Is It a Christ-Centered Sermon? Part Two
April 3rd, 2006More food for thought…Excerpts from an article by Todd Wilken entitled A Listener’s Guide to the Pulpit:
(Part One)
“A sermon that mentions Jesus but still has you driving the verbs is still about you, not Jesus. The Gospel is all about what Jesus does for you. A sermon about what you do for Jesus isn’t the Gospel. For the Gospel to be preached, Jesus must be driving the verbs.”
“The Gospel isn’t Jesus your example, educator, life-coach or therapist. The Gospel is Jesus, your crucified and risen Savior from sin and death. So, listen for the Scriptural verbs of salvation: The Jesus Who lived for you, suffered for you, was crucified for you, died for you, and rose again for you. The Jesus Who forgives you, redeems you, reconciles you and has mercy on you.”
“A sermon that doesn’t mention Jesus isn’t about Jesus. Since you can’t preach the Gospel without mentioning Jesus, a Jesus-less sermon is a Gospel-less sermon.”
(Part One) (Part Three) (Part Four)
*Also, check out this blogger’s posts on Gospel-Centered Preaching, here and here.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 am
Help me understand this. I completely agree with the emphasis on Christ’s centrality and practically emphasizing how the indicative (what God has done & is doing) forms the necessary framework for even beginning to understand the imperative in a Christ-centered way (e.g. “husbands, love your wives”)…Dan–you know that right?
But I don’t understand, or necessary agree with, his conclusion that, if “you [are] driving the verbs [the message] is still about you, not Jesus.” As we discussed under the previous post, the Gospel has powerful ethical implications (I’d suggest far more powerful than the average Christian is willing to consider). So are we just stuck, according to this one author, forever unable to communicate those ethical implications, because that would shift the subject of verbs from Jesus to the hearer from time to time?
I get that he’s trying to caution against moralism/legalism and a “performance-type” Christianity. But at what point is it insufficient to merely talk about “The Jesus Who lived for you, suffered for you, was crucified for you, died for you, and rose again for you” without considering the implications of all that Christ has done for you? I’m not at all suggesting that Christ Himself has insufficiencies. I’m just asking, “Don’t we need to help ourselves and others seriously, radically consider what it means that Christ has created a new spiritual ethnic?” And isn’t that what the writers of Scripture did themselves? Aren’t they answering the question implied by the good news, “How then should we live?”
Take my text from yesterday, Luke 12:15-34 — a section where Jesus is teaching people how to look at their possessions. Jesus tells people to guard against covetousness. He tells them to stop being anxious. He tells them to consider a number of things. He tells them to seek God’s kingdom. He tells them not to fear. He tells them to sell their possessions. He tells them to give to the poor. He tells them to provide for themselves treasure in heaven. So…in Jesus’ message, who is driving the verbs? Whether in English or Greek, it’s you. So was Jesus not a Gospel-centered preacher? Or was he simply Gospel-centered in a manner that’s different than what this one author seems to suggest?
This is why I think I must be the only one who doesn’t understand what this author is saying–or who disagrees with it. I don’t agree that including the ethical implications of the Gospel in a message is failing to be Gospel-centered. I don’t agree that I can only use Jesus as the subject of my verbs if I want to honor Christ. I think there’s another (better?) way to be Christ/Gospel-centered, and that is to ALWAYS lay the groundwork of what Christ has done and is doing BEFORE exhorting people to take a particular course of action THAT IS ITSELF DEMANDED BY THE TEXT IN LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL WORK OF CHRIST.
Somebody help me here! Isn’t it assumed that the pronouncement of good news produces ethical changes in the lives of the hearers? Isn’t it assumed that people who hear and understand the good news (including it’s incredibly difficult, convicting parts) will respond something like, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). And at that point, are we remaining as Christ-centered as possible if we respond something like, “DO? Stop trying to drive the verbs! Let’s get back to talking about what verbs Jesus is driving!”
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
The book Cat & Dog Theology has been a blessing to me
recently. I think it would help answer the question of
who is driving the verbs. Anyone else acquainted with it?
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Matt,
Here’s your basic question as I understand it: Does this gospel-centered perspective on interpretation and preaching—if understood as Wilken presents it—mean that we cannot communicate and stress ethical responsibility? If so, what do we do with texts like Luke 12:15-34 where Jesus gives multiple commands regarding man’s relationship to possessions?
I don’t know how Wilken would answer your questions. His article does not address your concerns. But I don’t think that having Jesus driving the verbs of your sermon necessarily means that you can’t stress, even intensely, the hearer’s moral obligation. My major concern is with sermons where the hearer drives the verbs without explicit reference to how his/her activity is to be motivated and empowered by the gospel where God in the Messiah drives the verbs. I know you agree with me on this. But, as I’ve written else where, it seems to me that far too much preaching in evangelical circles stresses “do!” more than it stresses “done!” Or, if it does not stress “do!” over “done!”, it fails to show how the “do!” flows out of and is empowered by the “done!” The question I ask myself when preparing to preach a text: Will people leave thinking “do!” more than “done!” or will they leave thinking I will “do!” because of what has been “done!”?
