The Theological Meaning of Jesus’ Resurrection: A Content Analysis of Mainline and Conservative...

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/15709256-12341247

Journal of Empirical Theology 25 (2012) 205-235 brill.com/jet

Journal of Empirical Theology

The Theological Meaning of Jesus’ Resurrection: A Content Analysis of Mainline and Conservative

Protestant Easter Sunday Sermons

David M. HaskellWilfrid Laurier University, Canada

[email protected]

AbstractThis Canadian study qualitatively analyzed the texts of 35 conservative and 34 mainline Protes-tant Easter Sunday sermons. With the goal of indentifying similarities and diffferences between the conservative and mainline texts, the sermons were examined to determine 1) what they said about the purpose and meaning of Jesus’ resurrection and 2) the degree to which those explana-tions more broadly reflected adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority. Among other fĳind-ings, it was determined that sermons in both groups linked Jesus’ resurrection to supernatural boons for believers (i.e., eternal life, divine power in this life, or both). However, when referencing these supernatural gains the two groups difffered in terms of proportion and manner of explica-tion. All the conservative Protestant sermons referenced one or more supernatural benefĳits but less than two-thirds of the mainline sermons did so; the remaining mainline texts posited that the resurrection’s theological meaning was metaphorical and served to reveal a key existential les-son. Furthermore, conservative Protestant sermons always supported their theological claims with scriptural proof-texts while the vast majority of mainline sermons did not (the exception being sermons preached in rural mainline churches). Overall, strong adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority was evidenced in the conservative Protestant sermons while the mainline ser-mons did not evidence strong adherence to that doctrine. Implications and possible explanations of these results are discussed.

Keywordssermons, content analysis, Protestant, resurrection, theology, Canada

1. Introduction

The evolution of Canada’s Protestant churches into two distinct camps — liberal and conservative — has been well documented by scholars. At its root, the division involves a debate over how scripture is to be interpreted that dates back to the late 1880s (Clarke 1996, 317; cf. Wellman 2008, 23). Taking the liberal side, Canada’s largest, oldest and most established denominations — the Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and the United Church (formed

206 D. M. Haskell / Journal of Empirical Theology 25 (2012) 205-235

in 1925 via a union of Canada’s Congregationalists, Methodists, and two-thirds of the Presbyterians) — moved away from a strictly literalist view of scripture. Precipitating this move was the academic project known as higher criticism (described in detail below). Historians assert that Canada’s mainline seminar-ies had completely embraced this non-literalist view by the 1920s and by the end of World War II most leaders within the denominational offfĳices had as well (Rawlyk 1996, 13, 117; cf. Clarke 1996). Of the established, mainline denom-inations, only the Baptists would, as a whole, return to their earlier acceptance of Biblical literalism (Clarke 1996, 321).

Conversely, on the conservative side, smaller, less established Protestant denominations — such as the Pentecostals, Salvation Army, Christian and Missionary Alliance — and some of the smaller, older denominations — such as the Mennonites — retained their original, predominantly-literalist view. This conservative position on scripture is sometimes referred to as the doc-trine of Biblical inerrancy or the doctrine of Biblical authority. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy asserts that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error, that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not afffĳirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Grudem 1994, 90). The doctrine of Biblical authority is similar though more broad, asserting that Old and New Testament scriptures are accurate in matters of doctrine, history and science while also authoritative over human belief and conduct (Woodbridge 1982).

A fairly strict adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority by evangelicals versus lesser degrees of adherence among mainline Protestants remains, to this day, one of the key diffferences between these two faith families (Bibby 2002; Rawlyk 1996; Reimer 2003; Wellman 2008). In fact, in his recent study of over 450 evangelical and mainline congregations, Wellman (2008, 98) concluded that the defĳining characteristics of evangelicals and mainliners — including “the kind of Jesus they seek to follow” — is rooted in their respective notions of Biblical authority. Evangelicals, he states, will comfortably admit to taking the Bible literally; however, by that, they tend to mean that “scripture is their core source of authority” and “fĳinal source of authority” in matters of doctrine and salvation but “not every word of scripture was meant to be taken ‘literally’ ” (Wellman 2008, 99). Nevertheless, within the evangelical community “one’s moral and spiritual identity is confĳirmed and tested to the extent to which one is able to believe and accept what scripture says” (Wellman 2008, 101).

Conversely, Wellman (2008) found that for mainline Protestants, whom he synonymously refers to as liberals, “the Bible is not meant to be taken liter-ally . . . this form of literalism is intellectually insufffĳicient and a form of misin-terpretation” (Wellman 2008, 104). Instead, “the Bible must be put in its context. The historical and cultural methods of biblical interpretation are critical for

D. M. Haskell / Journal of Empirical Theology 25 (2012) 205-235 207

liberals in order to place the Bible in a perspective that helps one interpret it appropriately” (Wellman 2008, 104). In the end, mainline Protestants stress the “right” of each individual to “make up her own mind” on the correct meaning of scripture (Wellman 2008, 104; cf. Buddenbaum 1996). While scripture is important, “one’s own ‘personal spiritual work’ can and should trump the Bible as an authority in one’s life” (Wellman 2008, 105). Typically, only those scrip-tures that “confĳirm messages that liberals tend to believe in” will be viewed as authoritative (Wellman 2008, 105). Wellman (2008) concludes that the main-line Protestants in his study “take the Bible seriously, but its authority is far from certain” (108).

While Wellman’s (2008) study focused on American congregations its appli-cability to a Canadian context is strong. The 450 churches he studied were located in America’s Pacifĳic Northwest. In many ways the religious landscape of that region — known for its “de facto secular culture” (Wellman 2008, 191) — more closely mirrors that of Canada than the rest of the US (cf. Haskell 2009, 42-50; Wellman 2008, 39-40). Indeed, the secular nature of Canada’s public sphere has been well documented (Adams 2003; Gunter 2005; Haskell 2009; Noll 2007; Olgilvie 2006).

2. Purpose of this Study

Historical and recent sociological research demonstrates that a clear divide exists between evangelical and mainline churches. This divide stems primarily from each group’s position on the doctrine of Biblical authority, with evangeli-cals adhering strictly to the doctrine and mainliners adhering to the doctrine by varying (typically lesser) degrees. However, the extent to which each group’s position on Biblical authority afffects the sermon content of rank-and-fĳile, con-temporary clergy has never been systematically analyzed. Recognizing that their respective positions on the authority of scripture serve as the main point of division between Canada’s mainline and conservative Protestant denomi-nations, this study seeks to determine the extent to which those respective positions are discernable in the homiletic content of contemporary mainline and conservative Protestant clergy. Given that Canada’s mainline churches have been observed to vary in their levels of religious liberalism (a phenome-non discussed in detail below) this study is particularly interested in examin-ing the degree to which the doctrine of Biblical authority is evidenced in the sermons of Anglican, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian and United Church clergy.

Exploration of this type provides worthwhile theoretical insights. While the position that Canada’s mainline and conservative Protestants take on


scriptural authority can be gauged by reading the works of their preferred theologians, or by examining the textbooks they used to train their respective clergy, or by assessing doctrinal documents crafted by various and sundry denominational committees, how that position is reflected, or if it is reflected at all, at the level of individual congregations remains unclear. This study pro-vides an empirically-derived answer to that outstanding question. Addition-ally, where anomalies present themselves this study provides an opportunity to explore existing assumptions and theorize why certain expectations might go unfulfĳilled. More generally, this study advances knowledge about contem-porary preaching, an area that to date has received very little scholarly atten-tion. For the vast majority of practising Christians, their only religious instruction comes by way of their clergy’s sermon. Thus, what clergy choose to focus on homiletically should be of interest to people involved at any level, or in any aspect, of church life.

Regarding homiletic “topics of discussion” this study has a very specifĳic focus. Using a selection of sermons that were preached in Canadian mainline and conservative Protestant on Easter Sunday, what clergy said about the theo-logical meaning of Jesus’ resurrection was the target of identifĳication and tex-tual analysis. When seeking to gauge the extent to which Biblical authority is endorsed in a sermon, the resurrection of Jesus is an ideal topic. As shown in detail below, contemporary theologians suggest that how mainline and con-servative Protestants interpret the meaning of the resurrection models, in microcosm, their larger approach to Bible interpretation. That is to say, the resurrection provides those who support a more literal reading of scripture, as well as those who do not, a rich textual opportunity to demonstrate their par-ticular method of wringing theological meaning from scripture.

To summarize then, this study has two specifĳic, interconnected goals. First, it seeks to analyze how conservative and mainline Protestant sermons explain the meaning of the resurrection. Second, it seeks to determine the degree to which those explanations more broadly reflect adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority.

Before outlining the dominant mainline and conservative Protestant inter-pretations of Jesus’ resurrection, I will fĳirst give a more general description of these two divergent faith groups. After the two groups have been described and their dominant views of the resurrection have been relayed, I will briefly recount those studies of sermon content that directly relate to this current research. Informed by this previous information and literature, I will pose the specifĳic research questions that guide this study. Sections on the Methodology, Results, Discussion and Conclusion follow.


