There are a number of points I review and judge a sermon on. Being cut and thrust personality, I like criteria for evaluation that are as crunchy (vs. squishy) as possible. Coming out of a number of sources (CFW Walther’s Law & Gospel, Dr. Schmitt my Homiletics Prof at Concordia, Robert Dabney through T. David Gordon, St. Gregory’s Pastoral Rule and a few others) I’ve got three big criteria, and some small ones.
The big ones
1. Textual Fidelity – by this I mean did I fairly proclaim the text itself or did I abuse it to serve my own ends. Given our understanding of 1st century culture (or 10th – 5th century BC for the OT) and the original language, can I accurately translate the main point of the passage especially in the larger context it is set within.
2. Evangelical Tone – by this I mean is the Gospel prevalent. Have I pointed to Christ for the listener as the savior, or have I just shown them where He is accusing them and with-held the gospel?
3. Have a Point – does what I am saying have a purpose, or is it just meaningless air. Was it the equivalent of Chinese Food and you are hungry again 15 mins later, or might the hearer think about what was said beyond the confines of the hour.
Some smaller ones
1. Rhetoric – by this I mean the nuts and bolts of how the sermon was put together. Was it logical, did the structure move along, was the argument valid and the supports actually help
2. Audience engagement – did the length fit the audience, did the sermon address issues the audience would care about, was the physical presentation adequate
3. Instruction – was there something being taught, would the average listener go away with something new
4. Confessional expression – has the sermon strengthened a true confessional worldview of the hearer or helped to demonstrate that coherence of church doctrine and teaching, has it helped the hearer think theologically
Some of those smaller ones are really pre-requisites. Rhetoric and an understanding and appreciation of the audience are necessary things. We’ve all sat through sermons that were poorly delivered, didn’t move or the points didn’t make logical sense. This is usually a failure at the rhetoric level. The preacher’s toolbox wasn’t used correctly be it from lack of ability, lack of use or lack of time to prepare correctly. We’ve also all been in places where the speaker has completely missed the audience. They go on for 40 mins in a sit-com world of 15 min attention spans. The high-brow examples used with lunch-pail people, or the talk filled with emotional stories given to 50 something men.
I tend to be more intellectual, so I will find myself constantly checking that audience engagement line. Do I really need to use this $5 word? Is that story or support really as logical and easy a jump as I think it is? I’m also male, so I naturally shy away from the emotional content. I find I need to intentionally ask the emotional questions to force myself to look that way.
Assuming that I meet minimum standards on rhetoric and audience, then the big criteria take over.
That is a large lead up for the following observation. The sermon for last week (posted under Deep Lent below) I think failed to balance textual fidelity and evangelical tone. It had a point, and it was textually faithful, but the accusing function of the law overwhelmed the hope of the gospel. It was a sermon that would have been appropriate for an audience of unbelievers, but not for the gathered church.
In contrast, I believe this week’s sermon balanced things better. The prodigal son is a text that from my study last week I became convinced that most sermons are not being textually faithful. Most sermons want to use the characters as moral examples – “see, live your life this way or not that way”, or they want to proclaim the overwhelming grace of the Father. But the purpose of the text is an invite to see the world and yourself the way the Father sees it and you. It is an invite into the eschatological banquet. And that invite is a specific grace. It is not a cheap grace that just accepts you as you are. It is specific in that it requires repentance and acceptance of the Father’s view as real.
Tag: Lent
Deep Lent
I’ll just say I hated the text this week. It was harsh and rough, and I couldn’t escape it. Everything I read to prepare for preaching just lead deeper into the heart of repentance. Everything lead to heart rending stories. A better preacher would have been more winsome. Me, all I’ve got is a little logic and I’m too stupid to dial it back a bit and too slow to dodge. I hope and pray that the Spirit used this better than the words said.
The Kingdom of David or the Kingdom of God – Mark 11:1-11 – Palm Sunday
Mark’s Palm Sunday Text (Mark 11:1-11) ends oddly. “Jesus looked around and it being late went back out to Bethay with his disciples.” The donkey, the cloaks and the palms, the hosannas and the shouts, all end with a quick look around and a walk back out. The question to ask is who are we welcoming – The Kingdom/Son of David or the Kingdom/Son of God. The Kingdom of David restores and refreshes all the stuff that we like. To those hailing Jesus that day that meant kicking out the Romans, making all the nations bow to Israel, restoring the proper temple worship and priesthood. The Kingdom of David says “have it your way.” The Kingdom of God says “pick up your cross and follow me.” Welcoming the Kingdom of David is easy, but there is no life. The presence of the Lord has left the temple and razed it. The Kingdom of David is like a showy tree full of leaves or palm branches, but that never produces any fruit or coconuts. Are there any areas in your life where you are shouting hosanna for the coming kingdom of David – and you are missing the life, the drawing near of the Kingdom of God?
