Listening to a Sermon-Part Three

Listening to a well prepared sermon delivered in an effective manner is not difficult, and such sermons can help people in their worship of God. What’s difficult is listening to a poorly prepared sermon. In the first and second essays of this series I suggested the importance of a listener taking responsibility for the worship experience, and I listed five practical strategies for listening to bad sermons with the idea that an active listener can benefit even from a bad sermon. However, there are sermons to which we do best not to listen.

For this third essay the most important matter to remember is the fact that a poor sermon is not limited to sermons that are boring or sermons that seem superficial. A gifted orator who seems profound can preach a bad sermon, and the worshiper is more likely to suffer harm from such gifted and attractive preachers than the ones we usually call poor preachers. Paul the Apostle warned against false teachers and warned that they can appear winsome and intelligent which is no surprise, since, as Paul wrote, “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds” (2 Corinthians 14-15).

Even if a sermon is a delight to the ears and the preacher is pleasant to watch as he or she delivers the message, the sermon is a bad one if it fails to be true. The repercussions from false teaching are serious for the life of the church and individual listeners, especially young people. Bad teaching has been a problem from the first century until the present. 

Here are some examples: legalism and its opposite, moral relativism (“do your own thing”). Whenever a preacher emphasizes rules and regulations the preacher has lost hold of the Bible’s message of salvation through faith and grace. Such legalism creates despair as people fail to meet the legalistic standards of the sermons. Then comes hypocrisy as some people pretend to meet those standards even though they cannot; in fact, the preacher cannot meet them either, and the church becomes filled with suspicion and accusation as people see their own hidden sins and suspect that others are hiding sins, too. One errant way to relieve the guilt of self accusation is to accuse others of the sin hidden in one’s own life. Such behavior in a church is, indeed, toxic.

The opposite approach is bad, too. Some preachers proclaim an easy or cheap grace (see Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship) and the result is a church in which people lose sight of the message of holiness and righteousness which are the qualities that arise from God’s grace. The message of grace and faith and hope and love bring a lifestyle filled with gratitude and joy. The bad teaching of relativism which holds that there is no absolute law is as bad as legalism. Both approaches misunderstand the Gospel and the power of spiritual transformation. 

Reliance on the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice is an important sign of true preaching and will help the preacher avoid the failures of legalism and relativism. A good preacher will speak from the Bible and will shape his or her messages to conform to the teaching of the Bible. Doctrines taught in the sermon will arise from the preacher’s knowledge and continual study of the entire Bible.

Unhappily, bad preachers can quote Scripture. Even demons can quote Scripture. It is important that the preacher yields his or her own opinions to the clear teaching of Scripture. It is important that every sermon includes and depends upon the Bible’s message of God’s salvation in Christ.

Even if a sermon has truths in it, that sermon is a bad one if it fails the Gospel.  A sermon on prayer or social justice or Bible study is not a good sermon if it fails the Gospel. There is a place in the church for teaching, but the teaching ministry never replaces preaching of the Gospel.

The Gospel is the message of Jesus’ birth, the incarnation; God has come to us in person. The Gospel is the message of the cross, Jesus’ death. Through the cross Jesus defeated sin and death by giving himself up on behalf of the world and winning the victory over evil. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is essential to the Gospel; the resurrection illuminates the cross and shows us Jesus as Christus Victor (see Gustaf Aulen). The Gospel is the promise that Jesus will return to make all things right. In the end justice will prevail. The Gospel is the message of Jesus’ life which calls us to live with the power of the Holy Spirit, as disciples or learners. We are being saved or transformed day by day as we await our own resurrection to the next life which God the Father has prepared for us who believe. This message is the heart of true preaching. (See C. H. Dodd, Gospel and Law, for a review of Scripture on this subject.)