3. Characteristics of Conservative and Mainline Protestants

3.1 Conservative Protestants

As noted above, conservative Protestants, also known as evangelicals, are pro-ponents of Biblical inerrancy and, the more encompassing doctrine of Biblical authority (Grudem 1994; Woodbridge 1982). A recent review of homiletic texts used in Canada’s conservative Protestant seminaries showed Biblical authority to be the texts’ dominant theme (Haskell, Paradis, and Burgoyne, 2008). Fur-ther, survey data show that 100% of Canadians who identify themselves as evangelicals believe that “the Bible is the word of God and is trustworthy and reliable” (Heimstra 2008). Interestingly, when asked if they believe “the Bible is God’s word and is to be taken literally word for word” just 70% agree (Rawlyk 1996). Deeper qualitative probing by researchers has given some clarity to this apparent contrast. It seems a signifĳicant portion of Canadian conservative Protestants will accept certain narratives and ideas from the Old Testament metaphorically, although they tend to read the edicts and stories of the New Testament at face value. As such, they continue to afffĳirm the doctrines con-tained in the early creeds — such as the divinity of Jesus, his physical resurrec-tion, and his physical second coming — as true. Similarly, spiritual entities mentioned in scripture — such as the devil, angels and demons — are viewed as real by most evangelicals (Bruce 1983; Heimstra 2008; Rawlyk 1996; Reimer 2003; VanGinkel 2006).

In addition to, and arising out of, their predominantly-literal view of scrip-ture, conservative Protestants evince other characteristics. First, more than other Christian groups, they commit themselves to proselytization and good works (Heimstra 2009; VanGinkel 2006). Second, their key doctrinal focus is on the salvifĳic work of Christ on the cross (as opposed to the ethical teachings of Jesus). Third, having a personal, intimate relationship with Jesus — often established through a conversion experience — is deemed to be of paramount importance to the faith-life of the believer. Finally, their theological conserva-tism also leads them to embrace social values that tend to be more conserva-tive than the public-at-large (Bruce 1983; Heimstra 2008; Rawlyk 1996; Reimer 2003). About 8% of Canadians belong to conservative Protestant churches with the Baptist, Pentecostal and Mennonite denominations boasting the most members (Bibby 2006, 24; 2004; Heimstra 2009; 2008; Statistics Canada 2003).

3.2 Mainline Protestants

Canada’s mainline denominations include: the Anglican Church; the Evan-gelical Lutheran Church; the Presbyterian Church; and the United Church.


According to the most current statistics, about 18% of Canadians claim afffĳilia-tion with one of these four denominations (Statistics Canada 2003). While there is considerable variation among the beliefs of mainline Protestants, they tend to be more theologically and socially liberal than conservative Protes-tants. Their theological liberalism is directly linked to their rejection of Biblical literalism; as noted in the Introduction, practicing non-literal Biblical interpre-tation has been a hallmark of mainline Protestantism since the dawn of the twentieth century. A recent review of homiletic texts used in Canada’s main-line Protestant seminaries showed that the doctrine of Biblical authority is not promoted; instead, the texts assert more liberal interpretations of scripture (Haskell et al. 2008, 144).

The mainline’s rejection of the doctrine of Biblical authority is due, in large part, to their acceptance of the scholarly project known as higher criticism. A means of Biblical interpretation that gained popularity within North American seminaries in the early 1900s, higher criticism applies methods from various disciplines in the humanities and social sciences to the investigation of scrip-ture (Hordern 1955; Noll 2007; 1992; Rawlyk 1996). Privileging that which can be empirically verifĳied, proponents of higher criticism de-emphasize the super-natural qualities of scripture and the person of Jesus. As such, proponents do not feel compelled to take scripture at face value but are willing to accept much of it as metaphorical and allegorical. Jesus’ role as a moral teacher is stressed while his divinity and his supernatural acts — such as the resurrection — are often played down, held suspect or denied (Averil 1968; Buddenbaum 1996; Hordern 1955; McLennan 2009; Noll 2007; Oakland 2007; cf. Harvey 1997, A15). The books and writings of such liberal theologians as Henry Emerson Fosdick (e.g., 1924), Rudolf Bultmann (e.g., 1957) and more recently Marcus Borg (e.g., 1994), John Dominic Crossan (e.g., 1999; 1994), John Shelby Spong (e.g., 1995) have been done much to promote this metaphorical view among mainline clergy (cf. Camroux 1997). Bultmann’s (1957) program of demythologizing the New Testament with its insistence on replacing and reinterpreting scripture’s literal account with language and ideas relevant to moderns has been particu-larly influential on mainline denominations since the 1950s (cf. Grant and Tracy 1984, 145). Polling data suggest that the majority of mainline Protestants in Canada do not accept that the Bible should be read literally; moreover, most do not agree with the statement: “the Bible is the word of God and is reliable and trustworthy” (Heimstra 2008; cf. Pew Forum, 2008).

While clergy and members of mainline churches in Canada are prone to congregate on the theological-left of the Christian faith spectrum, as noted ear-lier, there are outliers. In fact, within Canada’s mainline denominations there can be found small groups of religious conservatives who embrace the doctrine


of Biblical authority. For example, within the Anglican Church of Canada there is a solid minority of parishes that consider themselves evangelical in their ethos (Knight 2008; Lewis 2009). Similarly, within the United Church, there exists a fellowship of churches dedicated to conservative renewal (Flatt 2010). These mainline churches that emulate the beliefs and behaviours of conserva-tive Protestants tend to be in small towns or rural areas (Clark 2000; Haskell et al. 2008; cf. Rawlyk 1996, 54).

4. Interpreting the Meaning of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection

It has been noted by scholars of systematic theology that theological reflection on Jesus Christ is always guided, consciously or unconsciously, by one of two questions; they are: “what must I do to be saved?” or “how can I, and how can we all, become fully human?” (Finger 2003, 349). Nowhere do these questions come more to the fore than in the theological contemplation of Jesus’ resurrec-tion. Since the early 1900s, conservative Protestants’ understanding of Jesus’ resurrection has been overwhelming shaped by the fĳirst question while the second question has been the dominant lens through which liberal/mainline Protestants have come to make sense of the event (Finger, 2003).

In his recent study of evangelical and mainline congregations, Wellman (2008) also concluded that “how each group interprets Jesus Christ, the cross, and resurrection” expresses a “core diffference” and a “fundamental divide between these two Christian groups” (97).

4.1 Conservative Protestants’ Theology of the Resurrection

As one might expect, conservative Protestant’s understanding of Jesus’ resur-rection is rooted in a literal reading of specifĳic passages of scripture. I will not reference the specifĳic “proof texts” that conservative theologians typically list to support their interpretation; they are numerous and such details are easily found elsewhere.1 Instead, for the purposes of brevity, I will simply summarize the major ideas of the conservative interpretation.

In the main, conservative Protestants emphasize the resurrection as the fĳinal step in a four-part salvifĳic process (i.e., Jesus was crucifĳied, died, rose, ascended to heaven). The process relies on the foundational idea that Jesus — the sinless one — dies in the place of humans — the sinful ones. The third step in the process, resurrection, provides “the primary evidence that [Jesus’] sub-stitutionary death on the cross completely satisfĳied every demand of God . . .

1 Thomas R. Schreiner’s text, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ provides a detailed account of proof texts supporting the evangelical interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection.


[it proves] his death was accepted by the Father as payment for the debt incurred by man’s sin”; accordingly, the believing Christian can be assured of eternal life (Lightner 1986, 88-89; cf., Earle, 1962, 141-142; Schreiner 2008). While it may need no explanation, wrapped within this articulation, above, is the theological understanding that the presence of sin serves as a barrier to resi-dency in God’s never-ending kingdom (sometimes equated with heaven and other times with a renewed, incorruptible, earth). Therefore, the removal of sin is necessary for those wishing to experience that eternal kingdom. While there are several specifĳic theories that attempt to explain how and why Jesus’ sacri-fĳice works to cleanse others of sin, the overarching term “substitutionary atone-ment” can be applied to this process in general (Baker 2006).

The centrality of substitutionary atonement to evangelicals’ faith was high-lighted in Wellman’s (2008) interviews with evangelicals. He found “Christ’s blood is the currency of their salvation . . . Indeed, evangelicals mentioned the importance of Jesus’ blood nearly always in the context of their relationship to Jesus . . . For evangelicals, sin and redemption are the central theological drama” (Wellman 2008, 90).

In addition to vindicating that Jesus’ substitutionary sacrifĳice “worked” as a means of removing sins and assuring eternal life, conservative Protestants also hold that the resurrection is “one of the main proofs of the deity of Jesus” (Earle 1962, 143; cf. Lightner 1986; Schreiner 2008). They say that the singular, miracu-lous nature of the event shows Jesus’ claims to be the progeny of God (as cap-tured in his title “Son of God”) and supernatural Messiah (as denoted in his Book of Daniel-derived eponymous moniker: “Son of Man”) are true (Schreiner 2008, 37).

