An Analysis and Critique of The Supremacy of God in Preaching

John Piper's book, The Supremacy of God in Preaching, is a feast for those who relish passionate preaching with a strong Reformed emphasis. For those already committed to Piper's theological positions, Piper's book is a strong defense of the supremacy of preaching. For those not sharing his views, Piper's arguments will probably win no converts. However, no matter what one's perspective, one can surely benefit from the great practical helps and insights provided in this book.

The short book is divided into two sections, the first half defending the primacy of preaching and the second half demonstrating how this commitment to preaching was worked out in the life and ministry of Jonathan Edwards.

The Need for God-centered Preaching

Piper's opening salvo is remarkably insightful and immediately pulls the reader into his argument:

People are starving for the greatness of God. But most of them would not give this diagnosis of their troubled lives. The majesty of God is an unknown cure. There are far more popular prescriptions on the market, but the benefit of any other remedy is brief and shallow (p. 9).

Regardless of one's theological perspective, this statement rings true. Piper's argument appeals to our innate restlessness with things as they are, and our deep desire to know and experience something or someone of great significance. Surely, as Augustine stated, "Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." Every other object leaves us desiring more; only the infinite God can satisfy the human heart. This remains true whether we consciously realize it or not. Because of this, God truly is the ultimate object of every man or woman's desire. It is this God that must be preached in order to satisfy the supreme desire of the human heart.

No good preacher will argue with Piper's opening statement. However, many good preachers may choose to argue with Piper's view of the shape and content of the kind of preaching that meets this human need. Because of Piper's strong Reformed leanings, he clearly favors preaching that emphasizes God's sovereignty in a distinctively Edwardsian package. Sadly, he seems to discount all other preaching as missing the mark in demonstrating God's majesty.

According to Piper, too many sermons are merely moral pep talks or warmed-over pop psychology dipped in a Bible verse or two. According to Piper, this kind of preaching falls short of the Biblical mandate. In its place, the church needs to hear "God-entranced preaching" (p. 11), preaching where God himself is preached "in his majesty and truth and holiness and righteousness and wisdom and faithfulness and sovereignty and grace" (p. 12). Although I agree with Piper that preaching must be God-centered, I do not necessarily think his definition of God is full enough to satisfy the human heart. The attributes Piper chooses to highlight are more indicative of his theological system than they are of Biblical revelation, reading more like the description of God presented in the Westminster Confession than from the Bible. For example, note the telling absence of "compassion," "mercy," "patience," and, most importantly, "love."

Piper's love of preaching is obvious and certainly impacts his teaching on its supremacy. From the beginning of the book, Piper makes it clear that his interest in preaching is not merely theoretical; he loves preaching and always has (p. 13). Remarkably, he is convinced that God has never left him without something significant to say on Sunday morning. He even purports to always presenting God's message with zeal (p. 13). His confidence is so strong that after twenty-two years of ministry he has never doubted the Lord's call to ministry (p. 18). Although I am glad to thank the Lord for these things, they certainly do not sound like the normative experience for many pastors I know (and the one I know the best -- me!).

Piper's "Burden" and Guidelines

On page 20 of the book, Piper clearly states his major burden and subsequently delineates the way this burden should be carried out. I quote it in full in order to interact with it:

"My burden is to plead for the supremacy of God in preaching -- that the dominant note of preaching be the freedom of God's sovereign grace, the unifying theme be the zeal that God has for his own glory, the grand object of preaching be the infinite and inexhaustible being of God, and the pervasive atmosphere of preaching be the holiness of God" (p. 20).

Piper's "burden" is that preaching centered on God should be primary in the life and heart of a congregation. Although preaching is necessary and important to the life and health of a church, I do not share Piper's emphasis on "the supremacy" of preaching. It seems that Piper overemphasizes one particular aspect of Christian ministry merely because he likes it so much himself. But couldn't an equally strong argument be made for the centrality of the Eucharist in the life and health of the church? Church history would seem to warrant this conclusion. Likewise, couldn't we argue that the presence of superior preaching without the presence of loving, self-giving fellowship is a mark of immaturity and not health in a local body? It is easy to love hearing good sermons; it is much harder to love doing what they say.

