{"id":65951,"date":"2018-09-28T10:00:40","date_gmt":"2018-09-28T15:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/\/us\/?p=65951"},"modified":"2018-09-27T10:57:55","modified_gmt":"2018-09-27T15:57:55","slug":"review-the-imperative-of-preaching","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/banneroftruth.org\/us\/resources\/book-review-resources\/2018\/review-the-imperative-of-preaching\/","title":{"rendered":"Review: The Imperative of Preaching"},"content":{"rendered":"

Proverbs 26.17 says, ‘He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who\u00a0takes a dog by the ears.’ Let go of either ear and you get bitten! If the controversy raised by this book\u00a0review did not belong to me, wisdom would preclude my involvement\u2014but alas, as a Reformed\u00a0preacher I have been sucked into it. We have the two ears of redemptive-historical preaching (RHP)\u00a0and imperative-applicatory preaching, and I find myself holding onto both simultaneously, unwilling\u00a0to release either. Some may charge me with hermeneutical and homiletical inconsistency. My own\u00a0opinion is that the best Reformed preachers agree in the most important points, whichever side they\u00a0take, and that the extreme elements in both may be legitimate causes of concern. Perhaps some\u00a0ardent advocates of a particular perspective have been unnecessarily divisive from zeal to protect\u00a0their Shibboleth (Judges 12.6). Did I pronounce that right? Let all things be done with love and unto\u00a0the edification of the church.<\/p>\n

Carrick\u2019s<\/a> book raises his concerns about some advocates and practitioners of RHP. He does\u00a0not denounce RHP per se, nor does he advocate an approach to preaching in the name of power and\u00a0relevance with the typical naivet\u00e9 of evangelicals embracing an ‘application bridge’ mentality. His ‘theology of sacred rhetoric’ almost rises above the fray to make keen and undeniable observations\u00a0about the grammatical forms of homiletical statements both in Scripture and in the tradition of some\u00a0of the greatest preachers since the Reformation. Indeed, he raises some of the very same concerns as\u00a0RHP advocates like Lee Irons (e.g., the indicative-grounded imperative). The most polemical section of the book is chapter 6, ‘The Imperative\u2014Part 2,’ and even here he praises advocates of the RHP approach like Edmund Clowney of Westminster Theological Seminary, who ‘to many . . . represents\u00a0the more moderate wing of RHP’ (116). Carrick seems most concerned about some RHP advocates\u00a0who have unduly minimized if not altogether eliminated ‘the imperative of preaching.’<\/p>\n

As one just recently becoming more intimately acquainted with the matter, I would assure\u00a0you that having read Carrick\u2019s book made me more interested, not less, in the RH approach. The\u00a0writings of Clowney and Geerhardus Vos<\/a> for example are part of my reading, partly due to Carrick\u2019s\u00a0influence.<\/p>\n

A substantial discussion of the salient points of this debate is beyond the scope of this book\u00a0review. Allow me, please, to describe its substance and to prompt you in reading what I found to be\u00a0very stimulating and enjoyable.<\/p>\n

Between an introduction and a conclusion, the author presents four parts related to the\u00a0grammatical form of homiletical statements: the indicative, the exclamative, the interrogative, and\u00a0the imperative. The section on the imperative seems to have been the author\u2019s main concern, and\u00a0here he allows himself two chapters instead of one, the first of which, like the single chapters on the\u00a0other three grammatical forms, essentially notes the traits of the form, its warrant and theological\u00a0significance from Scripture, and citations of sermons both canonical and from five exemplary\u00a0Reformed preachers, viz., Jonathan Edwards<\/a>, George Whitefield<\/a>, Samuel Davies, Asahel Nettleton, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The introduction (ch. 1) begins with a plea for the legitimacy of a concept of ‘sacred rhetoric,’ despite its negative connotations in the minds of some, since it is only religious speech calculated to\u00a0persuade. This is not incompatible with a conscious dependence upon the Holy Spirit, so necessary\u00a0in preaching which glorifies God. We must have Spirit-filled rhetoric. Then the author states his\u00a0central thesis: ‘The essential pattern or structure which God himself has utilized in the proclamation\u00a0of New Testament Christianity is that of the indicative-imperative. In other words, God himself has,\u00a0in the gospel of Christ, harnessed these two fundamental grammatical moods and invested them\u00a0with theological and homiletical significance’. Besides these Carrick notes the existence of the\u00a0exclamative and the interrogative which he considers aspects of the indicative. He proposes to define, illustrate, and exemplify these four in the remainder of the book, and he succeeds in this.<\/p>\n