While the resurrection is believed to reap benefĳits for Christians in the after-life, evangelicals believe it provides supernatural benefĳits in their day-to-day existence as well. They hold that the resurrection ignited an outpouring of supernatural energy that they can tap into — “Now that Jesus has been raised from the dead . . . the gift of the spirit has been granted to believers by Jesus Christ” (Schreiner 2008, 477). Because this “spirit of the resurrected Jesus indwells his people” they can overcome trials and temptations that others could not; furthermore, they experience a supernatural joy foreign to non-believers (Schreiner 2008, 106, cf. 37). Jesus resurrection in combination with his ascension to the right hand of God is also said to increase the efffĳicacy of believers’ prayers. God in inclined to accent to their petitions because Jesus intercedes — or “goes to the father” — on their behalf (Fuller 1994, 396; Schreiner 2008; cf. Lightner 1986, 111).

Finally, Jesus’ resurrection is regularly interpreted as the decisive move in an ongoing, supernatural battle between God and Satan. It is explained that “the


resurrection of Jesus in history shines in the darkness demonstrating his vic-tory over the ruler of the world . . . Jesus, by virtue of his death, has cast out the world’s ruler, Satan” (Schreiner 2008, 84; cf. 37). Again, this victory over Satan is said to have real-world benefĳits for believers; having had his power over believers revoked, they are able to overcome trials or temptations this adver-sary might put in their path (Lightner 1986, 150).

4.2 Mainline Protestants’ Theology of the Resurrection

While the conservative Protestant understanding of the resurrection is charac-terized by the question: “what does the Bible say?” (as demonstrated by reliance on numerous references to proof texts), mainline Protestant under-standing of the resurrection is characterized by the question: “what does the Bible mean?” In line with their non-literalist stance — which generates from their acceptance of higher criticism — mainline Biblical interpreters have tended to de-emphasize Jesus’ resurrection as a supernatural event from which otherworldly benefĳits accrue (Averil 1968; Buddenbaum 1996; Borg 2007; Hordern 1955; Harvey 1997; McLennan 2009; Noll 2007; Oakland 2007).

In his ethnographic work with mainline congregations, Wellman (2008) found Jesus’ death and resurrection:

is not an instrument of salvation for liberals, at least in terms of eternal life. Liber-als tend to interpret the idea of eternal life for individual persons as a selfĳish act . . . Jesus did not come to save souls but to be an example of one who seeks justice, who was willing to give his life for those left behind and left out (95).

Instead, mainline interpretations of the resurrection emphasize and celebrate the event for its metaphoric content; they focus on the lessons contained in the narrative and seek to relay how those lessons can be applied to this life. In terms of specifĳics, the metaphorical meaning of the resurrection is most often presented as: Jesus remains with us today (through his remembered teachings enacted by believers) and with him negative circumstances and situations can be transformed into positive ones (Averil 1968, 81; Borg and Wright, 2000, 138-140; McLennan 2009, 80, 210; Spong 1995, 16). Dividing this overarching idea into its two component parts, McLennan (2009) describes the mainline/liberal theological position on the resurrection as:

No matter how bad conditions are for us — whether due to unemployment, war, terror, personal pain, grief, or mourning — and no matter how bad they get, the Easter message is fĳirst that God’s love is so great that, as incarnated in Jesus, God completely understands and experiences our sufffering with us. Then, through the resurrected Jesus, God remains on our side, as close as the closest friend or lover


could be . . . The Easter message afffĳirms too that utter transformation is possible on the far side of sufffering, not just in a world to come but in this earthly existence as well (210).

Furthermore, some mainline theologians state that linking Jesus’ resurrection to the notion of substitutionary atonement — as conservative Protestants do — is too simplistic. Citing the inadequacy of the concept some have suggested it is:

one way to put into words the redemptive necessity of Jesus’ sufffering and death . . . yet it has never led to a theological consensus. There remains an impen-etrable haze making it impossible for us to express in words the decisive connec-tion between death and salvation; and one who thinks that he is able often makes the connection superfĳicial, rational, and all too human (Berkhofff 1979, 303; cf. Bultmann, 2007 [1951], 53; Fosdick 1924, 230).

Some prominent mainline theologians have rejected the idea of substitution-ary atonement outright on the grounds that it is unpalatable to think a loving Father God would subject his son — a completely innocent man — to torture and death. In the minds of these mainliners the substitutionary process reflects a mindset from “precivilized barbarity” and is, at its core, tantamount to divine child abuse (Fosdick 1961, 135-136). They suggest that “it seems preferable in our time not to interpret Jesus’ death primarily and exclusively with the (to us rather foreign) Pauline juridical and cultic concepts” (Berkhofff 1979, 305).

Similarly, in his study, Wellman (2008) found:

Liberals express disdain and mainly reject the substitutionary model of Christian atonement. For liberals, the idea that Christ’s blood is required as a sacrifĳice for humanity’s disobedience and sin is a “repulsive” image of God . . . That is, the liber-als in this study tended to believe that God’s holiness necessitates no sacrifĳice for sin. God’s character, by defĳinition, accepts and loves unconditionally (95).

Given that in their religious interpretation, God’s acceptance is unconditional and not contingent on Jesus’ sacrifĳicial death, Wellman (2008) sought to deter-mine what clergy and members of mainline churches felt was accomplished by Jesus’ crucifĳixion. He found that, in the main, Jesus’ death was perceived as a grand metaphor or real-life parable for the promotion of selflessness:

For liberals, the problem is not human sin and how to overcome it. The question for liberals is: How does one overcome the evil of injustice by following Jesus’ way of justice and peace? Christ faced the sin of injustice and because of his righteous-ness was killed by those in power. Dominant political powers that injure and destroy the public good and the common people are the true enemies of Christ.


Thus, Jesus’ life and death are exemplary for liberals; he showed what it means to walk in peace and justice as opposed to seeking political power for one’s own self-ish purposes (Wellman 2008, 95-96).

5. Extant Research on Contemporary Sermons

Studies of contemporary Christian clergy’s sermons tend to be one of two types. The fĳirst, and most numerous, are those that focus exclusively on the homilies of a single, usually famous, religious fĳigure; what those sermons reveal about their creator’s thoughts and feelings is of keenest interest to the researcher. By way of example, the sermons of Joel Osteen, Martin Luther King Jr., Oscar A. Romero, and Jonathan Edwards have all been subjected to this type of academic examination (Miller and Carlin 2010; Sharman 1999; Shortell 2001; Turley 2008). The second type of study involves gathering and analyzing the texts of numerous contemporary sermons crafted and delivered by a diverse array of clergy. Researchers involved in this latter type of study are pri-marily interested in the broader social, political, or cultural inferences one can glean from aggregate homiletic content. This current research aligns with this second type of study. As such, I turn to a review of the most relevant of those studies now. However, as will become evident, sermon content has seldom been explored for specifĳic doctrinal positions.

At the close of the 1960s Stark, Foster, Glock, and Quinley (1971; 1970) sur-veyed over 1,500 Protestant ministers in California about the social and politi-cal content of their sermons. Peripheral to their main research questions, the researchers noted conservative clergy strayed little from Biblical topics focus-ing primarily on personal vices which were depicted as barriers to salvation (Stark et al. 1971).

Two decades later, Faulkner (1991) turned his attention to homiletic con-tent, conducting a textual analysis of 206 randomly selected sermons preached in Disciples of Christ churches in the US. The Disciples of Christ, alternatively known as the Christian Church, is a mainline denomination with a theologi-cally liberal clergy (Robinson 2009). Concerning theological discussions of Christ, Faulkner (1991) found that “there is little detailed and searching analysis of the pictures of Christ in these sermons”; references to “who he was and what he did” do occur, “but they are more often passing references than extended treatments” (427). “Familiar theological concepts — like Christ’s Sacrifĳice on the Cross and his victory over death — are mentioned but their theological import is left unexplored” (Faulkner 1991, 427-428).

Two years after Faulkner, Witten (1993) released her book All is Forgiven, a study of the influence of secular ideology on preaching in Protestant churches


in the United States. Analyzing 47 sermons — 26 preached by pastors in the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA), and 21 delivered by pastors in the conser-vative Southern Baptist Convention — she concluded that preachers in both camps have, for the most part, abandoned theological discourse. In particular, doctrinal topics and issues that would highlight congregants’ shortcomings were discarded in favour of psychologically comforting messages of acceptance and forgiveness (Witten 1993).

Though Witten suggests mainline and conservative preachers were equally likely to abandon theological discourse and “soft-pedal” the Gospel, some have noted that “Witten’s choice to discard from her sample sermons by Southern Baptist clergy who were more radically conservative” may have compromised her fĳindings related to the conservative sermons (Haskell et al. 2008, 143). In terms of mainline Churches, however, Witten’s fĳinding are in line with Faulkner’s (1991) earlier conclusions that in contemporary sermons theological discussion is sparse and the dominant theme is “God . . . loves us and will for-give us” (438).

