Yankee,

In addition to echoing the consensus of the other posters, let me add a couple of thoughts.

It is important to evaluate the worship service in its entirety, rather than merely the sermon. One of the advantages of being in a church with weekly Lord's Supper is knowing that the essence of the Gospel will have been proclaimed in every worship service, even if faithful exposition of the sermon text, in commtiment to preaching the entire counsel of God, happens to dwell heavily on a passage of Law.

Having said that, it is also important for the Law passages to be preached in such a way that the "righteous requirements of the Law" have their full impact of producing praise for their Giver, terror for our having fallen short, and gratitude to Christ for having fulfilled them in our place. That connection is unlikely to be found in the exposition of a particular text, and should not be read into it, but it would certainly be appropriate during application or prayer, even if it does not go into a full Gospel proclamation. My pastors might close such a passage with words to the effect of "as we saw earlier in the Lord's Supper, our only hope of escaping the just condemnation befitting the sluggard is found in the grace of Your Son ..."

I may be reading into your post, but did the pastor present "the sluggard" as a "Diligence for Dummies" course, with helpful hints and the benefits of non-sluggardly behavior? If so, the real issue may be less that Christ was not explicitly mentioned than that the full force of the Law was not being faithfully proclaimed.

The trouble with those sermons is the temptation they offer to self-justification: "Glad I cut the weeds yesterday! At least I'm not like that sluggard over there!"; rather than, "God have mercy on me, miserable sluggard that I am!". The latter will have heard Christ whenever He is proclaimed--worship, prayer, readings, Lord's supper, sermon, fellowship--while the former will see no need of Him, no matter how frequently His name is mentioned.

In Christ,
Paul S