Irony at the Cross – Lent 6
I am a member of my Generation. We are finely tuned to irony. The gulfs between what one person says and what another, or the reader or God observes. When we read Mark’s account of the crucifixion (Mark 15:25-32), the weight of the irony is amazing.
An exerpt from this sermon…
…Coming off the cross, would only prove there are limits to God’s love. It would have been a sign of a lesser God. But we have the great God, the God, whose love was not limited. Jesus saved others, by not saving himself. While the establishment was demanding signs of a lesser God, the Father saw the greatest sign of love and belief imaginable. His son gave his life to save the lost world, and He entrusted all to the justice of the Father…
Don’t look inward, look outward for our salvation and our mission
Text: Mark 14:32-42
Two poles – 1) It’s about Jesus and 2) He’s got a mission. That has been the core summary of this series through Holy Week in Mark’s Gospel. Our spiritual adversary tries to push us off that second pole. The last thing he wants is faithful Christians actually sharing the Word that frees us from his kingdom of chains. He will shoot us a variety of lies: You don’t measure up to the saints, you don’t talk well enough, you aren’t a perfect person. Gracefully, it is not about us. If it were, the devil would be right. We aren’t enough of anything. But it is about Jesus and what He has done for us on that cross. Peter, the leader and example of the disciples, is our great biblical example. The disciple who fell asleep and denied his Lord at the hour of great distress, is never told by Jesus to go away, but is always invited along. Peter, after all that betrayal, is told to, ‘feed my sheep’. If the devil has you looking inward, you will never get the mission. Our salvation and our mission come from outward. They come from the one it is all about – Jesus Christ.
For God so Loved the World?
The text was John 3:1-21 which includes John 3:16. The scene set up is Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night and a conversation happens. Nicodemus drops out of the conversation exasperated. And then it turns into a one sided conversation.
This sermon reads that one sided conversation of Jesus as starting out with a barbed question that He can’t believe Nicodemus doesn’t know these things, goes through the question How can you understand heavenly things, and ends with a realization that the only way to believe is through the cross. It reads Jesus’ words as a record of Jesus’ own self understanding. According to His human nature, we know that Jesus grew. Luke puts its that He grew in wisdom, stature and favor. Did that growth stop?
The story immediately before Nicodemus is Jesus clearing the temple. A righteous and good act, but one that could easily be placed in with the OT acts of the Snakes in the desert that Jesus refers to in this text, or the call for the sacrifice of Isaac which is recalled in any giving of an only son, or the summary of the 10 commandments. Is that was God sent his son into the word for? To add one more judgement or law or method of death and condemnation?
Jesus comes to the conclusion in an emphatic no, not judgement but salvation, not enthonement but being lifted up. He comes to this conclusion based on his knowledge of who the Father is – for God so loved the world. Before the cross, that Loving Father might not have been so evident, or it had to be taken even more on faith. Faith that Hebrews ascribes to Abraham at that very sacrifice. The cross stands as the witness to just how much God loved this world.
Becuase of that cross we are no longer in the dark. We can walk in the light. Just believe the testimony of the one and only Son – God loves his creation this much. We can refuse and bring judgement upon our selves. That is the choice of the cross. Believe the testimony, or don’t. Our reaction doesn’t change the facts or the reality. Our reaction only moves us into the light, or confirms the darkness of our souls.
Ritual – Mark 14:22-26
Wow, it was a busy week. This text was the core of my lenten devotion last week. Prepping for Mauday Thursday as well. It was Mark’s account of the Last Supper. In these lenten devotions, we’ve been walking through the Markan account of Holy Week. I’ve also been using a phrase to look at the events. It’s about Jesus, and He has a mission.
