# Test for Christian Preaching



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

Todd Wilkin, on Issues Etc, an LCMS program has come up with the following diagnostic test to determine if what counts as preaching is truly Christian:

1) How many times is Jesus mentioned in the sermon?
2) If Jesus is mentioned, is he the subject of the verbs or the object of the verbs? (Is Jesus the one doing the action or are you being told more about your acting on Christ)
3) If Jesus is the subject of the verbs, what are the verbs? (Are you hearing more messages about Jesus who inspires, helps, encourages, etc. or are you hearing more about Jesus Who saves, Who dies for your sins on the cross)?

This seems as a pretty good test and in my past experience in evangelicalism, many pulpits have failed at one or more of the 3 points above. 

What think ye?


----------



## elnwood (Nov 11, 2011)

It sounds like a simplistic, one-dimensional view of "truly Christian preaching."

The number of times Jesus is mentioned in a sermon has more to do with what passage is being taught on then how truly Christian the sermon is. Jesus saved us and died for our sins on the cross, but he also inspires, helps and encourages. There's a balance, but both are important.

The cross is the center of the gospel and of Christianity, but I don't think it needs to be the center of every sermon for it to be "truly Christian."


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

elnwood said:


> It sounds like a simplistic, one-dimensional view of "truly Christian preaching."
> 
> The number of times Jesus is mentioned in a sermon has more to do with what passage is being taught on then how truly Christian the sermon is. Jesus saved us and died for our sins on the cross, but he also inspires, helps and encourages. There's a balance, but both are important.
> 
> The cross is the center of the gospel and of Christianity, but I don't think it needs to be the center of every sermon for it to be "truly Christian."



Brother- when you say the gospel doesn't need to be the center of every sermon to be Christian, then how would you account for the following texts:

John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Luke 24:27 "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"

Philippians 1:18 "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

1 Corinthians 2:2 "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

1 Thessalonians 2:9 "For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God."

2Cor 4:5 "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 11, 2011)

Christianity is not Christo_exclusive_, but Christo_centric_. Then again, it is hard to preach Christocentrically without actually mentioning Christ.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Christianity is not Christo_exclusive_, but Christo_centric_. Then again, it is hard to preach Christocentrically without actually mentioning Christ.



This is my point: we can hear many imperatives of what "God wants us to do" without hearing of Christ and His work. If Christ's Person and Work are not mentioned in every sermon, then how can it be said to have truly been a "Christian" sermon since one can hear of God's commands in a synagogue or Mormon temple. I am not against preaching the whole counsel of God as Paul stated, but every sermon should be tied back to Christ and Him crucified and risen for us to truly be Christocentric.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 11, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> Todd Wilkin, on Issues Etc, an LCMS program has come up with the following diagnostic test to determine if what counts as preaching is truly Christian:
> 
> 1) How many times is Jesus mentioned in the sermon?
> 2) If Jesus is mentioned, is he the subject of the verbs or the object of the verbs? (Is Jesus the one doing the action or are you being told more about your acting on Christ)
> ...



I could hear a sermon on the historical Jesus and hit all three of these points.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > Todd Wilkin, on Issues Etc, an LCMS program has come up with the following diagnostic test to determine if what counts as preaching is truly Christian:
> ...



Ok, I'll clarify... 1) hearing Jesus, as the God-Man

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------




saintandsinner77 said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > saintandsinner77 said:
> ...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 11, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > saintandsinner77 said:
> ...


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 11, 2011)

My apologies. I saw "God-Man" and thought "Son of God."

Mistakes happen when you read too fast.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> My apologies. I saw "God-Man" and thought "Son of God."
> 
> Mistakes happen when you read too fast.



no problem brother...


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 11, 2011)

I think what several people are getting at is that the tests are good, but probably not comprehensive. That is, if someone failed to meet the criteria, it would be a very poor Christian sermon. On the other hand, one could meet all three criteria and perhaps still preach a sub-Christian sermon.
It is typically Lutheran to concentrate so exclusively on Christ and justification. I think our hermeneutics for both interpretation and proclamation need to be also Trinitarian, redemptive-historical, and ethical. For example, a sermon that does not press home the believers' duty in response to salvation is also not meaningfully Christian.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> I think what several people are getting at is that the tests are good, but probably not comprehensive. That is, if someone failed to meet the criteria, it would be a very poor Christian sermon. On the other hand, one could meet all three criteria and perhaps still preach a sub-Christian sermon.
> It is typically Lutheran to concentrate so exclusively on Christ and justification. I think our hermeneutics for both interpretation and proclamation need to be also Trinitarian, redemptive-historical, and ethical. For example, a sermon that does not press home the believers' duty in response to salvation is also not meaningfully Christian.