Another essential theological teaching is the Trinity. Christians are Trinitarians. Christians believe that God is one in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If a preacher fails to lay the foundation of the Trinity in his or her preaching then that preacher is giving a bad message. Usually, the error shows itself in a diminution of Jesus. In some way the preacher hints from time to time that Jesus is a good teacher, a good man, and a good prophet but not divine. When the preacher refuses to acknowledge and affirm in the clearest terms that Jesus is God in person, in flesh then the message is bad. In bad messages one will often hear how there are many wise religious teachers in history from Zoroaster to Buddha, Mohammed and Gandhi. Without, perhaps, saying it directly the preacher will imply that Jesus belongs in that list but is not divine. Such preachers have strayed from the Bible and strayed from the doctrines long established in the ecumenical church. A good preacher will give attention to the Trinitarian message that God is Father, Son and Spirit and will give the right emphasis to all three persons in preaching and teaching.

Another way that preaching goes wrong is the political sermon masquerading as prophecy. To use the pulpit to express political opinion is not prophecy, but it is bad preaching. The best way to address political issues is for the preacher to teach Biblical principles from the pulpit. The people in the congregation can take these principles into their personal lives, including their politics. Most congregations have Democrats and Republicans sitting side by side. The preacher does well to respect the faith of Christians who hold different political opinions. To attempt to think for the people or to demand that they think the same way the preacher does on political issues is bad preaching, not prophecy. 

Much attention has been rightly given by critics to the error of what is called the “Prosperity Gospel.” It is a popular message because it promises that God will always deliver material and emotional security to people who have the right faith practice. Any such message that teaches that a Christian can avoid suffering is bad preaching. In reality good and faithful Christians suffer. They may be persecuted. They may be caught in tragic circumstances. They may be materially poor. God’s grace sustains us in all these circumstances, and with God’s grace and with our trust in God’s providence we can make our suffering redemptive. We may not see the results of our witness in this life, but we live and are justified by our faith. It is bad preaching that downplays or ignores redemptive suffering which is, of course, most clearly seen in the cross of Christ.

Theology as expressed in preaching is a big subject. Although much more could be written, hopefully this essay raises some questions for the reader and will help listeners to evaluate sermons theologically as well as rhetorically. So, what can a listener do when the preacher does not speak the truth? My conclusion seems simplistic; however, if a preacher persists in teaching that fails the Gospel, the Trinitarian message, the call to grace, the authority of the Bible and offers false prophecy, then, simplistic as it is, the answer to bad teaching and preaching is, finally, “don’t listen!” 

Mark 16:1-8 The Resurrection Creates Reverence Before Joy

Mark 16:8  “. . . they were afraid.”

Scholars of the New Testament generally prefer to study each Gospel account of the resurrection independently so that the unique emphasis of each Gospel writer receives the full recognition it deserves. By working with one account the reader can get insights that may be missed when the action of the passages are harmonized. (Still, I have always appreciated harmonies and typically preached them. You’ll find one recommended below.)

Mark’s record of the resurrection taken alone especially challenges the reader because it is so sparse. When one realizes that the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament do not contain verses 9-20 the material becomes even briefer. The reader is left with just eight verses. Matthew, with twenty-four verses, devotes three times as much material to the resurrection account as Mark. Luke and John each give more than fifty verses to the resurrection.

To follow the scholarly canon of interpretation so that one reads Mark without reference to the other Gospels does create a unique picture. In fact, Mark’s account of the resurrection reports a response from the first witnesses to the empty tomb that seems the very opposite of what one would expect. 

With love for Jesus and a desire to honor him in his death Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome all came to the tomb Sunday morning after the crucifixion to anoint Jesus’ body. In addition to the grief they must have felt they were concerned about the stone that had been rolled in front of the tomb. They worried about how they would move that stone to have access to the body.

Of course, the stone had been rolled away and when they looked in the tomb they saw a young man. Their first response was “alarm.” (v. 5) So, in addition to the grief we assume they felt, and the worry they expressed about the large stone in front of the tomb, they now saw a figure in the tomb that caused them to feel alarm.

The young man--messenger of God, angel--sought to comfort them. He said, “Don’t be alarmed.” (v. 6) He gave them the good news that Jesus had been raised from the dead and charged them with the responsibility of telling the disciples that Jesus would see them.

