The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Experimental Preaching Institute.

Pilgrim,

I've been meaning to reply sooner to this point but just haven't been able to find the time. Actually, I don't have the time now, but I just wanted to say that I've been thinking alot about what you said here and would like to pursue it further. I'm not sure I agree with you though. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know I hadn't forgotten about or was ignoring this point.

John

Hi Pilgrim,

I would like to get back to this point a little more.


First of all, what eactly do you mean by "explicitly"? Does you mean that depending on the scripture passage, Christ's name should not be mentioned at all during the sermon?


Personally, I don't have any problem with a preacher putting forth a short call at the end of each sermon to "believe in Christ". But, if this is the only way that Christ shows up in the sermon, then I think that it's possible that the sermon wasn't preached faithfully. For example, maybe the sermon is on an OT passage that has to do with living according to God's law. Now, it's perfectly fine to expound this passage by showing how that should work out in a Christian's life and how these are God's laws and they should be obeyed, but without bringing Christ into the picture it's just moralism in my opinion. If you explain an OT passage containing one of God's commands as being God's law and should be obeyed and leave it at that, do you really think this is a good thing? I agree with you that it is our resposibility to live out the details of what our sanctification entails and a sermon can focus on that very well and be good, but if Christ and the Gospel aren't brought in as the power and the motivation behind doing it, then I think that's a pretty empty sermon.




I agree with everything here. When I stated that Christ should be preached faithfully in every sermon in my original post, I was not trying to imply that this meant every sermon's point should be a plea to the non-Christian's in the audience to accept Christ. I've been in churches before where every week the sermon was always aimed at non-Christians, and all I can say is that for a believer, those sermons grow old fast and are very empty. But again, in answering your point that "It is here that I think preachers need to focus their efforts; e.g., encouraging those who are discouraged, weary and beaten down from being in the world with its myriad temptation," how does one go about doing this without mentioning Christ at all? Do you say, it's because God loves you and stop at that? Many other religions say that. Where does the power and desire to resist temptation come from? Is it because God commands we don't sin and if we do we will go to Hell? Is that all. My point is, I honestly don't see how you can have a sermon in which Christ is left out completely and call it Christianity.


But even in Esther which doesn't mention God at all, what would you say if the preacher preached a sermon on Esther and didn't mention God at all. I think that would be wrong. Even though Esther doesn't mention God, as you so rightly point out "God is the 'canvas'" of the story. We would both agree that God is in every part of Esther. The Israelites are sinners just like us. Without a mediator between them and God, God's wrath would come down on them as well. My point is that Christ is in this book also. On what basis does God show so much mercy to the Israelites. Even here, Esther is looking towards Christ's salvation. So I don't think it's inappropriate or artificial to bring Christ in to a sermon on Esther.



I agree that if Christ is just used as an "addon" so that his name is mentioned in the sermon, then this is not the appropriate exposition of the text. But, I just cannot get over the idea that it is acceptable to leave Christ out entirely. To me a sermon without Christ is empty. Even if all the points are excellent and the application good, without Christ as the basis it lacks any power for change in my opinion, except the power of "doing it yourself". Or, as one of my former pastors used to say, "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps".

I would add that I have heard many sermons where Christ's name is peppered throughout the sermon but still felt that Christ was not being faithfully preached.

John

I feel I have sufficiently explained my position on "tacking on Christ" in every sermon, which can be nothing more than "eisogesis". Or is sometimes a desire to give the appearance of holding to "Christological" preaching; a neat new term that has been introduced that challenges the traditional "Grammatico-Historico" hermeneutic. It does indeed grab the attention. But I believe it is fallacious. After all, who wants to be accused of not preaching "Christologically"? It's similar to the psychological advantage the Arminians are known to use in regard to the doctrine of "Limited Atonement". It sounds so much more appealing to say you hold to an "Unlimited Atonement" rather than one that is "Limited". Yes, such ploys are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Of course, some of us have seized the opportunity to turn the tables and say we believe in a "Definite Atonement". Now, if one opposes this doctrine of Definite Atonement do they really want to say that they hold to an "Indefinite Atonement"?

Anyway, I digress. All I am saying is that we should be faithful to the doctrine of Inspiration and preach the Bible in context and preach it in accord with its intended purpose. To make my final point I would direct your attention to the Lord Jesus Christ and His use of the Scriptures.

And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Lk 24:27; cf. Matt 28:19, 20)

I think one would be hard pressed to show that the Lord Christ interpreted every single verse contained in the Old Testament as pointing to Himself. And the apostle Paul was of a similar mind when he declared that he preached the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). I am opposed to what you have termed "moralizing" sermons, no less than you. But I am equally opposed to using Christ's name vainly.

In His Grace,