Thomas (2005) collected 25 sermons for analysis — fĳive sermons each from fĳive of America’s top conservative Protestant ministers. His main intent was to catalogue instances where orthodox doctrines (i.e., doctrines expressed in the Apostle’s Creed) were discussed by these pastors. Unlike the mainline sermons Faulkner (1991, 427) analyzed which “more often [provided] passing references than extended treatments” of “who [Christ] was and what he did”, Thomas (2005) found the sermons of leading evangelical pastors tended to be theolog-ically-dense when it came to explaining “the person and work of Christ” (62). Of particular emphasis across his sample “was the work of Christ to gain salva-tion [for the listener]” (Thomas 2005, 71). This observation coincides with Stark et al.’s (1971) fĳinding that more so than other topics, the sermons of conserva-tive Protestant clergy focused on the salvifĳic work of Christ. Unlike other stud-ies, Thomas (2005) specifĳically noted the presence of Easter Sunday sermons in his sample. Apropos to his comments about the salvifĳic emphasis across his sample, he found that “every preacher’s Easter message focused on the sacri-fĳice of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world” (63).

As an additional point of analysis, Thomas observed the extent to which scripture was quoted in each of the sermons. He concluded that “scripture dominated just about every aspect of each message” with participants relying “heavily on the Biblical text for the content and direction of their messages, appealing to the Bible as their authority for speaking” (Thomas 2005, 65, 69). On his fĳirst point, Thomas (2005) seems at odds with Faulkner (1991, 422) who found only 4% of sermons in his study were expository and relied heavily on scripture quotation and explication. This discrepancy can possibly be


accounted for, in Haskell et al.’s (2008) study, the theological orientation of clergy was found to afffect their use of scriptural quotation. That is, mainline clergy, like those studied by Faulkner, were determined to rely less on quotes from scripture and more on extra-Biblical texts and allusions, whereas conser-vative Protestant pastors, like those featured in Thomas’ (2005) research, were found to rely heavily on scriptural quotes.

Haskell et al.’s (2008) research is the sole peer-reviewed study of contempo-rary Canadian sermon content. The researchers examined the texts of 76 ser-mons delivered on Easter Sunday for: 1) generic references to popular culture; 2) Biblical references; 3) specifĳic references to previously identifĳied works of popular literature (e.g., The Da Vinci Code; The Gospel of Judas) and; 4) instances where clergy spoke out against those popular discourses. Of interest to this current study, when it came to Biblical references, Haskell et al. (2008) noted signifĳicant diffferences between conservative and mainline Protestant sermons. Over 80% of conservative Protestant sermons contained fĳive or more separate (i.e., non-contiguous) quotes from scripture while over 80% of mainline Prot-estant sermons contained two or fewer. The researchers attributed the difffer-ences in Biblical content of mainline and conservative Protestant sermons to the pastors’ attitudes toward scripture (e.g., conservative Protestants place more emphasis on its authoritative nature) and the homiletic training the clergy received. On this last point, Haskell et al. (2008) noted that professors of homiletics at mainline seminaries teach that “strictly speaking the Bible is not the pure word of God” and encourage students to construct thematic sermons that rely heavily on non-scriptural material (144). Conversely, homiletic pro-fessors at conservative Protestant seminaries teach students to use an “exeget-ical style of preaching” rooted in the doctrine of Biblical authority (Haskell et al. 2008, 144). While Haskell et al.’s (2008) study made passing reference to what certain sermons in its sample relayed about the factuality of the resurrec-tion, what clergy presented as the resurrection’s theological meaning received no mention as it was not a focus of analysis.

6. Research Questions

As noted, the purpose of this current research is 1) to determine how conserva-tive and mainline Protestant sermons explain the meaning of the resurrection and, 2) to determine whether those explanations more broadly reflect accept-ance of the doctrine of Biblical authority or, conversely, acceptance of the project of higher criticism and its associated non-literal interpretation of scrip-ture. To that end, specifĳic research questions — shaped and informed by the literature detailed above — guide this study.


R1: When the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection is explained in a conservative or mainline Protestant sermon, does the explanation evidence adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority?

R2: Collectively, do conservative Protestant sermons difffer from mainline Protestant sermons in their explanations of the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection? R3: Collectively, do conservative Protestant sermons difffer from mainline Protestant sermons in terms of the amount of content devoted to explaining the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection?

R4: Do sermons of small town (population under 20,000) and rural mainline Protestant clergy difffer from the sermons of urban mainline Protestant min-isters in their treatment of the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection?

7. Methodology

7.1 Data Collection

The sermon texts examined for this study were gathered and previously ana-lyzed by Haskell et al. (2008). As noted above, this former study focused on quality and quantity of pop culture references and quantity of scripture refer-ences in the texts. Seventy-six usable sermons, all preached Easter Sunday 2006, comprised Haskell et al.’s (2008) sample with 35 from conservative Prot-estant Churches, 34 from mainline/liberal Protestant churches, 5 from Catho-lic churches and 1 from a Greek Orthodox church. For this current study, only the sermons from the conservative and mainline Protestant churches were analyzed. The larger number of sermons from these two Protestant groups was deemed most likely to produce accurate assessments about their respective populations (Gray and Guppy 2003, 91-92).

The previous researchers point out that the churches/clergy from whom the sermons were obtained are all located in Southwestern Ontario “one of the most highly populated and demographically diverse areas of English-speaking Canada” (Haskell et al. 2008, 145). They observe that the rich variation between communities in terms of rural-urban split and political and economic orienta-tion make this swath of land between Windsor and London, Ontario an ideal site for research. For the religion researcher, the Southwestern Ontario corri-dor is especially valuable; “over 400 churches belonging to more than 25 major denominations are found here” (Haskell et al. 2008, 145).


To amass their sample, in the weeks prior to Easter weekend 2006, Haskell et al. (2008) contacted denominational head offfĳices requesting that adminis-trators solicit their respective clergy to save and submit the sermon that they preached Easter Sunday.

In cases where a denominational head offfĳice did not exist or could not be reached, individual churches were telephoned and a request was made for their clergy per-son’s e-mail address. When an e-mail address was obtained, the clergy person was sent a detailed explanation of the study along with a request for his or her Easter Sunday sermon. Clergy were given the option to e-mail, fax or mail copies of their sermon text; if it was unavailable in textual form they could surface mail the video or audio recording of their sermon (Haskell et al. 2008, 146).

Identifying information, including church name, location, and clergy’s name, was logged at the top of each sermon text. Broken down by specifĳic denomina-tion, the conservative Protestant churches represented were: Baptist (N = 12); Christian Reformed (N = 2); Church of Christ (N = 1); Lutheran Church-Canada (N = 7); Non-Denominational/Community Church (N = 6); Pentecostal (N = 5); Salvation Army (N = 2). The mainline churches represented were: Anglican (N = 10); Evangelical Lutheran (N = 4); Metropolitan Community Church (N = 1);2 Presbyterian (N = 5); and United (N = 14). Fourteen of the mainline sermons came from small town (population less than 20,000) or rural churches; 20 were from urban churches.

7.2 Data Analysis

Operationally, the sermon texts were analyzed through a reconstructed grounded theory approach popularized by Charmaz (2006). Charmaz’ (2006) method uses the iterative and constant comparative method of grounded the-ory initiated by Glaser and Strauss (1967). However, she positions grounded theory in a constructionist approach aligned with the pragmatic philosophical tradition of the Chicago school of sociology. Pragmatism assumes that hypoth-eses are always provisional and reality is open to multiple interpretations. Meaning emerges through the ongoing creative actions of people; in this proc-ess, facts and values are linked and not separate (Charmaz 2006, 188). Thus, she promotes grounded theory as an abductive approach:

2 The Metropolitan Community Church has a half dozen congregations located primarily in larger urban centres in the province of Ontario. This denomination is doctrinally almost identical to the liberal churches in the United Church of Canada. Its sole diffference is that it caters specifĳic-ally to members of the gay and lesbian community.


We construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices . . . any theo-retical rendering offfers an interpretive portrayal of the studied world, not an exact picture of it (Charmaz 2006, 10).

Related to the act of research, the scholar performing the analyses and the authors of the discourses under study are presented as co-constructing the cat-egories and themes that emerge from the data (Charmaz 2006, 7).

In keeping with her proposition that meaning emerges through the ongoing creative actions of people, Charmaz (2006, 9) directs the analyst to make the study of action his central focus. Related to this current study, the communica-tive actions of the clergy as they delivered their sermon were the focus of explo-ration; over the course of each pastor’s speech act, what he or she was communicating was identifĳied. Thus, codes were formulated as “Pastor states . . . Pastor claims . . . Pastor suggests . . . etc.”