The gift of preaching is not the only gift God has given, nor is it ever marked out as the most significant or supreme gift. Although I would agree that preaching is necessary and "unhealthy" preaching will surely result in an unhealthy congregation, I would also argue that a congregation would be unhealthy if there were no genuine body life, or no regular participation in the Eucharist, etc. In passing, I find it interesting that those who do not recognize a hierarchy of office in the body of Christ often end up advocating a hierarchy of gifts. In my opinion, Piper falls prey to this error.

Piper's guidelines for carrying out his burden are more indicative of his own theological position than they are of Biblical revelation. Is it really true that the "dominant note of preaching [should] be the freedom of God's sovereign grace"? Why this doctrine over others? Why not the incarnation or the Trinity or salvation by grace or any of a number of other significant doctrines?

And must the unifying theme of preaching be "the zeal that God has for his own glory"? Why not the zeal God has to glorify those who respond to His grace? Obviously God has created the universe with more intention than merely displaying His glory. He has also created it in order to share his glory -- to glorify those who are his own. By overemphasizing one facet of Biblical revelation, Piper seems to leave humankind entirely out of the picture. Would it make any difference if humankind had ever existed at all? If not, why did God choose to create humankind? Even more importantly, why did God choose to identify so intimately with humankind through the incarnation? It appears that Piper has merely taken his integrative motif and demanded that all preachers share the same emphasis lest they be guilty of undermining true God-centered preaching.

In reference to Piper's third guideline: Is it really true that the "grand object of preaching be the infinite and inexhaustible being of God"? Does the Bible present us with a systematized, categorized series of abstract reflections on God's infinite and inexhaustible nature? Or does it present the glorious God in the context and flow of human history, demonstrating his nature and character in light of his interactions with human beings? Piper's "grand object" can all too easily boil down to abstract, decontextualized, depersonalized and ahistorical philosophical jargon. I would argue that the "grand object" of Scripture is God's saving purpose worked out in human history. Insofar as this demonstrates God's nature, I agree with Piper. However, beginning with God's "infinite and inexhaustible being" and working down to God's saving acts seems to invert the order Scripture presents and the way in which Scripture presents it.

In short, Piper's God-entranced preaching is highly influenced by Systematic Theology and noticeably lacking in Biblical Theology. The categories that he highlights concerning how God should be preached ("in his majesty and truth and holiness and righteousness and wisdom and faithfulness and sovereignty and grace") are systematic and ahistorical categories. They are static rather than dynamic categories. In other words, Piper's view of God seems more influenced by abstract categories rather than the display of God in all the mysterious fullness of his Being in the unfolding redemptive drama of human history.

His final guideline is reductionistic. He writes that "the pervasive atmosphere of preaching be the holiness of God." Why should this attribute be exalted above the others? Is there any reason that "love" shouldn't be the pervasive atmosphere?

In short, Piper's burden is ultimately a burden that all others would imitate his love of preaching and his own particular emphases -- in other words, that we would all become little "Pipers". Obviously, this wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. But, at the same time, this is not good advice for up-and-coming preachers.

Piper on the Spirit

Piper's emphasis on the power of the Spirit in preaching is very helpful in light of the dry dead intellectualism that often accompanies serious preaching. It is also necessary in light of the rigid formulaic approaches that often characterize preaching manuals. A good sermon is not merely the result of right technique and scientific precision. A good sermon, in order to be effective, must be preached in the power of God's Spirit.

Piper's emphasis in Chapter 3 on the need of the Spirit is refreshing and inspiring. His emphasis on making sure the congregation follows with their fingers on the Biblical text is commendable (although I wonder how his view would have stacked up before the days of the printing press). He ends this chapter with an acronym he uses to seek the Spirit before he preaches which is surprisingly simple, causing me to wonder if he really needs such a straightforward device to remember what should be so blatantly obvious, especially for a man with his experience. For a chapter so full of profound observations, I found the acronym to be remarkably simple. Does Piper really go through this acronym every time he preaches?

Piper on Earnestness in the Pulpit

Piper spends a whole chapter on the need for earnestness in the pulpit. He argues that preachers must speak with gravity and not with a friendly casualness. In doing this our congregations will know that something of eternal significance is occurring. He spends an unusually long amount of time arguing against laughter in the pulpit (which makes me think he has experienced some sorry examples of its abuse). He even argues that Jesus "never told a joke" (p. 62). In short, "levity is the greatest enemy of any true spiritual work being done in the hearers" (p. 57).

