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.