In addition to following the broad principle above, other specifĳic steps advo-cated by Charmaz (2006) were also followed. Whereas traditional grounded theory prescribes that researchers enter the fĳield of inquiry with as few prede-termined thoughts as possible, enabling them to “remain sensitive to the data by being able to record events and detect happenings without fĳirst having them fĳiltered through and squared with pre-existing hypotheses and biases” (Glaser 1978, 3), Chamaz (2006) directs researchers to immerse themselves in the literature surrounding their point of inquiry. By familiarizing themselves with the extant literature, researchers are able to develop sensitising concepts. Elsewhere she has defĳined sensitizing concepts as:

those background ideas that inform the overall research problem . . . Sensitizing concepts offfer ways of seeing, organizing, and understanding experience; they are embedded in our disciplinary emphases and perspectival proclivities . . . they pro-vide starting points for building analysis (Charmaz 2003, 259)

Sensitizing concepts lay the foundation for the analysis of research data by allowing the research problem to crystallize and research questions to form; further, “researchers might also use sensitizing concepts in examining substan-tive codes with a view to developing thematic categories from the data” (Bowen 2006, 3; cf. Charmaz 2006).

In this current study, sensitizing concepts were derived from a thorough review of the literature on conservative and mainline Protestants’ modern his-tory, conservative and mainline Protestants’ theological positions — especially those positions related to interpretation of the resurrection — and homiletic research — particularly that involving content analysis. From the review of


that literature, specifĳic ideas came to the fore such as mainline Protestants’ support of higher criticism, rejection of Biblical literalism, and tendency to metaphorically interpret Jesus’ resurrection. The lack of afffĳinity between urban and rural mainline congregations also arose as a concept. Related to conserva-tive Protestants, the following perceptions surfaced: support for the doctrine of Biblical authority/Biblical inerrancy and the tendency to interpret Jesus’ resur-rection through the literal lens of scripture. Directly correlated to conservative Protestants’ literal scriptural interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection were specifĳic ideas of eternal life, supernatural power in this life, defeat of Satan, and substi-tutionary atonement. Collectively, these sensitizing concepts formed the con-ceptual framework for this current study (cf. Seibold 2002). In addition to informing the research problem and leading to the research questions, these concepts provided an analytic frame, serving as a point of reference and a guide in the analysis of data at all stages of investigation.

As a second stage in the research process, Charmaz (2006) directs the researcher to commence data collection and initial or opening coding. For this study the sermons were already amassed. During open coding, I divided a ser-mon into what I perceived as natural segments based on clear changes in com-municative focus. I then opened the data in the segment — meaning I labelled the data in a direct or open way. Specifĳically, the words of the pastors that reflected communicative action (e.g., pastors claims . . .) were coded. The open coding process continued until every sermon in the sample was analyzed.

As a third step Charmaz (2006) directs the researcher to raise codes to tenta-tive categories. For this study, by means of constant comparison of segments and codes, certain codes were selected as having overriding signifĳicance and these were joined in an analytic category (e.g., one of the larger code families to emerge from my data related to what pastors claimed Christians gain from the resurrection). Charmaz (2006) suggests researchers at this stage write memos in order to “stop and analyze their ideas about their codes and emerg-ing categories in whatever way it occurs to them” (188); that advice was also followed.

As a fourth step, she has the researcher establish core categories by means of constant comparison of signifĳicant segments and codes. Advanced memo writing is also used to refĳine conceptual categories (Charmaz 2006). For this study, the most signifĳicant and frequent earlier codes and initial categories were used to fĳilter the data into central categories that best described the phe-nomenon under investigation (e.g., at this point the resurrection as means to obtaining eternal life emerged as a central category). Finally, themes emerged as a result of the combined process of my becoming intimate with the data, drawing associations within the data and considering what was learned during


the initial review of the literature. Themes, in turn, moved from a low level of abstraction to become major, overarching themes rooted in the concrete evi-dence provided by the data. When “theoretical saturation” occurred — that is, when additional data failed to uncover any new ideas about the developing theory — the coding process ended.

While grounded theory typically does not require specifĳic counts of inci-dents to be taken, some of the sermons’ content proved amenable to reliable, numerical summation. Where appropriate, these quantitative fĳindings are pre-sented in the Results section of this paper to allow the reader to judge more precisely the extent to which certain themes and ideas were evident across the sample.

8. Results

It was determined that all of the sermons in the sample, except one Anglican homily preached in a rural church, discussed the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection. Indeed, four broad thematic categories related to discussion of resurrection theology were identifĳied. There were those sermons that linked the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection to eternal life for his followers. Next, there were those sermons that linked the resurrection to supernatural power in this life for followers of Jesus. The third class of sermons combined and ruminated on both of these ideas. The fĳinal type — found only among the mainline sermons — did not speak of supernatural gains but suggested that the resurrection’s theological meaning was metaphorical and revealed a key existential truth.

Regarding theological direction and emphasis, the conservative and main-line Protestant sermons difffered signifĳicantly from each other. Therefore, rather than providing the results of the full sample in aggregate, for clarity of presentation, the respective results from the conservative Protestant sermons will be offfered fĳirst followed by the respective mainline results.

8.1 The Resurrection’s Theological Meaning — Conservative Protestant Sermons

When broaching the theology of Jesus’ resurrection, about 69% (N = 24 of 35) of the conservative Protestant sermons spoke of the event as the means by which believers attain eternal life. This Baptist pastor’s explanation of the res-urrection’s meaning was typical of many: “The resurrection proves that the power of sin has been broken and has been replaced by a new kind of life — his [ Jesus’] resurrected, eternal life becomes ours.” With few exceptions,


statements like the one above were preceded or followed by one or more scrip-ture quotes — proof texts — that spoke of Jesus’ death and resurrection bring-ing about eternal life; for instance, John 11:25-27; Romans 6:21-23 and 1 Corinthians 15: 50-58 were among the popular quotations.

Just over 11% (N = 4 of 35) of the conservative sermons tied the resurrection’s theological meaning to supernatural power in this life attributable to the risen Jesus’ acting of the believer’s behalf. For example, the pastor of a non-denomi-national church stated,

When Jesus rose again, we rose again with Him in the power of the resurrection to live a new kind of life, where sin does not rule over us any more. Here’s the truth: any addiction you wrestle with, Jesus can break its power, and set you free. Any sin that has mastered you, Jesus longs to give you power to master it. Jesus’ power is available to overcome sin. His life connects with yours.

Again, it was typical for supporting scripture to precede or follow these state-ments (e.g., Romans 8: 9-10).

A fĳinal 20% (N = 7 of 35) of conservative Protestant sermons linked Jesus’ resurrection to supernatural power in this life and eternal life — though usu-ally at diffferent points in the sermon. For instance, one Pentecostal pastor explained that since the risen Jesus is able to intercede for believers, “we can overturn defeat and have hope amidst difffĳiculty in life . . .” He later concluded that the greatest benefĳits of Jesus’ resurrection are experienced when the believer dies. Describing a future paradise, he noted that there is “no need for doctors or pharmaceutical companies in the afterlife.” As with the other ser-mon types, scriptural supports were used to reinforce the theological claims.

Denominational afffĳiliation was not a predictor of how much, or how little, theology was discussed. In almost half of the conservative sermons (N = 17 of 35), the theological reflection consisted of just a sentence or two with one or two supporting scriptural references (akin to those found above). In these cases, the clergy seemed to take it for granted that those hearing would be able to “fĳill in the blanks” through their existing Biblical and doctrinal knowledge. The other half of the conservative sermons (N = 18 of 35) were theologically-dense, discussing the resurrection’s theological import at length. Though some ran longer, one to three paragraphs was typical. Relying heavily on scripture reference and exposition, they sought to explain methodically, in step-by-step fashion, how Jesus’ resurrection leads to eternal life, supernatural power in this life, or both. In all cases, the explanations evidenced support for the idea of substitutionary atonement — some even used that term explicitly. The two excerpts below — the fĳirst from a Christian Reformed minister and the second from a Salvation Army pastor — are condensed from longer treatments. They


are emblematic of the language and content found in the other, theologically-dense conservative Protestant sermons.

Christian Reformed Sermon ExcerptThe basic contents of this simple Easter message is quite telling . . . It tells us that the grave has lost its battle with the Lord Jesus Christ. Sin, and death, and hell, and the devil have been defeated . . . Christ Jesus has come out of this battle as the unquestionable Victor . . . From this time forward, He will remain the unquestion-able Victor over all those spiritual enemies, until they will fĳinally, and completely, be put out of harm’s way . . . Your Savior is alive and well, and has, by His successful sacrifĳice restored the broken relationship brought on by our sin. We now have peace with God, because Jesus has restored it by His successful sacrifĳice. This is why the Apostle Paul could say in Romans 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemna-tion to them which are in Christ Jesus. . . .” “But” the Apostle Paul goes on . . . “now Christ is risen,” a Victor over death and the grave and consequently, we in faith may be able to say with the Apostle, “O death, where is thy sting, O grave, where is thy victory?” In other words, Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, and assures us who believe in Him, that death will not have the terror for us as it has been before . . . “Our death is not a satisfaction for our sins, but only an abolishing of sin, and a passage into eternal life.”