Again, as Piper is prone to do, he has overstated his case. Jesus was not a comedian, but he certainly wasn't morose and joyless. His joy was apparent enough that he could call on his followers to do certain things in order to experience his joy (John 15:11). Obviously, the children were attracted to him -- and children are rarely drawn toward sour and joyless individuals. Finally, many of his sayings are full of wit and humor (Matt. 7:3-5; 23:24). Though I rarely tell any jokes specifically to tell a joke (mostly because of my ineptness), natural humor is a good way to lighten the moment in the midst of profound thoughts. Humor also helps to assess the audience's participation, for the response of laughter at least demonstrates that people are still listening and engaged.

With these shortcomings in mind, the final seven steps Piper gives for cultivating gravity and gladness in preaching are very practical and helpful. As if often the case in this book, I find myself disagreeing with Piper's overarching theological statements but benefiting greatly from his practical suggestions.

Jonathan Edwards as a Model of a God-centered Preaching Ministry

In the second half of the book, Piper offers Jonathan Edwards as a preeminent example of a passionate preaching ministry. Piper spends the rest of the book arguing for the supremacy of preaching through imitation of Edwards' life and ministry. This is quite compatible with Piper's comments so far, mostly because Piper's theology is so Edwardsian in its essence.

In my opinion, Piper's ten characteristics of preaching are the highlight of this half of the book. Preaching should stir up holy affections and not merely add facts to the mind. However, the mind must not be overlooked in this process. The goal of enlightening the mind in order to engage the heart is a much-needed balance in a day of either overly-intellectual or overly-emotional preaching. Earlier in the book, Piper emphasized capturing the affections and not merely the minds of his hearers by presenting God's glorious beauty before his audience. It is this glory that attracts the believer to love and embrace God. I thoroughly appreciate Piper's emphasis on bringing the heart to glad submission to God in light of God's wondrous beauty and goodness.

In this section, Piper also rightly suggests that preaching should be saturated with Scripture. "Preaching that proclaims God's supremacy does not begin with Scripture as a basis and then wander off to other things" (p. 86). This is a good point, but it is probably not best defended by Edwards' sermons. Many of them seem to stray from straight exegesis. However, every one of the points he develops, even if they can't be directly drawn from Edwards' ministry, are certainly insightful and helpful in preaching ministry.

The shortcomings of this half of the book all revolve around the preeminence of the example. Edwards was obviously a genius on numerous levels and thus he is probably not the best example for the average pastor. Not only is this intimidating to those of us with lesser gifts and dimmer minds, but aspiring to such a high mark can be ultimately frustrating. All too often in ministry books, examples are given that represent an unattainable level of proficiency that few can attain, leaving the majority of us exasperated rather than inspired.

Secondly, Edwards lived in another world -- in a world without phones, fax machines, and mass electronic media. One man has theorized that, in his entire life, Edwards would know as much about the world around him as is contained in one issue of "Wall Street Journal." In other words, a slower pace and less immediate accessibility allowed Edwards to devote numerous hours to study and reflection. His example, though commendable, is probably an impossible guideline for contemporary pastors.

Finally, it could be argued that Edwards was imbalanced because of his genius. This is not uncommon for those uniquely gifted. He admitted that he was not a gifted conversationalist, perhaps precisely because of his genius. Regardless of the reasons, Edwards' shortcomings in this and other areas are hardly worthy of imitation, no matter how gifted Edwards was.

Conclusion

Piper's view of the supremacy of God in preaching is noticeably stacked on the Reformed side of things. This is not a disadvantage per se, but it does demonstrate why the positions he advocates will not garner universal acceptance. He has done a good job of demonstrating what the supremacy of preaching should look like in Reformed Calvinist churches. For others, he has simply given a few practical pointers. His bias is most noticeable when he mentions people "who bleed Bible." The list he presents is obviously stacked on the Puritan Reformed side of things, not mentioning one person living before the Protestant Reformation (p. 61). Apparently, neither anyone living before the 1500's nor anyone who wasn't a Calvinist knew how to practice the supremacy of God in preaching.

Ultimately, I think Piper preaches to the converted. Those who agree with his Reformed presuppositions will enjoy the book. Those who disagree may still benefit from the practical helps in the book, but will ultimately find Piper's theological arguments to be less than compelling.

© Richard J. Vincent, November 15, 2001