The text says that these three women were “trembling and bewildered.” They “fled” from the tomb. “They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” (v. 8)

So, all the reactions of these first witnesses are the opposite of the ones we generally associate with Easter. They felt grief; worry, alarm; they trembled; they were bewildered; they were afraid. They fled, and they said nothing. Mark’s singular contribution to the resurrection account creates disequilibrium. There is something frightening in this Gospel account.

To apply Mark’s message we would do best to consider how the resurrection caused fear to the first witnesses and appropriately causes a disturbance in our lives, too. In fact, a too easy embrace of the account of Easter could trivialize the message that the New Testament intends to communicate. The resurrection creates fear of the Lord or the terror of holiness. (Think of Isaiah chapter six.) The resurrection requires reverence. 

The resurrection stands against every effort to reduce Jesus. He does not fit in any of the categories that historians typically use. He is more than a teacher, more than a prophet, more than a healer, more than a distributor of food to the multitudes. He is more than an upset to the religious and political establishment. 

The three women described by Mark give us a witness that we do well to receive. They felt reverence. Before we speak of Jesus we, too, want to feel that reverence. We want all of our reductions of Jesus challenged. We want to be quiet, to say nothing, until we can yield before him in reverence, acknowledge his holiness, his otherness, his Lordship.

*******

Harmonization of the Easter Accounts. For those who would like to read a serious effort at harmonization of the Easter accounts, take a look at Easter Enigma by John Wenham. The subtitle of this book is “Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?” Wenham answers, “no!” Published by Zondervan in 1984 it’s an old book but helpful as it enables us to read the four accounts of the resurrection as one narrative.

John 2:13-22 A Reflection on Resurrection with Some Personal Additions

John 2:19  “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

John recorded Jesus’ cleansing of the temple in chapter two as a way of emphasizing at the beginning of his Gospel the message that Jesus was the Messiah, and he had total authority over the temple which he exercised by ridding the courts of cattle, sheep, pigeons and money changers. The officials were running an illicit business by extorting large sums from the people who had come to the temple for Passover worship. As Messiah he demonstrated his zeal for God’s house and his authority over it.

Jesus was challenged by the religious leaders to give a sign that would show his authority for this dramatic demonstration. (18) It is unlikely that any of them could have imagined the answer he would give: “destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” (19) Lacking spiritual insight they took his words to mean that he would build the Temple in the way Herod had worked on it for decades with stone and mortar. 

Not even the disciples of Jesus fully understood his prediction at the time of the temple cleansing. Jesus knew that the temple would be destroyed (Mark 13:2), but Jesus had no interest in the temple’s destruction even though he was accused of plotting its fall. (Mark 14:58) The temple would be destroyed, not by Jesus, but by the Romans in 70 A.D. Jesus did not want destruction. He came to give life.

At the temple cleansing Jesus predicted his resurrection from the dead. He predicted the building of a temple--his body--and his church--which could never be destroyed. After his crucifixion his words came back to the disciples, and they understood what he had meant. (John 2:22) 

No matter how much or how large the buildings that we construct, and no matter how seemingly significant the accomplishments we make, nothing we do will last. We are dust and to dust we return. (Genesis 3:19) Only one can bring eternal life from death. He is the Messiah. He is the Lord. He is Jesus.

*******

The Persecuted Church. I love the church, and I pray daily for the churches in which I have preached or led a seminar or churches in which I have been a member or churches in which I have family or friends. Also, daily I pray with the help of Barnabas Fund for the Persecuted Church which gives witness around the world. See their website and ministry for prayer guides and information on ways to help.

Movies. Rarely do I recommend movies, but this one I do: McFarland. It is a sports drama produced by Walt Disney Pictures based on the true story of a 1987 cross country team from a predominantly Mexican-American high school. I was inspired. I laughed. I teared up, too. No movie is perfect, but when I left the theater after this one I felt that I had learned something important that made me want to be a better person.