‘Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative’. So he begins the chapter (ch. 2) on this\u00a0grammatical mood with the justly-famous statement of J. Gresham Machen<\/a> in Christianity and\u00a0Liberalism<\/em>. In that titanic struggle, Machen sagely observed that liberalism begins by telling the\u00a0sinner what he must do; Christianity begins by telling the sinner what God has done. The indicative\u00a0is a grammatical term ‘that points out, states, or declares’. The biblical gospel is in the indicative\u00a0form, and this heavenly declaration of God\u2019s redeeming work accomplished in Christ is the\u00a0foundation of all biblical preaching. One of this book\u2019s strengths is its frequent appeal to the biblical\u00a0text cited in full for the reader\u2019s convenient examination and reflection. Carrick praises Herman\u00a0Ridderbos\u2019 insight that apostolic preaching had the nature of witnessing. This is also seen in the\u00a0Apostles\u2019 Creed.<\/p>\n

The indicative is well-suited to instruction, a major part of the faithful preacher\u2019s task if not\u00a0the whole. Nevertheless, we must remember the distinction between redemption accomplished and\u00a0redemption applied. The latter suggests the indicative-based imperative. The grammatical\u00a0form of the Scriptural message is rich in theological significance. The New Testament message can be\u00a0summarized as two pairs of indicative-imperatives, one aimed at sinners and the other at saints:<\/p>\n

Christ died for sinners (indicative) <———-> Repent and believe the gospel (imperative)
\nSaints have died to sin (indicative) <———-> Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin (imperative)<\/p>\n

The exclamative (ch. 3) amounts to an emotional indicative. It possesses an element\u00a0of excitement and is often signalled by words like how, what, and oh. A section of Scriptural\u00a0illustration is devoted to each of these, followed by eloquent examples from the great preachers\u00a0aforementioned. For example, Jonathan Edwards once wrote, ‘What multiplied and aggravated sins\u00a0some men are guilty of!’.<\/p>\n

The interrogative (ch. 4) is of the nature of questioning. It lacks the note of certainty typically\u00a0inherent in the indicative. The analytical question which is a kind of dialogue with a proposition,\u00a0the rhetorical question which does not expect an answer, and the searching question which probes\u00a0the hearer, are all distinguished, defended and illustrated from Scripture, and demonstrated to be\u00a0part and parcel of our great Reformed preaching tradition. Though grammatically an aspect of the\u00a0indicative suited for explication of the Word of God, the interrogative promotes application of the\u00a0Word of God. It constitutes an important part of what Lloyd-Jones called ‘the element of attack’. It helps distinguish a sermon from a lecture. The interrogative reminds us that man is on the\u00a0dock and God is on the bench, to quote C. S. Lewis.<\/p>\n

The imperative (part 1, ch. 5) follows the basic content pattern of the previous chapters. The\u00a0imperative is defined as a grammatical form expressing command, request, or exhortation.\u00a0Clearly the New Testament is filled with apostolic preaching in the imperative form. At this point\u00a0Carrick elaborates impressively on the twin indicative-imperatives found especially in Acts and the\u00a0canonical epistles. Indeed, the entire structure of some epistles is obviously indicative-imperative\u00a0(e.g., Romans, Ephesians). Hebrews uses a repeating pattern of indicative-imperative sections, and\u00a0James is dominated by imperatives. Not surprisingly, great Reformed preaching has also been\u00a0characterized by the indicative-based imperative, with powerful exhortations to sinners and saints\u00a0alike, as the author demonstrates.<\/p>\n

The imperative (part 2, ch. 6) boldly presents Carrick\u2019s concerns about RHP. He traces its\u00a0history from the Netherlands in the 1930s and 1940s. Klaas Schilder (1890-1952) and B. Holwerda\u00a0(1909-52) spearheaded the RH school of thought which gave rise to RHP (108-09). These men were\u00a0concerned with an ‘atomistic’ approach to interpretation and preaching which took texts out of\u00a0context, failed to grasp the sweeping meta-narrative of Scripture understood synthetically, and then\u00a0applied them arbitrarily and manipulatively. The RH school helped to restore an appreciation for the\u00a0unity of redemptive history and its Christocentricity. It also decried the creeping moralism of\u00a0preaching in the modern era, in which the grand indicative is conspicuously absent or lacking\u00a0appropriate emphasis. However, some RHP advocates have taken this too far, and according to\u00a0Carrick their suspicion of exhortation and application recoils upon the Scriptures themselves.\u00a0Traces of this Dutch Reformed influence remain at both Westminster Theological Seminaries (in\u00a0Pennsylvania and California), where ‘biblical theology’ and RHP with its reticence in application are\u00a0not absent. Even WTS Professor Clowney himself, an ardent exponent of both, has warned,<\/p>\n