The cloud of biblical images around the last supper supports that bi-polar sentence better than many. The OT cloud is the passover. In the Last Supper Jesus redefines every element as pointing to him. A 1500 year old ritual is redefined in startling ways. Not the least of which is it becomes forward looking instead of a remembrance meal. The passover remembered when God acted. The Last Supper/Lord’s Supper recalls/longs for the day Jesus drinks again in the Kingdom. The NT cloud is all about mission and it is in parables. The wedding banquet at the end of time. In those parables the Kings says go bring everyone in. The city dwellers and the country folk, the crippled, the blind and the poor. That missional imperative is something we definitely know. We would often rather argue about theological points or fine shadings. We don’t know much of that for certain. What we do know – It is about Jesus, and He’s got a mission…and he wants us on that mission.
In finance there is a term – safe harbour. What it means is that there are gray areas of tax law and accounting rules. You can explore those grey areas, usually through the tax courts. If you lose, you will owe penalties. There is usually a safe harbour, behavior spelled out at appropriate. The tax courts may eventually rule the behavior wrong and change the regulations, but if you were in that safe harbour there will be no penalty. Theologically speaking there is a safe harbour – personally, believe and be baptized; as a church, be about mission.
Theology of the Cross – 1 Cor 1:18-31
The story of Jacob wrestling God all night is a little like each sermon prep. Sometimes you are exhausted, but have feel like you have extracted something worth sharing. Some weeks you feel like the Rock just slammed you from the top rope about 10 mins into the match.
The technical word is the theology of the cross. Giving a sermon on it, for a hyper-rational person like me, is a what-were-you-thinking idea. The cross ultimately falls under the Louis Armstrong quote, “Man, if you gotta ask.” Ultimately the architecture of our congregation (thanks Ethel Louise for the idea) speaks more. When we gather for communion, we are all placed kneeling at the foot of the cross. All of our wisdom and intellect and strength reduced by a sacrament with bread and wine where all all welcome. That image says more than 1500 words. Those perishing have all kinds of questions about what is going on. Those being saved – don’t need to ask.
Lent 3 – Two types of good, and a time to Break the Jar – Mark 14:3-9
The text is Mak 14:3-9. The story is a woman’s annointing of Jesus with a year’s wages worth of perfume. Jesus praises her and he tells the disciples to stop picking on her. He does not denounce their version of good – counting the cost and helping the poor. Instead he denounces their lack of awareness of the time. There is a time to break the jar and pour everything out. The following is from the full text…
“…When the time was right, God broke the jar. He incarnated himself in Jesus and he did not turn back. He poured himself out upon this earth. The one through whom all things were made became a helpless baby. The commander of armies of angels, called twelve Jewish misfits who would desert and betray him. The author of life would taste death on the cross and be placed in a grave without burial preparation. At the right time God was a spendthrift. At the right time God so loved the world that he gave his only son. And that Son, Jesus Christ, revealed and incarnated the Father to us.
As disciples we are called to a similar spendthrift task. To incarnate the love of Jesus for the lost in this world. And that requires both types of good. It requires the hard flinty type to be intentional about sharing the gospel. It requires the good helping the poor. It requires the good of being leaders in the community. It requires the good of prayer and study for discernment and looking for that task that we as a people or as individuals have been given. And it requires the good of being willing to break the jar when we see that opportunity that God has given us to bring Christ to our community…”
Two Poles – It’s about Jesus and The Lord has a Mission
Continuing the mid-week series started Ash Wednesday we are working our way through the Holy Week account in the gospel according to Mark. Below is the compressed devotion coming out of the fuller text. Please join us looking at The Mission of Holy Week.
Text: Mark 14:1-2 (“But not during the feast…”)
We like to think that we are in control. The Chief Priests and the teachers of the law wanted to kill Jesus, but they wanted to do it on their terms and in their time. “Not during the feast, or the people may riot.” How did that work out? We like to think that we are in control, but we are only in control as much as we are following the will of God. It was God’s will to endure the cross for our sins. It is God’s will that we should make disciples. He gives us his Word. He places us in situations. He wants us to walk in the good works he has planned out in advance for us to do. We can refuse. We can book passage to Tarshish. But big whales often get in the way of those trips. We can rebel. We can look for ways to kill the Spirit that lives within us. Unfortunately, that often works. Our hearts become hard. We no longer hear the Word. The better path is one of prayer and study and trial. We pray and we study to be able to discern the path God wants us to walk. We intentionally look for those God wants us to disciple. Discipleship can be a trial. It does not always work out. Our disciples can refuse and rebel just like we can. But do we want to find ourselves in the feet of the chief priests working against God?