Homiletics Discussion Thread: Analyzing a Sermon, 7/2/2026

I’d like to use an excerpt from John Jasper’s  and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s sermons for discussion:

1)    Where Sin Come From? (Genesis 3), p. 193

Back when preacher Jasper lived in the nineteenth century as he went right through the Second Great Awakening period which fundamentally changed him, the topic of sin was rather brought out often at much higher frequencies and volume too, I’d suspect. And I do like the fact that Jasper’s sermon for this very topic is included in “A Legacy of Preaching,”; fast forward two centuries this topic of sin is rarely ever discussed in Christian social circles nor preached (enough) at the pulpit in contemporary Christian church; why?

I understand as we all have experienced  that the (pop) culture having become much more secular, materialistic, irreverent, hyper sexualized, almost to the point of being aspiritual in certain significant segments within the fabric of our society, i.e., “And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.” (Matt 24:12 ESV) in the last several noteworthy decades. The statistics do indicate that in comparison to the decades in the past, for example, 1960s, the people when asked in survey do confess to be less Christian, but more spiritual or agnostic these days. Less people attend church on regular basis these days too. That is a significant drift and shift from our parent generation. My point is that Jasper’s sermon was a welcoming change, a fresh air, a shot in the arm, so to speak, to sparkle delight and anticipation in my heart, for example.

It does appear that as Jasper nicely combines the persuasive elements and preaching for faith, and the sermon can be categorized as having both qualities; for instance, Jasper nicely lays out the background narrative in Genesis 3 starting with “Adam and Eve, the serpent, God’s justifiable wrath at the act of disobedience, the afterlife fact about hell, but then the theme of salvation (“whiter than the drivin’ snow”) through “the blood of the Lamb”, and the ensuing fellowship with our Father” (Forrest, King et al, A Legacy of Preaching, p. 193). Wow. He covered all the major themes in the gospel. It is mouthful, yet has hit the major points, like a nail right on the head. Persuasive presentation as a whole. What more a wretched sinner whose fate is death want to hear more than that?

2)    The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), pp. 321-322

Pastor Bonhoeffer was a martyr for his conviction as he opposed the Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler, one of the most atrocious and bigoted monster dictators who ever lived; as Bonhoeffer paid for his anti-totalitarian stance and humanitarian aid in helping the persecuted Jews in hiding with his own life, his sermon brings me several extra layers of inspiration and awe. And I am somewhat befuddled to find that the printed sermon is about the birth of baby Jesus in manger at Bethlehem two thousand years ago as narrated in the beginning chapter of the Gospel Book according to Mark. Indeed, it was Magnificent as Immanuel came down and dwelt among humanity—the only time in human history that’s ever happened according to the Bible. But why? Mostly, Bonhoeffer brins the topic of humility shown by the King of kings and the Lord of lords in my opinion.

Yes, Bonhoeffer rebukes and gives a stern warning against the elite class of the world such as Hitler he once faced, “for those who are powerful and great in the world” (Forrest, King et al, A Legacy of Preaching, p. 322) as he termed, the much Privileged perhaps of world today to heed the Word and learn the lesson of “being small and humble” as “God, the Lord and Creator of all things, who become so small here, comes to us in a little corner of the world, unremarkable and hidden away,” demonstrated perfectly by Jesus abandoning His throne in heaven (temporally), which is unlike any thrones the earth can present (cf. Matt 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8). As the poignant personal anecdote which pastor Bonhoeffer beckons us to paint and imagine in our head, it is beyond reasonable doubt that his sermon theme and core argument in most likelihood come from his own personal historical-cultural experiences during the heightened period of the Third Reich I presume. It is also persuasive, and argumentative for having faith in Christ. It is contrasted with the antagonist  or the villain which the hunted and monitored/tracked Bonhoeffer stared right down—boldly and sublimely. As author Eric Metaxas attests, “Bonhoeffer thought it the plain duty of the Chrisitan—and the privilege and honor—to suffer with those who suffered. He knew that it was a privilege to be allowed by God to partake of the sufferings of the Jews who had died in this place before him.” (Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, a Righteous Gentile Vs. the Third Reich, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson: p. 532.) He walked the walk and talked the talk, and that doubling down of sincerity and integrity of his character is precisely why his life, testimony, and sermon carry that much more conviction, aura, authority, empathy, and weight in the eye of this obscure and humble author almost eighty years after his martyrdom.

**My response to someone named Andrew:

Hi Andrew,

that was an interesting post, which means that it definitely perked my interest as I read it, AND I could relate to it at the personal level. As a member of LU community, we are all interested and pay an extra attention when the name of Dr. Jerry Falwell is mentioned. The quote “You are extraordinary” has been etched in my psyche, perhaps permanently by now. J I get motivated as juices(?) flow and I salivate at the possibility. You know, a great leader like Dr. Falwell makes a huge difference in our lives as proven.

I’d like to quote your saying of “is the pastor leading the parish into a persuasive account for the sake of Christ, or for the sake of the preacher? Can it be determined that the pastor intends to lead his flock towards Christ, utilizing persuasive tools, or manipulation?”, and make a comment: the 5 points of this particular sermon you went over/listed and the nature of it being “persuasive”. And to determine that we’d just need to look at the result whether it might have been “manipulative”, and the results show that it was not so at all. LU has borne a great fruit as did the Thomas Road Baptist Church—hopefully, 30 times, 60 times, and even 100 times in the eye of the Lord.  Thus far.

We’ve all seen where a preacher gives a pre-determined manipulative sermon at the pulpit to persuade the audience to do certain things, which would be in line with personal agendas a pastor or an interest group did have on mind for selfish reasons. Oh yeah. And that is absolutely a no no. Over the years, that has turned me off big time, and just like a lot of church goers, particularly among the young generation, the hypocrisy found in the leadership is the #1 factor which drives the membership down, dwindle and prospective churchgoers to go/do something else than exploring the Christianity and becoming a Champion for Christ. As apostle Paul reminds us, “For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” For a sermon to be persuasive and to have the kind of power to convince, convict, and transform a hearer, a preacher would have to exemplify that with his own action based on suffering servant humility and service. That never changes.

**My response to someone named Ethan:

Hi Ethan,

Thank you for your post; as I read, it reminded me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a contemporary of pastor Barth, whose sermon I wrote about. There are definitely some similarities as both resisted the totalitarian, anti-Christian stance and policies by the Third Reich lunatics. I think that your analogy of his sermon being “natural analogies” makes a perfect sense. I cannot think but believe that pastors like Barth gave a sermon which reflected the political sentiment and environment of his time and age, which became perilously unsafe and dangerous not only for Christians but for regular citizenry of Germany. How to make the populace see the normal way, the correct way instead of the enforced, twisted ideology which a group of lunatics charged/indoctrinated by Aryan Race Superiority at the expense of ordinary citizens/the expendable force upon them? Appeal to the natural order, the analytical acumen—the innate instincts of human being whose conscience, the code of morals and ethics which would reveal the truth behind the deceptions, agendas, and propaganda speech and steer the people to the center. The middle of the road where a common sense would prevail based on simple cognization of what is right and wrong, the universal truth, which is naturally instilled, embedded within us. That is why Barth’s sermon and strategy were appropriate and effective as apostle Paul says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them…For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived.” (Rom. 1:19-20 ESV) Indeed, “they would be without excuse”.