Salvation Army Sermon ExcerptSatan was the cause of man’s sin in the fĳirst place and, even though he is a usurper, he can claim, justly so in a sense, that the sinner must die. He had the power, the authority to demand that every sinner should pay sin’s penalty. And on account of this all men, because all are sinners, were fearful of death and subject to bondage, because of sin, to serve it and thus serve Satan . . . We are born therefore into both fear and bondage. Our bondage is our sin nature which also separates us from God . . . To that we bring the gospel, to that we bring the idea of Easter, the day Jesus broke the back of sin and death. Paul in his great treatise on the Resurrection declared: “. . . The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” Jesus by returning from the dead broke the power of death. Later on in the same chapter, Paul could write: “. . . Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”. Jesus has today made it possible for us to know that life doesn’t end at the grave but continues . . .

As the excerpts above reveal, the theologically-dense conservative Protestant sermons also had a tendency to promote the notion that the resurrection was the climax of an ongoing battle between God and Satan/the devil for the souls of humankind. Two-thirds of the theologically-dense conservative texts (N = 12 of 18) mentioned Satan’s adversarial role and ultimate defeat in their broader discussions of Christ’s sacrifĳice and substitutionary atonement. As noted ear-lier in this paper, there are several specifĳic theories of atonement. The refer-ences to the defeat of Satan in these sermons suggests that the Christus Victor


theory was one of the preferred means by which Jesus’ death and resurrection was understood by these particular clergy (cf. Baker 2006).

Finally, in the course of explaining how Jesus’ resurrection was connected to eternal life, seven of the theologically-dense conservative Protestant sermons touched on the type of existence those blessed with eternal life would experi-ence. Two mentioned a heavenly existence; the more detailed explanation of the two came from a conservative Lutheran Church-Canada pastor:

Jesus had said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live again. In my Father’s house are many mansions. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come back & take you to be with Me that you may also be where I am.” Jesus had promised to deliver, and the fĳirst step was His own resurrection. One wonders whether the women [at the empty tomb] would have remembered the words of Job who said, “I know that my Redeemer lives, & though after worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh I shall see God, & not another.” Job’s words clearly refer to the afterlife, to eternal life. And the point is that there is an alive Redeemer who will greet the faithful in heaven.

The other fĳive spoke not of a heavenly existence but suggested that God would provide believer’s with a new, resurrected body (to live on a new earth) follow-ing the second coming of Jesus. The comments were usually just brief asides. For example, a Baptist pastor concluded, “If Christ is raised, he is the fĳirst of a long legacy of those who are going to leave their cemeteries” while a Pentecos-tal pastor said, “How are the decayed bodies going to be reconstructed? If God can create the world from nothing, He will have no problem reconstructing our bodies.” However, one Baptist pastor provided a fuller account. Espousing a dispensational, pre-millennial worldview, he told his congregation:

My understanding of eschatology is that we will be resurrected at the rapture; oth-ers will need to be resurrected if they die in the tribulation or millennial reign, and the dead shall be resurrected to judgment after the millennial reign . . . This is not the end of time but the end of resurrecting. There will be no more need of resur-rection. His redemptive work will be done.

8.2 The Resurrection’s Theological Meaning — Mainline Protestant Sermons

When discussing the theology of Jesus’ resurrection, nine, or slightly over one-quarter (N = 9 of 34), of the mainline Protestant sermons suggested the mean-ing of the event hinged on the attainment of eternal life for believers. These quotes from an Anglican and United Church minister, respectively, are emblematic of others: “The Bible promises eternal life to those who believe in Christ”; and, “Though each of us has sorrows in this life, we know that this earth


is just a beginning for us. We all taste death, but death no longer has the last word.” Similar to the conservative sermons that promoted this same theologi-cal position, most of the mainline sermons stressing eternal life (N = 8 of 9) used related quotes from the New Testament to support their claim. Geograph-ically, four of these nine sermons came from clergy preaching in small town or rural churches.

Eight, or almost one-quarter (N = 8 of 34) of the mainline sermons linked the resurrection’s theological meaning to supernatural power in this life; three of the eight came from non-urban churches. However, unlike the conservative Protestant sermons, which often stated the power of the resurrection could lead to miraculous real-world transformations (e.g., freedom from drug addic-tion), the mainline sermons were more muted in what “resurrection power” could do for the believer. For example, one Presbyterian minister said, “Because [Jesus] lives we also can lead full, free, joy-fĳilled lives” and an Evangelical Lutheran minister stated, “The fundamental Easter experience is that Jesus remains alive to our world and to us. He is present in life’s turmoil . . .”. A United Church minister summarized the theology of the resurrection saying, “[Jesus’] spirit is constantly at work within us and among us . . . bringing new life into being.” While paraphrased references to scripture were included at other points in their texts, none of these sermons referenced scripture to support their theological position. In fact, there was little scriptural or non-scriptural elaboration as to how Jesus’ rising from the dead translated into divine power for believers. On occasion, the clergy persons drew attention to their own ambivalence on the issue; for example, one Presbyterian minister said: “[Through the resurrection] God liberates us from the forces of evil that enslave us . . . While I don’t fully understand how that works, I know that this is the best news that any of us could hear.”

Four, or almost 12% (N = 4 of 34), of the mainline Protestant sermons linked Jesus’ resurrection to supernatural power in this life and eternal life; three of the four came from non-urban churches. Unlike the conservative sermons of this type, these two claims were usually made together and not at diffferent points in the sermon. This short excerpt from a United Church minister’s pro-vides an example of this combining technique:

But the good news, the joyous, fantastic, almost unbelievable news of Easter is the powerful intrusion of God. Our liberating, freeing God rescued us from being undone by death. God’s deliverance from death is the divine power play that brings life. It not only brings life to Jesus Christ as the one ordained by God as the judge of the living and the dead, but it also brings life to God’s people, to you and to me. . . . Now everyday is a day of new life. This is the day of God’s power for life.


In similar but shorter fashion, an Anglican priest said, “Easter is our greatest day because it is the day we mark our Lord’s victory over the kingdom of death and all the things in this world that trap God’s children in living deaths.” While paraphrased references or direct quotes from scripture were included at other points in their texts, none of these sermons referenced scripture to support their theological position on the meaning of the resurrection.

Sermons positing that the resurrection’s theological meaning was meta-phorical, illuminating a key existential lesson (as opposed to brokering some type of supernatural boon), comprised just over one-third (N = 12 of 34) of the mainline sample. In these 12 sermons the clergy suggested that from the resur-rection one could learn that God can bring good out of bad situations. One United Church minister made this summation: “There is a learning here that points us towards the universal truth of God being with us in the places we expect and also in the places, and the people we don’t expect.” Another, allud-ing to the resurrected Jesus’ abandoned burial shroud, expressed the idea this way:

Folded grave clothes are a sign of the resurrection, of death left behind and moving on to new life . . . Ask any survivor of abuse, addiction, divorce, rape, exile and pub-lic shunning . . . But it is all one story. So we know about the folding of the grave clothes, the meticulous arrangement of the past, the rolling aside of the stone that blocks, prevents us moving forward, the decision to step out into a new day, a new chapter, a new relationship, a new life. There may be other crucifĳixions but death is not the end of the story. The end of the story is the resurrection and folded grave clothes. That’s what Easter is all about!

A third denominational colleague said:

We know the power and presence of Easter in our lives . . . We have journeyed through the night time of pain and know that joy comes in the morning. Thank God for the Easter formulae my friends, the Easter miracle that brings us through the dark nights of despair . . . And if at death, my consciousness ends and there is no particular me in the life hereafter, I will not feel cheated. For the life I have been given is gift enough by far.

Equating resurrection to a motivating memory, an Anglican priest ruminated at length how Martin Luther King Jr., like Jesus, was able to inspire others not despite his death but because of it. Similarly, a Presbyterian minister invoked Jesus’ inspirational example when drawing his conclusion that good can come from bad. He noted, “In the face of evil, through the violence of evil, Jesus of Nazareth fought with all his life and breath to convince you and me, and any-one to DO [good in this world].”


As demonstrated by these excerpts above, those sermons that took the meaning of the resurrection to be existential lesson tended to avoid or down-play the supernatural aspects or understanding of the event. None used Bibli-cal references to support their interpretation of the meaning of the resurrection, though 10 of the 12 had paraphrased or quoted scripture elsewhere. Also of note, 9 of these 12 sermons were preached in urban mainline churches.

Regardless of thematic category or denominational orientation, in the vast majority of mainline sermons the theological reflection was sparse, usually confĳined to one to four sentences — as mentioned at the beginning of the Results section, one sermon had no theological reflection. Also noted above, it was seldom the case that the mainline clergy would use scripture references to support their theological interpretation. Furthermore, unlike in the conserva-tive sermons in which discussion of resurrection theology regularly elicited the idea of substitutionary atonement, that notion was virtually absent from the mainline sermons. Just three sermons, as part of their larger argument that Jesus’ resurrection allows believers to attain eternal life, made passing refer-ence to the idea of Jesus, the sinless one, dying in the place of sinners. One Presbyterian minster said: “Our deaths would not be enough to conquer sin, so God had to take it upon Himself, in the person of the son, to conquer it for-ever.” A second Presbyterian minister quoted the writings of St. Augustine to explain how “Christ paid the ransom for our sin” while an Anglican priest used a quote from the Book of Common Prayer to work the idea of substitutionary atonement into his sermon.