We do well to avoid setting up a false antithesis between the RH approach and what\u00a0might be called the ethical approach to the Scriptures, particularly historical\u00a0passages. The RH approach necessarily yields ethical application, which is an\u00a0essential part of preaching the Word. Whenever we are confronted with the saving\u00a0work of God culminating in Christ, we are faced with ethical demands. A religious\u00a0response of faith and obedience is required (p. 116).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Carrick quotes other respected Reformed theologians on the matter who appear to share his\u00a0concerns about RHP\u2014men like Jay Adams, Hendrik Krabbendam, John R. de Witt, John Frame, and\u00a0J. Douma. More importantly, Carrick shows that the Apostle Paul used historical examples as the\u00a0basis for exhorting his hearers (citing 1 Cor 10.1-14), a classic concern of the RH school. Exhorting\u00a0from example is also found in Hebrews, as P. E. Hughes (Visiting Professor of New Testament at\u00a0WTS) noted in his excellent commentary:<\/p>\n

The simplest sense [of 11.4] remains the best sense, namely, that Abel by his example\u00a0of faith and righteousness still speaks to us today, even though he has so long been\u00a0dead. The spectacle of his trustful integrity, even in the face of violence, should\u00a0inspire us to persevere and to overcome by the same means. His was certainly an\u00a0example that the faltering readers of this epistle were in need of emulating (p. 123).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Carrick also enlists Dr. Richard Gaffin for the cause by citing his observation that James\u00a05.16b-18 uses Elijah\u2019s example of prayer in 1 Kings 18, an ‘incidental aspect’ and ‘quite subordinate\u00a0point’ in the OT passage, to make a primary point of application for New Testament believers. Then\u00a0Carrick raises a provocative question. ‘Does the RH school regard James\u2019 reference to Elijah as\u00a0atomistic and moralistic, or not? If it does, then clearly it is claiming to be wiser than the inspired\u00a0authors of the Word of God itself; and if it does not, then it is conceding the very point at issue in the\u00a0original controversy’ (p. 127). Even though this statement is in the middle of the book, I got the\u00a0impression that Carrick considered it something of a climax comparable to checkmate, the burr\u00a0under his saddle from which he sought relief, the book\u2019s raison d\u2019\u00eatre.<\/p>\n

The remainder of this last chapter is given to a complex defense of strong application, even\u00a0from historical passages in Scripture, as an indispensable part of sacred rhetoric. It is the debate\u2019s\u00a0ground zero. Thus we pass over it as beyond the scope of a mere book review.<\/p>\n

The conclusion (ch. 7) is mostly a succinct summary, with the addition of a parting shot: ‘It is\u00a0a regrettable fact that much Reformed preaching operates in a virtual mono-mood\u2014that of the\u00a0indicative\u2014to the virtual exclusion of the imperative’. Whether the charge is fair or a straw\u00a0man, my limited exposure to contemporary Reformed preaching is not qualified to judge. Surely\u00a0Carrick is right when he opines that the doctrinal must be balanced by the practical, the historical by\u00a0the ethical, the historia salutis by the ordo salutis, and the work of Christ by the work of the Spirit. His final statement is, ‘It is absolutely essential that the great indicatives of Christ\u2019s\u00a0accomplishment of redemption be balanced by the great imperatives of the Spirit\u2019s application of\u00a0redemption’ (p. 151). May the Lord deliver His church from pulpits devoid of either.<\/p>\n

Three appendixes supply further illustrations of the exclamative, the interrogative, and the\u00a0imperative from Reformed preaching. They may be the most useful to readers relatively unfamiliar\u00a0with the spiritual eloquence of our forefathers, as a provocation to read more of their sermons.<\/p>\n

Whatever one\u2019s familiarity with this topic or position taken, this book seems to be an\u00a0important contribution worthy of consideration by all modern Reformed preachers, and so I\u00a0recommend it with meek enthusiasm. Its head-on criticisms of some RHP will disturb adherents, but\u00a0where the tool is sharpened sparks are bound to fly. Let us receive Carrick\u2019s savory meat and leave\u00a0any bones on the plate. A well-reasoned and specific response to this book by a worthy champion of\u00a0RHP would also prove an interesting read and may shed more light upon this homiletical\u00a0controversy.<\/p>\n

\n

Of Further Interest<\/h3>\n