On Existential Vs. Redemptive Historical Christ-Centered Preaching

I hinted in the previous thread that Christ-centered preaching (CCP) is understood and practiced in a couple different ways by its proponents. One way I call internal and subjective, and the other external and objective. Another way to put it is that some CCP is existential, while other forms of it are more historical.

I would further contend that the former approach seems to be the method advocated by Covenant Theological Seminary, while the latter is more the brand of Westminster Seminary California (I realize I am painting with a broad brush here, feel free to challenge me on this if you like).

"Existential" CCP tends to approach a biblical text with a view to identifying what Chapell calls the "fallen condition focus." This involves determining what effect sin has had upon the situation or character being depicted. For example, as Jonah sits in the darkness of the belly of the whale, the preacher reminds his hearers of the rebellion that occasioned Jonah being landed in this predicament. Once this has been established, the preacher draws a line from Jonah to us today: when we rebel against God, we also will find ourselves in the same darkness and despair. But God can and will deliver us from such a trial even as he did Jonah if we cry out to him out of the depths.

"Redemptive Historical" CCP would most likely take a different approach to this passage. While not necesarily denying or omitting anything from the existential example, this position is quite wary of ever drawing a line straight from the biblical character to ourselves. While the line will necessarily be drawn to us, it can only be properly drawn to us through the cross and resurrection of Christ. Thus Jonah's rebellion demonstrates his failure, and by extension the failure of all of God's prophets, to faithfully deliver God's Word to Israel. In response to this, God sends the divine Word himself, Jesus Christ, to bring salvation to his people. But this can only happen through the true Prophet's own descent into the abyss of human sin and misery. Jesus was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, even as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish. Having tasted death and overcome it on our behalf, we can be assured that in Christ "a greater than Jonah is here." Once the story has been Christocentrically situated, the line of application can then be drawn from Jonah, through the cross and empty tomb, to us.

Therefore both expositions of this passage are Christocentric, but the former focuses upon how Jesus can solve both Jonah's problem and ours, while the latter highlights the overarching redemptive historical (and not just existential) problem that Jonah typifies, finally finding the solution in the saving prophetic office of Christ, culminating in the cross and resurrection on the third day.

Assuming these are fair representations of both approaches, I'm curious what you all think of their respective merits and problems.