The Measure of a Sermon, 6

Let me set out a few balancing remarks.  I am convinced that the calling of the minister of the Word is to preach as though the death of Christ has happened, the tomb is empty, death and immortality have been brought to light, and the savior is at God's right hand.  A tone of moral exhortation not founded in the complete work and glorious person of the Savior is contrary to the Scriptures.  Moralism was then, and it is now, the greatest enemy of the Gospel.  "How- to" preaching, that is not soaked in the utter inability of man to save himself and the utter readiness and ability of God to do so through Christ -- is a false Gospel.

But the Gospel is so clear that it actually makes greater demands -- and empowers us in those demands.  Let me give some examples.

Paul admonishes the Corinthians to abstain from immorality because they have been bought with a price and their bodies belong to God.  That our being owned by God, body and soul, is reason for moral purity is clear -- that it speaks to a dozen other applications is also clear.  It calls us to the care and use of our bodies for God's glory. 

Paul spells out the humility of Jesus in Philippians 2:5-8.  It is a glorious description -- but it also has a force to it -- "let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."  It is one thing to command people to be humble -- it is quite another to say that the Redeemer's work was accomplished by humility and we are to walk in his steps. Who can ever measure up to that?

Or take Peter, who spells out the beauty of the suffering of Christ as our Savior, unjustly, but without anger or revenge.  He then says we are called to walk in his steps -- an unthinkable and impossible standard to keep.  Yet, he calls us to it.

Or finally, John notes that the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil and in him was/is no sin -- therefore we are called to live in holiness.  If he died to destroy sin then we ought to be destroying sin as well.

There are clear commands in the NT -- but they are rooted in the person of Christ.  And his person and work has far more to it than a set of rules.  It is one thing to call husbands to love their wives -- it it utterly overwhelming to say we are called to do this as Christ loved the church. 

My favorite example is Philemon.  The solution to the problem of that book is one that would never have occurred to a student of Torah.  Onesimus would have been returned to his master, a penalty would have been exacted, and the law kept.  That Onesimus was to return without defense, that Philimon was to forgive and welcome him as a brother, that Paul would say he would pay off any debt owed by Onesimus, that Onesimus was to be ready to welcome Paul -- all of this came from the Gospel.

The fruit of the Gospel is not moral laxity -- nor is it morality that is full of pride -- it is humble, dependent godliness that exceeds anything Moses could have commanded, and is a response of faith to the Savior.  But if I do not motivate people by faith in Christ, I can only expect a generation of Pharisees to rise out of my ministry.

Comments

[anon e. mus]

In light of the fact that the epistles soak the imperatives in the indicatives about Christ's achievements and merits, is it appropriate to base a sermon solely on the imperative verses? Wouldn't it make more sense to preach the entire letter? Or at least enough of the letter such that both imperative and indicative verses are included in the passage chosen?

GDL: I think we must tie the imperatives to the broader context -- and that may mean explaining what is behind it.

[DLE]

Mark,

I never thought about Philemon as the contrast you mention. Thanks.