Not sure how preaching Christ's person and work of redemption in every sermon could be "sub-Christian." I can't see the problem with putting an emphasis on objective justification- I think that type of preaching will alleviate the problems we have in our Reformed churches of Christians lacking assurance, plagued with guilt all the time, and the morbid introspection I have experienced and observed. 

This is not to say the Trinity should not be preached nor the imperatives for Christians, but again, imperatives don't empower service- the gospel is the means by which faith is created and sustained- Luther's epiphany, "the just shall live by faith."


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

> I'm with Don. That's way too simplistic, and it encourages a kind of nit-pickiness which is not befitting of the Christian hearer of the Word.



If tying every message back to Christ and His gospel, then I'll remain simplistic. What is not befitting of the Christian hearer is to overemphasize the third use of the law and de-emphasize Christ and the cross or leave out Christ and His cross. Again, yes, preach on many topics and the whole counsel and the imperatives, but don't leave out the main message.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 11, 2011)

I have a question: Is it ever right to presuppose the Gospel, when preaching to the congregation? That certainly results in less hearing of the Gospel. There may be unbelievers among the congregation who have never heard the Gospel. Moreover, even Christians are prone to forget the Gospel.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I have a question: Is it ever right to presuppose the Gospel, when preaching to the congregation? That certainly results in less hearing of the Gospel.



Right- this is what happens in many evangelical churches and a former Reformed church I belonged to- the preachers in those cases assume everyone knows and has heard the gospel and now what they need is a heavy dose of the law. In other words, it's the mindset of "you guys already know the message, now let's move on to the real meat of Christian living." My response is the following:

1) Unregenerate people who continue to attend the services and thus continue to need to hear the gospel message in every sermon
2) Sincere believers who are morbidly introspective and are basing their assurance on the degree of fruitfulness that they have and remain doubtful on their standing with God
3) The right motivation to third use of the law preaching should always be because of what Christ has done for us on the cross (i.e. Christ has forgiven through faith in His death and resurrection, now you are free to love and serve your neighbor).


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 11, 2011)

Despite the views of the White Horse Inn and Tullian Tchividjian, I think it would be good to remeber that this is an oversimplification and contary to the language of the New Testament and the teaching of Reformed Teaches who emphesized the importance of preaching both the objective Gospel and moral imperatives in application.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 11, 2011)

Walter, I'm not sure you're really listening. I agree with the three tests; it's just that preaching requires more than that. First of all, preaching is preaching the Word of God. That means that the content of the message is determined primarily by the content of the passage. So, if you're preaching from James 3:13-18, a passage that gives a whole lot of imperative and never once mentions Jesus, should you still mention Jesus and talk about all the things he does for you? Yes. But, you have to do much more than that, or you didn't really preach James.

Also, I want to be quick to point out something that I think our Lutheran friends sometimes forget. The gospel is not synonymous with justification. Justification is a part of the gospel, along with adoption and sanctification (as per WCF). Preaching that focuses exclusively on any one component does a disservice to the gospel.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > What is not befitting of the Christian hearer is to overemphasize the third use of the law and de-emphasize Christ and the cross or leave out Christ and His cross. Again, yes, preach on many topics and the whole counsel and the imperatives, but don't leave out the main message.
> ...



Unfortunately there are Reformed churches, who assert it in their practice...try being a member of one of these Reformed Baptist churches (and I'm not saying most are like this for the Baptists here) who downplay the gospel message and whose main messages are the necessity of homeschooling, women being keepers at home, total submission to the pastor, mostly pointing people to their works for assurance, and the need to separate from fellow believers who don't walk lock step with their convictions. I have seen it first hand, so I speak from experience...Anyone who doubts that this goes on in some Reformed churches, check out John Reissenger's article: When Should a Christian Leave a Church? (Part 1)

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------




jogri17 said:


> Despite the views of the White Horse Inn and Tullian Tchividjian, I think it would be good to remeber that this is an oversimplification and contary to the language of the New Testament and the teaching of Reformed Teaches who emphesized the importance of preaching both the objective Gospel and moral imperatives in application.



Please reread my posts, I never said imperatives should not be preached, I am arguing for emphasis, not exclusion.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> Walter, I'm not sure you're really listening. I agree with the three tests; it's just that preaching requires more than that. First of all, preaching is preaching the Word of God. That means that the content of the message is determined primarily by the content of the passage. So, if you're preaching from James 3:13-18, a passage that gives a whole lot of imperative and never once mentions Jesus, should you still mention Jesus and talk about all the things he does for you? Yes. But, you have to do much more than that, or you didn't really preach James.
> 
> Also, I want to be quick to point out something that I think our Lutheran friends sometimes forget. The gospel is not synonymous with justification. Justification is a part of the gospel, along with adoption and sanctification (as per WCF). Preaching that focuses exclusively on any one component does a disservice to the gospel.



