Sermon on Luke 2:41-52

The Sunday after Christmas, I preached on the Lukan passage about Jesus as a young boy, left behind in the Temple.  (There was a great discussion on an earlier post that really helped my preparation.)  Well, here’s the sermon (audio) with slides.  It’s 35 minutes.  Comments welcome!

Weight-Watchers and Dietary Restrictions in Leviticus: A (Post)-Colonial (Sub)Liminal (Post)Postmodern Neopragmatic Reading of the 2014 Ikea Catalog(ue) [Five Questions for Peter Enns]
Moltmann's Masterpiece [Book Week]
The McLaren Lectionary
Jesus' Death, God's Culpability
  • Joshua Jinno

    awesome…. Jesus was missional, who knew.

  • Jo Ann W. Goodson

    Tony, for one of the few times in my life I am speechless. The sermon was wonderful but I do not know how to tell you how it made me feel. I loved the fact that you pointed out how “human” Jesus was. In these days so many folks forget that. Jesus has become such an idol to them. You have a unique way, at least in this sermon, to make me feel as though I was right there in the story. You gave me anough history that helped me to understand the passage more clearly. I was seeing with my eyes, not just listening with my ears. The fact that you compared the way Jesus was and how his behaviour was both normal for a child his age and from that region but yet also there was something different about him, something special, something God like, kept me in awe. How at that age Jesus had a sense that he was different. As a woman I relate to the references that Mary “pondered” all these things in her heart. As a mother, I tend to do that not only about my children but life experiences in particular where I think I knew that God was there, with me, as always. This may come across as rambling but I truly was affected by your sermon. It was just so REAL. Thanks !!!

  • Kenton


  • nathan

    can’t wait to see what KenSilva tries to do with this one…

  • David Emme


    Do not want to make this a sounding board for my understanding as am not sure where to bring this up in an honest discourse. Do emergent Christians say much about past faith movements i.e. fundamentalism based on rationalism or modernism. If this means certain epitemological understadings such as evidentialism(evidence by design-a watch proves a watch maker)-is ot something like this which is the critique? As much as I enjoy Ray Comfort, seeing him on ABC tring to prove God I see as a failed understanding. We cannot prove God thus the essence of faith in those things we have faith in are unprovanle.

    Just wandering because if this is a point of critiqing conservative Christianity-as a fundamentalist, I do not think I would disagree except often fundamentalism is painted based on modernism and never show how this is a true statement.

    God bless
    Dave Emme