Apart from one passing reference each, also absent from the mainline ser-mons was mention of Satan/the devil and any discussion of what eternal exis-tence in the afterlife might be like. The sermon to mention the devil, delivered by a United Church minister, spoke of a famous painting that depicted Goethe’s character Faust engaged in a chess game with Satan.

Finally, the nature of existence in the afterlife was referenced in just one text, an Anglican sermon. It stated that “those who believe in Christ will also be resurrected to spend eternity with God.” In this brief aside, where believers are resurrected to, and exactly what form their being will take, was not discussed.

9. Discussion

As noted in the Introduction of this paper, the doctrine of Biblical authority asserts that Old and New Testament scriptures are accurate in matters of doc-trine, history and science while also authoritative over human belief and con-duct (Woodbridge 1982). For supporters of Biblical authority, with few exceptions, what the Bible relays is literally true. Thus, for the supporter of


Biblical authority, angels, the devil, a supernatural existence after death, and other phenomenon mentioned in scripture are real — not metaphorical. Simi-larly, for them, interpreting Jesus’ death as a sacrifĳice for the sins of others is the correct interpretation because, according to scripture, Jesus himself under-stands it that way (e.g., Matthew 26:28; Mark 10:45) as do other New Testament writers (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 10:12). By extension, therefore, a ser-mon aligning with the doctrine of Biblical authority would demonstrate cer-tain characteristics: it would discuss biblical ideas as fact and it would use quotes from scripture to prove the veracity of claims made.

Research Question 1 of this study asked: When the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection is explained in a conservative or mainline Protestant ser-mon, does the explanation evidence adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority? As the results above show, the conservative Protestant sermons in this study evidence strong support for the doctrine of Biblical authority; con-versely, the mainline sermons do not evidence strong adherence to that doctrine.

When explaining the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection, without exception all the conservative Protestant sermons used scriptural supports to reinforce the truth of their theological claims. Half provided multiple para-graphs of scripture-laden exegesis. Other signs of adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority — with its literal reading of scripture — included references to Satan/the devil as real and Jesus’ death as a substitutionary atonement. Over one third (N = 12 of 35) of the conservative Protestant texts contained such references. In 20% (N = 7 of 35) of the texts the afterlife was also discussed as tangible destination (be it a new earth or heaven).

Conversely, when discussing the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection less than one quarter (N = 8 of 34) of the mainline Protestant sermons provided scriptural supports to validate their theological claims. Ideas such as Jesus’ death as a substitutionary atonement for others, the devil as a real entity, and the afterlife as a real destination were also virtually absent from the mainline sermons; this too points to a non-literalist perspective on scripture. Of course, that over one third of the mainline texts (N = 12 of 34) suggested that the resur-rection’s theological meaning was metaphorical provides the clearest evidence that the doctrine of Biblical authority was not supported.

The results also allow Research Questions 2 and 3 of this study to be answered. In fact, in many ways Research Questions 2 and 3 simply reframe and further clarify the answer to Research Question 1. Research Question 2 sought to dig more deeply into the quality of the sermon content asking: “Collectively, do conservative Protestant sermons difffer from mainline Protes-tant sermons in their explanations of the theological meaning of Jesus’


resurrection?” Research Question 3, on the other hand, queried about quantity of material asking: “Collectively, do conservative Protestant sermons difffer from mainline Protestant sermons in terms of the amount of content devoted to explaining the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection?”

Regarding Research Question 2’s query we fĳind that when explaining the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection the conservative Protestant sermons share some similarities to those of the mainline but also show signifĳicant dif-ferences. In both groups there were sermons that linked Jesus’ resurrection to supernatural boons for believers (i.e., eternal life, divine power in this life, or both). However, when referencing these supernatural gains the two groups dif-fered in terms of proportion and manner of explication. All the conservative Protestant sermons referenced one or more supernatural boons but less than two-thirds (N = 21 of 34) of the mainline sermons did so. Furthermore, as noted just above, conservative Protestant sermons always supported their theologi-cal claims with scriptural proof-texts. However, the vast majority of mainline sermons did not use scripture to validate their theological understandings of the resurrection. It might be the case that a mainline minister would claim that Jesus’ resurrection leads to eternal life, but how and why it leads to this super-natural reward would be left unsaid.

Regarding Research Question 3’s query into the amount of theological con-tent, the results showed conclusively that conservative Protestant sermons were far more likely to explicate at length on the meaning of the resurrection than mainline sermons. Represented as a percentage, 70.5% (N = 24 of 34) of the mainline sermons offfered no scriptural support for their theological claims about the resurrection while 100% of the conservative Protestant sermons offfered scriptural support.

The mainline sermons’ minimal reliance on scriptural underpinnings for their theological claims may be evidence that higher criticism — with its emphasis on that which is empirically verifĳiable and de-emphasis on the super-natural including the Bible’s divine status — remains a strong influence among Canada’s mainline clergy. Perhaps it is the case that if they cannot back up their theological claim with an empirically verifĳiable proof, mainline clergy would rather say nothing at all. Clearly, the claim that through Jesus’ death and resurrection believers can experience eternal life (and, its corollary, supernat-ural power in this life) cannot be proven by any scientifĳic means. In the absence of empirical supports, the clergy person making this argument is left with no other option but to explain, “I present this claim as true because it is in the Bible and the Bible, as God’s inspired Word, is true.” That is to say, the clergy must appeal to the divine authority of the Bible to justify the claim. For conser-vative Protestant pastors, taking the leap of faith this statement requires is not


problematic as the notion is consistent with their broader religious worldview. However, conditioned by the tenets of higher criticism it may be that mainline clergy are less willing to back their theological assertions by appealing to the divine authority of scripture.3

Research Question 4 of this study asked: Do sermons of small town (popula-tion under 20,000) and rural mainline Protestant clergy difffer from the sermons of urban mainline Protestant ministers in their treatment of the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection?

Interestingly, the results showed that the geographical origin of a mainline sermon (i.e., urban or non-urban) seemed to influence how the resurrection was understood and explained theologically. Sharing an afffĳinity with the majority of the conservative Protestant sermons, and at odds with others of their denominational kin, sermons preached in small town and rural mainline churches were more likely to connect the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection with attainment of eternal life or eternal life and supernatural power in this life. The numbers tell the tale best: although the non-urban mainline sermons com-prised less than half of the mainline population of texts (N = 14 of 34) they represented more than half (N = 7 of 13) of those mainline sermons positing this, the most traditional/conservative, theological interpretation.

Determining why the sermons of non-urban mainline clergy are more reli-giously conservative in orientation than those of their urban brethren is beyond the purview of this study; however, certain speculations can be made. Research shows that small town and rural residents in Canada are more likely to practice a traditional, conservative form of Christianity than those in urban centres (Clark 2000; cf. Rawlyk 1996, 54). It may be that members of non-urban main-line churches, when they hire a new minister, tend to select those men and women who mirror their own, more conservative, Christian perspective. It may also be that mainline clergy with religiously conservative beliefs and

3 Other tentative fĳindings closely related to this current study reinforce the premise that mainline clergy feel more at ease promoting an idea from scripture as true when that idea can be supported by corroborating, extra-Biblical sources. A dual analysis was conducted on the ser-mons from this study. The secondary analysis (which is currently under review) examined what clergy said about the factual nature of the resurrection. It found that mainline sermons that argued the gospels’ account of Jesus’ resurrection was factually accurate were also likely to appeal to empirical data to bolster that claim. Of the 18 mainline sermons to posit the literal resurrection, 13 sought to legitimate the Bible’s account of the event by appealing to evidence from contempor-ary Biblical scholarship. Specifĳically, applying concepts from textual criticism, these sermons referenced one or more apologetic proofs rooted in the criteria of dissimilarity, ecclesiastical embarrassment, or multiple attestation (cf. Craig 1989; Ehrman 2008, 495-498; Wright 2003). Con-versely, the conservative Protestant sermons did not show the same need to support the Biblical account with outside evidence; that the physical resurrection of Jesus was recorded in the “divinely inspired” gospels was proof enough for them that the account was factual.


practices intentionally gravitate — or are directed by their ecclesiastical bosses — to non-urban charges where their opinions will be in closer align-ment with those of their congregations. By way of recommendation for future research, an empirical study on this issue — possibly a survey, focus group or interviews with a mix of mainline clergy from urban and non-urban churches — would be valuable.

10. Conclusion

This study shows that, in the main, what historians and theologians have char-acterized as the mainline and conservative Protestants archetypal positions on Biblical interpretation are reflected in the homiletic content of contemporary Canadian clergy. Conservative Protestants’ historical and continued accept-ance of the doctrine of Biblical authority was clearly evidenced in the sermons of conservative clergy. Likewise, the historical and continued influence of the project of higher criticism — especially as it correlates to non-literal interpre-tation of scripture and decreased dependence on scripture as a means of theo-logical explication — was discernable in the sermons of mainline Protestants.