If people leave the sanctuary thinking about their doing within the context of what has been done, then, in my view, Jesus has driven the verbs of the sermon. Tim Keller is a master at this. He does not shy away from confronting his hearers with their moral obligation, but he confronts them in such a way that they leave amazed at what God has done in Christ. So, even though he may be heavy on the believer’s responsibility, he connects the imperatives with the gospel in such a way that they leave amazed afresh at the redemption that has been accomplished.
What about Luke 12 and other texts where Jesus stresses moral responsibility? Here’s the short answer: we’ve got to consider the full context of the book in which Jesus’ words are recorded. Luke’ Gospel (or any of the Gospels for that matter) is not primarily a record of the words or preaching of Jesus. It is a record of his saving activity. So we must always understand his words within that larger context. The gospel is goodnews for people who are covetous and fearful. It is the one thing that can free them. As I know you believe, Jesus did not merely come to tell people how to live. He came to save people who live very badly. We need more than instruction. We need a Savior. So, his words of instruction must be understood within that larger context. I don’t think what I am saying here is incompatible with what Wilken stresses (though he may disagree with me).
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Barry,
I’ve not read it. How would it help this discussion?
Dan
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Dan,
I think your thoughts (if you and Wilken are saying the same thing) are better expressed than his, at least for my feeble mind to grasp. I appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions since you have the larger context of what else Wilken has written to determine what he’s really saying in these quotes.
I wholeheartedly agree with your method of assessing by asking, will people leave after hearing God’s message through me and think, “I gotta go work on all this stuff now”? Or will they leave thinking, “In light of what God is doing and has done in Christ, I really want to cooperate with the Spirit’s work in me in this way now”? The latter view, if anything, raises the ethical implications of the Gospel because it readily admits the standard is unattainable through mere self-discipline. But the fact that I can’t do this alone doesn’t stifle personal cooperative effort when it is viewed through the lens of the good news that I am already delivered from any condemnation for falling short and I am already perfectly complete in Christ and I already have all the resurrection power of His Spirit within me to empower me to live in a manner worthy of this great Gospel.
You can listen to my feeble attempt at creating that kind of joyful response to the good news in the context of Luke 12. Thanks again for patiently reinterpreting what I’m trying to ask.
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Matt,
I may be guilty of assuming too much or reading between the lines of Wilken’s article too much. He may very well be opposed to stressing the biblical imperatives (though I can’t imagine that he would be). What I do know is that in his article he mentions the sermons of certain preachers who have fairly large followings in contemporary evangelicalism (Joel Osteen being the main one). He uses Joel as an example of one who preaches sermons where the hearer drives the verbs. His article, in my estimation, is an attempt to address the shallowness of that kind of man-centered preaching. I don’t think he’s opposed to preaching imperatives within a gospel-rich context. I did e-mail him telling him about this series of posts and user comments. As far as I know, he has not visited.
Dan
April 4th, 2006 at 1:33 am
This discussion reminded me of your post on 2/28/05, concerning evangelistic sermons. Back there, it seems we decided that there are things that ought to be taught as part of a comprehensive soteriology that are not, technically, the Gospel itself, but ought to be taught only in a Gospel-rich context. Apart from a Gospel-rich atmosphere, these kinds of appeals amount to little more than moralism. But preaching the Gospel apart from its ethical implications amounts to negligence, because the discipler is failing to help the disciple learn Christ-centered wisdom (the Gospel APPLIED practically to everyday life).
So long as the undershepherd or discipler is teaching in this Gospel-rich context, I can’t see labeling him/her with some kind of anathema (like “Gospel-less” or “Jesus-less”) every time he/she discusses the ethical implications of the Gospel with one who is seeking to learn the practical wisdom of a Christ-centered worldview. Is that about right?
April 4th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I agree, absolutely. I’m fairly certain Wilken would agree as well. His article is addressing the preaching of preachers like Joel Osteen who, as Wilken argues, does not preach within a gospel-rich context.
April 4th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
WHAT???? Really???? But how can I have my best life know apart from a Gospel-rich environment????
j/k
April 7th, 2006 at 10:46 am
[...] e…that it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance?” (Romans 2:4). (Part One) (Part Two) (Part Three) (Part Four)
Filed und [...]
April 10th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
[...] t through the grace of Jesus Christ (pp. 78-79). More to come in part seven. (Part One) (Part Two) (Part Three) (Part Four) (Part Five) [...]
April 11th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
[...] an produce gospel holiness (Preaching the Gospel in a Post-Modern World, 79). (Part One) (Part Two) (Part Three) (Part Four) (Part Five) (Pa [...]