Charlie- I'm not sure your understanding my point. Again, for clarification, preach and exegete on all texts and preach the imperatives, just don't leave out Christ and His Gospel. I never implied justification is the only facet of the Gospel- what I am emphasizing is preaching Christ and the cross- yes by all means, preach on adoption and sanctification as well! No arguments here!

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

The reason we may get concerned over people not hearing enough imperatives rather than not hearing enough gospel is because we are law-creatures by nature. The gospel is so foreign to us by nature that even as Christians, we can fall into the error of grounding our assurance on our works and probing our souls to the 10th power to see if we truly have been regenerated by scrutinizing every thought, motive, and feeling, and action. Does this mean there is no room for self-examination? By no means! But the emphasis should be Christ-examination!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 11, 2011)

The I.E. metric is serviceable. It is serviceable when it is clear that such a yardstick will help situate a particular sermon in one of two broad camps. On the program in question, the camps are 1) evangelical live-well sermons, and 2) cross-focused sermons. I think its fair to say that, given the typical listenership of I.E., and their expectations, the proposed metric is exactly what they need. And it is helpful, because it does a good job showing the difference between what is found so often in the "mile-wide, inch-deep" evangelicalism, and what may be found in _better_ LCMS churches.

I don't think this metric is the only, or even the best metric, particularly for judging sermons in many reformed churches. Someone mentioned this above, I think, but one thing that cannot be measured by the I.E. metric is preaching the _preaching_ of Christ. The Sermon on the Mount is a good example. Now, this sermon by Jesus has been preached by his servants *terribly* probably more often than its been preached well, sad to say. But, besides a few "I's" and "me's", there isn't that much explicit mention of Jesus in the sermon. This does not mean that Christ did not preach himself! He was *himself* a major element of his own preached word. So his mere presence was a preaching Christ to his hearers.

When a minister, standing in Christ's shoes, preaches Christ _as if He were present and delivering the sermon to His people,_ the servant is being a faithful minister. Here is the "keygmatic presence" of Christ. This is why simply adding up the number of times Jesus is mentioned does not suffice. Of course, the I.E. metric doesn't stop there either; but still, overall there one finds almost the whole judgment of the sermon rests on an assessment of whether the Person and Work of Christ took up 51% of the sermon or more.

Let me conclude by saying another positive word about the I.E. metric. It is simplistic, in one sense; but it is wonderfully, helpfully SIMPLE in another. So much garbage can be assessed accurately for what it is by means of it. And it is accessible to many people who do not have the tools to judge by more sophisticated methods. Being introduced to this metric a few years ago near the beginning of my ministry, one thing it did for me was: I became MORE self-conscious about inserting the plain mention of the *Lord*, *Jesus*, and *Christ *in my sermons.

I learned long ago in seminary that any minister's sermon that could be delivered in a synagogue without offence was not Christian preaching. But that may not be enough. References to "the cross" or to "the disciples" or "Paul" or any number of "NT-notions" even in a sermon from the OT is not really sufficient. It is not *offensive enough* to preach a moralistic message from some practical passage in one of Paul's letters, if one had opportunity to preach it in a mosque. Is the message really Christian, even for Christians, if Christ does not permeate the discussion? Sometimes, I think we are so desirous of "sticking to the text" that we read Christ _*out of*_ the Scriptures that testify of him in every line.

So, I'm thankful for the I.E. metric. I think it does a good job for the purpose it was designed. It isn't necessarily the BEST metric for every situation, or every church. However, it is faithful to the purpose for which it was designed, and that purpose is not a bad one. It will not always identify the best preaching out there, and it may exclude many good sermons. It won't necessarily exclude "decisional" evangelism sermons. However, it will definitely exclude as unworthy the great majority of tripe that passes for Christian sermons in our day.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 12, 2011)

It's a good yardstick, though not the only good one.

We have to be careful not to hastily judge every sermon by just one simple measure. At the same time, there are many, many preachers who could stand to pay attention these diagnostic questions.

Also from the preacher's standpoint, one could go crazy trying to make every sermon fit all the good models and rules that are out there. Still, this is one set of questions every preacher would probably do well to ask himself on occasion, lest he veer away from the hope that is ours in Christ and the cross.


----------



## KMK (Nov 12, 2011)

Stephen does not mention the name 'Jesus' in his sermon in Acts 7.


----------

