provoking.
March 11, 2024
This was a significantly more enjoyable read than I was expecting. None of the four views are without their significant problems in my opinion, but all come with helpful considerations, and good emphases
October 25, 2024
Helpful in understanding different hermeneutics preachers use. Definitely don’t agree with one view, but love the conversation in the book around how the Text affects our sermons. Also appreciated humility and kindness in each authors response.
March 27, 2025
I found this to be more of a 3.5-views on preaching with not great rebuttals of each view. I would recommend reading individual books on preaching instead. However, I am not a huge fan of preaching books, so I carry that bias into this.
April 11, 2020
Great to take in over the course of 4 weeks to give adequate time to reflect on each approach, it's strengths and weaknesses.
September 21, 2020
generally a good read
However one of the biggest issues is that on the most part they authors fail to define their terminology .
However one of the biggest issues is that on the most part they authors fail to define their terminology .
March 23, 2021
Very valuable and helpful book, in bringing to the surface and interacting with assumptions that underlie different approaches to homiletics. An important book for discussion among preachers!
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews