Tim Keller writes:

“When the early Christians chose the Greek term ‘ev-angelion’ they immediately distinguished the Christian message from that of all other religions. An ‘angel’ was a herald or messenger that brought news of some historical event that had already happened, and that had changed our condition. The most common examples in Greek literature are ‘evangels’ about a victory in war or the ascension of a new king.

When Christians chose evangelion to express the essence of their faith, they passed over words that Hellenistic religions used, such as ‘illumination’ (photismos) and ‘knowledge’ (gnosis) or that Judaism used such as ‘instruction’ or ‘teaching’ (didache) or ‘wisdom’ (Sophia). Of course, all of these words were used to describe Christianity, but none achieved the centrality of ‘gospel’. What does that mean? First, it means that the gospel is news about what God has already done for you, rather than instruction and advice about what you are to do for God. The primacy of his work, not our work, is part of the essence of faith. In other religions, God reveals to us how we can find or achieve salvation. In Christianity, God achieves salvation for us. The gospel brings news primarily, rather than instruction.

Second, it means that the gospel is all about historic events, and thus it has a public character. ‘It identifies Christian faith as news that has significance for all people, indeed for the whole world, not merely as esoteric understanding or insight.’ In other religions, the stories of miracles and other special events in the lives of the founder are not essential. Whether or not Buddha did Miracle X does not affect whether the 8-Fold path to enlightenment works or not. But if Jesus is not risen from the dead, Christianity does not ‘work’. The gospel is that Jesus died and rose for us. If the historic events of his life did not happen, then Christianity does not ‘work’ for the good news is that God has entered the human ‘now’ (history) with the life of the world to come.

This public, historical aspect of the gospel is especially seen when the term ‘the gospel of Christ’ or “of Jesus Christ’ is used. Often the word ‘gospel’ and the life and work of Christ are essentially synonyms. Particularly significant is how Luke links ‘gospel’ to ‘Jesus’. In Acts 5:42, it reads, literally, ‘they never stopped…evangelizing Christ Jesus’. Obviously, Jesus is not the object of their evangelism (they are not trying to convert him!). But the word ‘evangelizdomenoi’ means, all by itself, ‘to preach the gospel’ or literally ‘to gospelize’. So in the places in Acts where it says, literally, ‘they evangelized Jesus’, the English translations have to render it ‘they told the gospel about Jesus Christ’ or ‘they told the good news that Jesus was the Christ’ (cf. NIV Acts 5:42). But the Greek construction clearly has a stronger meaning than that. Its intentional redundancy aims to say that that the good news they preached was Jesus. His very life, and all his works, is what saves us. To declare Jesus and to declare the gospel is the same thing. Jesus does not bring the gospel—he is the gospel, because the gospel is that God has broken into history and accomplished everything necessary for our salvation.

Summary: The gospel is news that Jesus Christ’s life and death and resurrection in history has achieved our salvation. Unlike the founders of other religions, who could be said to bring good news, Jesus is the good news” (Preaching the Gospel in a Post-Modern World, 56-57).

Only Jesus resolves redemptive themes

“There are quite a number of what Don Carson calls ‘inter-canonical’ themes that ‘cut across’ the entire Biblical corpus. Alec Motyer points out that the Old Testament asserts truths in apparently irreconcilable tension with each other. Thus these themes have ‘thickening plots’ as the Old Testament goes on. In other words, like all good stories, there is dramatic tension within the themes that seems almost insoluble. Only in Christ, however, are the ‘tensions’ in these themes resolved and fulfilled. With this approach, rather than only looking for ‘types’ we should look for questions the text raises tow which only Jesus can be ‘the answer in the back of the book’ (Tim Keller, Preaching the Gospel in a Post-Modern World, 36).

For fear of frustrating those bloggers who have informed their readers that this series is over (you know who you are…), instead of adding more parts I will add a few / several appendices. So, here is appendix one (he smiles as he types):

“There are great stories in the Bible…but it is possible to know Bible stories, yet miss the Bible story…The Bible has a story line. It traces an unfolding drama. The story follows the history of Israel, but it does not begin there, nor does it contain what you would expect in a national history…The story of the Bible is real history, wrought in the lives of hundreds and thousands of human beings. In a world where death reigned, they endured, trusting the faithfulness of God’s promise. If we forget the story line of the Old Testament, we will also miss the witness of their faith. That omission cuts the heart out of the Bible. Sunday school stories are then told as tamer versions of the Sunday comics, where Samson substitutes for Superman. David’s meeting with Goliath then dissolves into an ancient Hebrew version of Jack the Giant Killer. No, David is not a brave little boy who isn’t afraid of the big bad giant. He is the Lord’s anointed…God chose David as a king after his own heart in order to prepare the way for David’s great Son, our Deliverer and Champion” (Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament, 11-14).

The entire nine-part series of blog posts can be found here.

The Bible identifies idolatry as the sin which is under every other sin. The reason man commits any particular sin is because there is another god before the God (see Exodus 20). Idolatry is not just one sin among many. It is the sin out of which every other sin grows (see David Powlison’s article). It seems to me, therefore, that another way to determine whether a sermon is Christ-centered or not is to answer this question: How does a Christ-centered / gospel-centered sermon address man’s problem with idolatry? If idolatry is man’s foundational problem, then our preaching should address it. So, how might a gospel-centered sermon address man’s problem of idolatry in contrast to a non-gospel-centered sermon? Keller writes:

The “Moralizing” Approach. A very typical approach to personal change among orthodox and conservative Christians can best be called the “moralizing” approach. Basic analysis: Your problem is that you are doing wrong. Repent! This focuses on behavior—but doesn’t go deep enough. We must find out the why of our behavior. Why do I find I want to do the wrong things? What inordinate desires are drawing me to do so? What are the idols and false beliefs behind them? To simply tell a [depressed] person (or yourself) to ‘repent and change [your] behavior’ is insufficient, because the lack of self-control is coming from a belief that says, ‘even if you live up to moral standards, but you don’t have this, then you are still a failure.’ You must replace this belief through repentance for the one sin under it all—your particular idolatry.

The “Psychologizing” Approach. A very typical approach to personal change among more liberal religious groups can best be called the “psychologizing” approach. Basic analysis: Your problem is that you don’t see that God loves you as you are. Rejoice! This focuses on feelings, which seems to be “deeper” than behavior—but it fails to go deep enough. We must also find out the why of our feelings. Why do I have such strong feelings of despair (or fear, or anger) when this or that happens? What are the inordinate desires that are being frustrated? What are the idols and false beliefs behind them? To simply tell an [depressed] person (or yourself) “God loves you—rejoice!” is insufficient, because the unhappiness is coming from a belief that says, ‘even if God loves you, but you don’t have this, then you are still a failure.’ You must replace this belief through repentance for the one sin under it all—your particular idolatry.

The “Gospel” Approach. Basic Analysis: Your problem is that you are looking to something besides Christ for your happiness. Repent and Rejoice! This confronts a person with the real sin under the sins and behind the bad feelings. Our problem is that we have given ourselves over to idols. Every idol-system is a way of works-salvation, and thus it keeps us “under the law.” Paul tells us that the bondage of sin is broken when we come out from under the law—when we begin to believe the gospel of Christ-salvation. Only when we realize in a new way that we are righteous in Christ is the idol’s power over us broken. Sin shall not be your master for you are not under law, but under grace (Romans 6:14). You will only be “under grace” [functionally] and free from the controlling effects of idols to the degree that you have both: (1) repented of your idols, and (2) rested and rejoiced in the saving work and love of Christ instead (Preaching the Gospel in a Post-Modern World, 99-100).

The “moralistic” sermon or the “Christ-as-God-of-Gaps” sermon or the “Christ-as-Example” sermon will only address man’s idolatry on a superficial level. Exemplary sermons do not go deep enough when seeking to provide the hearers with the solution to their sin problems. “Christ was not selfish…You are selfish…So repent of your selfishness” sermons are not the kind of sermons that will shepherd people along the path of substantive spiritual transformation. Only Christ-centered / gospel-centered sermons are able to address man’s real problem, namely, idolatry. Moralistic sermons shoot at the fruit. Christ-centered sermons cut out the root.

This entire series of blog posts thus far can be found here.

*Also, check out this blogger’s posts on Gospel-Centered Preaching, here and here.

I confess that preparing and preaching Christ-centered sermons is not an easy thing to do. My default mode is merely to preach either Christ-as-example sermons or Christ-as-God-of-Gaps sermons. I’ve prepared and preached too many default-mode sermons that I wish I could take back. But I have also found that though preparing and preaching them is no easy task, there is no more rewarding task (by rewarding I mean refreshing and renewing). Why? Because nothing refreshes and renews like the gospel of Jesus the Messiah. There is nothing like having your heart burn within you while your mind is opened to understand the Scriptures, “that the Messiah should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead” (Luke 24:32, 45-46). That is life-giving, life-renewing news! Though preaching Christ-centered sermons is a challenging endeavor, it is a profoundly spiritually rewarding undertaking, both for you and your hearers.

If we are to grow in our ability to prepare and preach Christ-centered / gospel-centered sermons, we need to continue to grow in our understanding of the gospel itself. So, working off John Frame’s tri-perspectival approach to knowledge and Vern Poythress’ tri-perspectival approach to hermeneutics, Tim Keller presents a tri-perspectival approach to understanding the gospel. He writes:

I think it is important to see that the gospel itself (just like the Tri-une God) should be understood through three perspectives as well. Each perspective is true in that it eventually comprises the whole, but each approach begins with a particular ‘door’ or aspect.

The ‘normative’ aspect, I’ll call “the gospel of Christ”, stresses the objective, historic work of Christ that Jesus really came in time-space and history to accomplish [salvation] for us. It will talk much more about the real, historicity of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection…This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was a doctrinal heresy.

The ‘existential’ (experiential) aspect, I’ll call “the gospel of sonship”, stresses our new identity in Christ as adopted children…It will talk much of the power of the spirit to renew broken hearts…This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was a pastoral one of Christians falling back into legalism.

The ‘situational’ aspect, I’ll call “the gospel of the kingdom”, stresses the reversal of values in the new creation. It will talk about healed community, cultural transformation, ministries of deed and justice…This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was the lack of ‘table fellowship’ between Jew and Gentile.

We need all three perspectives, though each perspective is not simply a ‘part’ of the gospel. For example, the ‘kingdom’ perspective contains the other two. If God is king, then salvation must be by grace, for if we are saved by works, something else will be our Lord and Savior. Or, if we have a new identity in Christ by sheer grace, then we must not look down at anyone else, and self-justification is the basis of racism and injustice. If you go deep enough into any one perspective, you will find the other two (Preaching the Gospel in a Post-Modern World, 82-83).

This entire series of blog posts thus far can be found here.

*Also, check out this blogger’s posts on Gospel-Centered Preaching, here and here.

What are the alternatives to Christ-centered / gospel-centered sermons? Answering this question is important. It helps shed light not only on the necessity of preaching Christ-centered sermons but also on what makes them savingly and sanctifyingly beautiful. In answer to this question, Tim Keller writes:

Type #1 – On the one hand, there is a “Christ as Example” or ‘moralistic’ sermon that says—“Please try harder or God will be very unhappy!” Type #2 – On the other hand, there is a “Christ as God-of-Gaps” or ‘relativistic’ sermon that says—“We all fall down but God loves us anyway!” (Many people today…smell that “church growth” theory has led us to more ‘relativistic’ sermons in the evangelical world. But are we just to go back to moralistic ones?)

Instead we must do “Christ-as-Savior” or ‘gospel’ sermons. Unlike “Type #2” sermons, they begin with deep, below the surface repentance, not a superficial application of “Jesus loves you anyway.” Unlike “Type #1” sermons, they end with rejoicing, since the thing we must repent of is always a failure to enjoy, delight in, and relish the grace and provision of Christ’s work. So this is how I learned to preach sermons on lying—or on anything else. No matter what the issue, if we call people to “try harder”, we actually push them deeper into slavery, but when we always solve the problem by applying the gospel, then both (a) non-Christians get to hear it every week in multiple perspectives, and (b) Christians get to see how it really works in every aspect of life.

Sum: Only “Christo-centric” preaching can really lead the hearers to true virtue, gospel holiness. Typical preaching only distills “Biblical Principles” which do not see the text in its redemptive-historical context. Thus it is only natural that the application part of such a sermon will tend to merely exhort people to conform to the principles. Only Christo-centric preaching can produce gospel holiness (Preaching the Gospel in a Post-Modern World, 79).

(Part One) (Part Two) (Part Three) (Part Four) (Part Five) (Part Six)

*Also, check out this blogger’s posts on Gospel-Centered Preaching, here and here.

Most of the Tim Keller quotations from this blog-series come from his D. Min. course syllabus entitled Preaching the Gospel in a Post-Modern World. The entire syllabus is approximately two-hundred single-spaced pages (8×11) of material where he seeks to flesh out gospel-centered preaching. I have found it very helpful. In the section of the syllabus below, Tim discusses the structure a gospel-centered sermon might take. He suggests a foundational outline for structuring a sermon’s argument from a gospel-centered perspective. Even if you are not a preacher / teacher, this section is very helpful in understanding how the human heart functions.

In ever text of Scripture there is somewhere a moral principle. It may grow out of what it shows us about the character of God or Christ, or out of either the good or bad example of characters in the text, or out of explicit commands, promises, and warnings. This moral principle must be distilled clearly. But then a crisis is created in the hearers as the preacher shows that this moral principle creates insurmountable problems. The sermon shows how this practical and moral obligation is impossible to meet. The hearers are led to a seemingly dead end. Then a hidden door opens and light comes in. The sermon moves both into worship and into Christ-application when it shows how only Jesus Christ has fulfilled this….Finally, [the preacher] shows how our inability to live as we ought stems from our rejection of Christ as the Way, Truth, and Life (or whatever the theme is). The sermon points out how to repent and rejoice in Christ in such a way that we can live as we ought.

Tim then illustrates how we might structure a gospel-centered topical sermon on honesty:

If I preached a sermon on ‘honesty’, I could show the forms of dishonesty and how harmful it is, and how we need to ask God to help us be honest. But if I stopped there (and merely called people to ask forgiveness for lying and try harder to be honest), I would only be playing to the heart’s natural self-righteousness. I would be essentially supporting the growth of ‘common morality’ in the people. Those who would be convicted by the sermon would feel guilty and burdened. Those who has not lied lately would be smug. I should admit that nearly every sermon I ever preached on honesty / lying in my first 15 years of ministry was like this! Even though I knew (via Ed Clowney) that I had to preach Christ and not moralism from every text, I really just made Jesus an ‘add-on.’ I didn’t apply him as Savior to the actual sin of lying, but to the aftermath only. My sermon would go something like this:

I. Here are all the ways we lie, and why they are forbidden.
II. We should not lie, because Jesus told the truth and kept his promises.
III. If we do lie, Jesus will forgive us and help us do better (Jesus as God-of-gaps)

In other words, I used Jesus as an example, and then as someone who forgives us when, though we try very hard, we sometimes fail. This essentially tells people to sanctify themselves. It implicitly appeals to fear and / or pride as motives for honesty.

But in the gospel analysis we ask the question: ‘why do we lie in a particular situation?’ The usual reason we lie is because there is something we feel that we simply must have (besides Jesus) to survive and be truly happy, and so we lie. It is usually a good reputation, or saving face, or approval, or some other thing. I first came to understand this when I realized that my wife and I tend to ‘fudge’ the truth in very different circumstances. I realized that the underlying reason that I lied / deceived was a fear of people’s disapproval.

I was trusting in the approval of people rather than in Christ as my functional trust, as my main hope. But anything you add to Jesus Christ as a requirement for a happy life is a functional salvation, a pseudo-lord, and it is controlling you, whether it be power, approval, comfort or control. So the only way to change your habit of lying is not to just try harder but to apply the gospel—to repent of your failure to believe the gospel, and see that you are not saved by pursuing this thing (which you are lying to get), but 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)

*Also, check out this blogger’s posts on Gospel-Centered Preaching, here and here.

The Joyful-Fear of Gospel-Centered Preaching

Another way to discern whether or not a sermon is gospel-centered is to consider the kind of fear it produces. Psalm 130:4 is one of those double-take verses. The two halves of the verse have this odd-couple feel. First half: “With You [O LORD] there is forgiveness.” Second half: “[in order] that you might be feared.” What? With You there is forgiveness that you might be feared? Those two halves do not appear to go together. Many might be tempted to think that preaching that majors on the forgiveness of God would diminish the fear of God rather than increase it. For forgiveness to produce fear seems counterintuitive. But the psalmist is clear: forgiveness increases rather than diminishes fear.

Psalm 130:4 is one of the most significant verses to consider when seeking to understand the Old Testament concept of “the fear of the Lord.” It refers not to a servile-fear but to a joyful-fear. In other words, it refers not to a fear primarily motivated by the threat of negative consequences but to a fear primarily motivated by the prospect of undeserved favor. So, it seems to me, one of the ways to discern whether or not biblical imperatives have been preached from a gospel-centered perspective is to consider what kind of fear the sermon produced. Tim Keller is helpful on this:

The more we experience grace and forgiveness and love, the more we get out of ourselves, the more we bow to [God] in amazed, wondering submission to His greatness. When we really understand that we are forgiven, it does not lead to “loose living” or independence, but to respectful surrender to His sovereignty. If we had earned our salvation, our lives would still be our own! He’d owe us something. But since our salvation is by free grace, due totally to His love, then there is nothing He cannot ask of us. We are not our own. It is the joy [of forgiveness] that brings about this submission.

Since (a) we can’t really even psychologically admit the magnitude of our sin if we don’t know there is hope of salvation, and since (b) self-hatred is basically a form of self-righteousness—how does that effect preaching? When we preach, we need to challenge with the comfort of the gospel. Put another way—the thing that most comforts us (the free, unconditional, sacrificial love of Jesus) should be the thing that most convicts us. The language of preaching should not be: “unless you clean up your act, you will never get the love of God” but “how on earth can you treat this loving God like this?” The first approach is: “repent or God will drop you!” The second approach is: “repent for spurning the God whose Son died so you would never lose Him!”

The first approach (i.e. motivating primarily by threat of consequence) actually encourages self-righteousness. It tries to convict us by increasing self-centeredness, by saying, “the sinfulness of your sin is that it is going to make you unhappy! Better get rid of it or you won’t be blessed.” Ironically, this only gets you to hate yourself (for being a failure) and to hate the consequences of the sin (“this is going to ruin me!”) rather than the sin itself for what it is in itself, a violation [against] God…

The preacher who convicts out of the comfort [of the gospel], who goes for “joyful fear” instead of “servile fear” will find that he can be extremely strong and forceful in his admonitions (emphasis mine)…Paul said, “Do you not realize…that it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance?” (Romans 2:4).

(Part One) (Part Two) (Part Three) (Part Four)

*Also, check out this blogger’s posts on Gospel-Centered Preaching, here and here.

One of the ways we can determine whether or not a sermon is Christ-Centered is by considering how it seeks to motivate the hearers to obey. Does it motivate through guilt or fear? Or does it motivate through grace? Does it motivate by stressing their failure to measure up? Or does it motivate by rejoicing in the grace of God toward those who don’t measure up? In other words, does the sermon seek to motivate with fear or love? About Christ-Centered / Gospel-Centered motivation Tim Keller writes:

Without an orientation to the gospel, the heart will repent out of fear of consequences and out of fear of rejection. “Obey or you will be rejected.” But the gospel leads you to repent because Jesus died for your sin, so you would not be rejected…Legalistic remorse says, “I broke God’s rules”, while real repentance says, “I broke God’s heart.” Legalistic repentance takes sin to Mt. Sinai, gospel repentance to Mt. Calvary. Legalistic repentance is convicted by punishment, gospel repentance becomes convicted by mercy. Repentance out of mere fear is really sorrow for the consequences of sin, sorrow over the danger of sin—it bends the will away from sin, but the heart still clings. But repentance out of conviction over mercy is really sorrow over sin, sorrow over the grievousness of sin—it melts the heart away from sin. It makes the sin itself disgusting to us, so it loses its attractive power over us. We say, “This disgusting thing is an affront to the one who died for me. I’m continuing to stab him with it!”

Look at how Paul calls people to live moral lives. “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say ‘no’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives” (Titus 2:11-12). Contrast this with how many sermons you have heard telling people to say ‘no’ to immorality. Often the implicit or explicit reasons are: “It is against the Bible” or “it’s against our Christian principles” or “your sins will find you out; you’ll reap what you sow.” Often all of those things are true, but they are inadequate and secondary motives. Only the grace of God, the logic of the gospel will work. Titus says it “teaches” us to say no, it argues with us. The gospel tells you that the sin beneath your sins is that you have made something besides Christ the center of your life. You have concocted a self-salvation strategy based on something that you have decided is more important than Christ and more of a savior than he. The gospel tells you that your sin is always the result of disbelief that you are accepted in Christ alone.

The gospel creates the only kind of grief over sin which is clean and which does not crush. It says: “Look at Jesus dying for you! He won’t leave you or abandon you…it is not because he will abandon you that you should be holy, but because this is one who at inestimable cost to himself has said he won’t ever abandon you!…See the GRACE of God argument? It is the only argument which cannot be answered. This creates the only motivation that leads you to hate the sin without hating yourself. It is the only motivation that will bring sin to lose its attractive power over you.

How can this be? The sight of Christ dying for you is at once both the one thing in the world that most convicts you to be holy and yet most assures you that you are infallibly loved. If he died for you—that is conviction. But if he died for you—that is the comfort.

(Part One) (Part Two) (Part Three)

*Also, check out this blogger’s posts on Gospel-Centered Preaching, here and here.

This is a great quotation from Tim Keller that I think is very relevant to the question of whether we or Jesus should drive the verbs of the sermon (read the comment section of part two to understand what’s behind the question. Matt’s question/comments help nuance the quotations from this series).

“The ‘informational’ view of preaching conceives of preaching as changing people’s lives after the sermon. They listen to the sermon, take notes, and then apply the Biblical principles during the week. But this assumes that our main problem is a lack of compliance to Biblical principles, when … all our problems are actually due to a lack of joy and belief in the gospel. Our real problem is that Jesus’ salvation is not as real to our hearts as the significance and security our idols promise us. If that’s our real problem, then the purpose of preaching is to make Christ so real to the heart that in the sermon people have an experience of his grace, and the false saviors that drive us lose their power and grip on us on the spot. That’s the ‘experiential’ view of preaching (Jonathan Edwards).”

~Tim Keller - MINISTRY IN THE NEW GLOBAL CULTURE OF MAJOR CITY-CENTERS (part 2 of 4).

(Part One) (Part Two) (Part Four)

(HT: DC)

More 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.

Excerpts from an article by Todd Wilken entitled A Listener’s Guide to the Pulpit:

“The central message of the Bible is Jesus Christ crucified and risen for sinners. If a sermon is really Bible-based, it will preach that Gospel.”

“Often, the difference between good preaching and bad preaching is not in what is said, but in what is left unsaid. More often, what is left unsaid is the Gospel itself.”

“Sometimes, a ‘Life-Application’ sermon does talk about Jesus. But since the goal of this kind of sermon is to teach people how to live, Jesus is presented as your teacher, your example, and your helper. The death and resurrection of Jesus might also be mentioned—as an example for you to follow of selfless love and self-sacrifice. Dr. David Wells says, ‘The Cross becomes exactly what it was in liberalism, that Jesus is reduced simply to a good example and we try to follow in His footsteps in the sense that we try to look out on life the way He did.’ In the ‘Life-Application’ sermon, Jesus becomes just another paradigm for you to live by.”

“If Jesus is mentioned, is He the subject of the verbs? This is simple grammar. Every sentence has a subject and a verb. So, listen to the sermon and do the grammar. Dr. Norman Nagel is famous for asking, ‘Who is driving the verbs?’ Is Jesus active or passive? Is Jesus doing the action or is He being acted upon? There is a difference between a sermon that says ‘I love Jesus,’ and a sermon that says ‘Jesus love me.’ One is talking about you, the other is talking about Jesus. There is a difference between, ‘Give your life to Jesus,’ and ‘Jesus gave His life for you.’”

(Part Two) (Part Three) (Part Four)

*Also, check out this blogger’s posts on Gospel-Centered Preaching, here and here.