While the results of this study show that the convention of separating and grouping conservative and mainline Protestants based on their respective approaches to scriptural authority can be extended even to homiletic content, they also demonstrate that when applying this convention at the level of indi-vidual congregations anomalies exist. Specifĳically, this study shows that clergy in a portion of Canadian mainline churches, usually those ministering to rural and small town congregations, defy this conventional division. When the divid-ing line of Biblical authority is drawn, they fĳind themselves with a foot in the conservatives’ camp. Thus, future application of this convention should include an amendment that recognizes the unique character of non-urban mainline churches in Canada.

References

Adams, Michael. 2003. Fire and ice: The United States, Canada and the myth of converging values. Toronto, ON: Penguin.

Averill, Lloyd J. 1968. American theology in the liberal tradition. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster.

Baker, Mark, D. 2006. Proclaiming the scandal of the cross. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Aca-demic.

Berkhof, Hendrikus. 1979. Christian faith: An introduction to the study of the faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Bibby, Reginald W. 2006. The Boomer factor. Toronto, Ontario: Bastian.


——. 2004. Restless Churches: How Canada’s churches can contribute to the emerging religious ren-aissance. Kelowna, British Columbia: Novalis.

——. 2002. Restless gods: The renaissance of religion in Canada. Kelowna, BC: Novalis.Borg, Marcus. 1994. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of

Contemporary Faith. San Francisco, California: HarperOne.Borg, Marcus and Wright N. T. 2000. The meaning of Jesus: Two visions. San Francisco, California:

HarperOne.Bowen, Glen A. 2006. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualita-

tive Methods 5(3): 1-9.Bruce, Steve. 1983. Identifying Conservative Protestantism. Sociological Analysis 44(1): 65-70.Buddenbaum, Judith M. 1996. Mainline Protestants and the media. Pp. 51-60 in Religion and Mass

Media: Audiences and Adaptations, edited by D. Stout and J. M. Buddenbaum. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Bultmann, Rudolf. 2007 [1951]. Theology of the New Testament. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.——. 1957. Jesus Christ and mythology. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons. Camroux, Martin F. 1997. Harnack to Jenkins: Liberal theology in the twentieth century. The

Expository Times 108: 233-236.Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analy-

sis. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.——. 2003. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. Pp. 249-29 in Strategies for

qualitative inquiry, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clark, Warren. 2000. Patterns of Religious Attendance. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.Clarke, Brian. 1996. English Speaking Canada from 1854. Pp. 261-359 in A Concise History of Chris-

tianity in Canada, edited by T. Murphy and R. Perin. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press. Craig, William, Lane. 1989. Assessing the NT evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen. Crossan, John Dominic. 1999. The birth of Christianity. New York: HarperOne.—— 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco.Earle, Ralph. 1962. The person of Christ: Death, resurrection, ascension. Pp. 138-144 in Basic Chris-

tian Doctrines, edited by Carl F. H. Henry. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Ehrman, Bart D. (2008). The New Testament: A historical introduction to the early Christian writ-

ings. New York: Oxford University Press.Faulkner, Joseph E. 1991. What are they saying? A content analysis of 206 sermons preached in the

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) during 1988. Pp. 416-439 in A Case Study of Mainstream Protestantism: The Disciples’ Relation to American Culture, 1880-1889, edited by D. Newell Wil-liams. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Finger, Thomas, N. 2003. Christian theology: An eschatological approach. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.

Flatt, Kevin. 2010, The loyal opposition: A brief history of the renewal movement in the United Church of Canada, 1966-2010. Church and Faith Trends 3(3): 1-18.

Fosdick, Harry Emerson. 1961. Dear Mr. Brown. New York: Harper & Row.——. 1924. The modern use of the Bible. New York: Macmillan.Fuller, George C. 1994. The life of Jesus after the ascension. Westminster Theological Journal 56:

391-98.Glaser, Barney G. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.

Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Gray, George and Guppy, Neil. 2003. Successful surveys: Research methods and practice. Scarbor-

ough, Ontario: Nelson.


Grant, Robert M. and Tracy, David. 1984. A short history of the interpretation of the Bible. Philadel-phia, Pennsylvania: Fortress.

Grudem, Wayne A. 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to Biblical doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity.

Gunter, Lorne. 2005. Fighting Canada’s Secularist Tide, National Post, September 26, A16.Harvey, Bob. 1997. A Church Leader’s View of Jesus’ Life, Hamilton Spectator, November 27, A15.Haskell, David M. 2009. Through a Lens Darkly: How the News Media Perceive and Portray Evan-

gelicals. Toronto, Ontario: Clements Academic.Haskell, David M., Paradis, Kenneth, and Burgoyne, Stephanie. 2008. Defending the faith: Reac-

tion to The Da Vinci Code, The Jesus Papers, The Gospel of Judas and other pop culture discourses in Easter Sunday sermons. Review of Religious Research 50(2): 139-156.

Heimstra, Rick. 2009. Evangelical giving and volunteering. Church and Faith Trends 2(2): 1-10. ——. 2008. Evangelical alignment in Canada. Church and Faith Trends 1(3): 1-15. Hordern, William. 1955. A layman’s guide to Protestant theology. New York: Macmillan.Knight, Keith. 2008. Conservative Anglicans determined to stay within church. Anglican Journal,

November 28, A1.Lewis, Charles. 2009. Dawn of a new Reformation; Archbishop believes national Anglican

churches will become ‘irrelevancies’. National Post, November 16, A6.Lightner, Robert P. 1986. Evangelical theology: A survey and review. Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Baker. McLennan, Scotty. 2009. Jesus was a liberal. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Miller, Christine and Carlin, Nathan. 2010. Joel Osteen as cultural selfobject: Meeting the needs of

the group self and its individual members in and from the largest church in America. Pasto-ral Psychology 59(1): 27-51.

Noll, Mark A. 2007. What Happened to Christian Canada? Vancouver, BC: Regent College Press.Oakland, Roger. 2007. Faith Undone. Silverton, Oregon: Lighthouse Trails.Ogilvie, Margaret H. 2006. Discussion paper #2: Overcoming “The Culture of Disbelief.” Ottawa: ON.

The Centre for Cultural Renewal.Pew Forum. 2008. U.S. religious landscape survey. Washington, DC: Pew Forum on Religion and

Public Life.Rawlyk, George A. 1996. Is Jesus your personal saviour? In search of Canadian evangelicalism in the

1990s. Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queens University Press.Reimer, Sam. 2003. Evangelicals and the continental divide: The conservative protestant subculture

in Canada and the United States. Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queens University Press.Robinson, Bruce A. 2009. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and Homosexuality. Retrieved

January 28, 2011 from the Religious Tolerance Web site at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_disc2.htm.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 2008. New Testament theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Seibold, Carmel. 2002. The place of theory and the development of a theoretical framework in a qualitative study. Qualitative Research Journal 2: 3-15.

Sharman, Nick. 1999. Remaining awake through a great revolution: The rhetorical strategies of Martin Luther King Jr. Social Semiotics 9(1): 85-105.

Shortell, Timothy. 2001. Radicalization of religious discourse in El Salvador: the case of Oscar A. Romero. Sociology of Religion 62(1): 87-103.

Spong, John Shelby. 1995. Resurrection: Myth or Reality? San Francisco, California: HarperSan-Francisco.

Stark, Rodney, Foster, Bruce D., Glock, Charles Y., and Quinley, Harold E. 1971.Wayward Shepherds: Prejudice and the Protestant Clergy. New York: Harper and Row.—— 1970. Sounds of Silence. Psychology Today, April: 38-62.


Retrieved January 10, 2010 from the Religion Online Web site at: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2525.

Statistics Canada. 2003. 2001 Census Analysis Series: Religions in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Govern-ment of Canada.

Thomas, Reid S. 2005. Evidence of the Gospel in preaching to postmoderns: A study of the sermons of leading preachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ashbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.

Turley, Stephen R. 2008. Awakened to the holy: “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” in ritual-ized context. Christianity & Literature 57(4): 507-30.

VanGinkel, Aileen. 2003. Evangelical Beliefs and Practices: A Summary of the 2003 Ipsos Reid Survey Results. Markham, Ontario: Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Wellman, James, K. 2008. Evangelical vs. Liberal. New York: Oxford University Press.Witten, Marsha, G. 1993. All is Forgiven: The secular message in American Protestantism. Princeton,

New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Woodbridge, John. 1982. Biblical authority: A critique of the Rogers/McKim proposal. Zondervan,

Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan.Wright, N. T. 2003. The resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress.

The Theological Meaning of Jesus’ Resurrection: A Content Analysis of Mainline and Conservative...

Documents

Transcript of The Theological Meaning of Jesus’ Resurrection: A Content Analysis of Mainline and Conservative...