Proper preaching at funerals
The Rev. Dr Michael Jensen preaching,
State Funeral for John Laws.
Image courtesy of the NSW Government
From the Dean
Brett Lee-Price has accused Michael Jensen of failing to preach the gospel of Jesus properly at the State Funeral of the renowned radio broadcaster, John Laws, last week.
There can be few graver accusations to make against an evangelical Christian minister.
And I disagree. I think Michael preached the gospel in a way appropriate to the context and the deceased, and faithfully to Scripture. And I know this was built on prior pastoral interactions with Mr Laws and members of his family.
I respond as the Dean of the Cathedral in which the funeral occurred.
So I am responsible for all ministry that occurs within its walls, including the State Funeral I was organising over the week prior.
Let me be clear: Michael has not asked me to write this response; I have not discussed the contents with him. Nor did the NSW Government interfere at all with the choice of preacher or Bible passages, or in terms of sermon content or tone, or the rest of the liturgy. The family asked for an Anglican funeral.
So let me substantiate my claim that Brett has accused Michael of failing to preach the gospel properly… Because you may miss it, while Brett damns Michael with much faint praise. He says Michael’s sermon was not “anaemic civil religion” and was “far closer to something recognisably Christian”.
Notice the wording. Despite hearing the Bible words and ideas, the talk of Jesus, the cross and forgiveness, and much more, Brett describes this sermon as only “close” to “recognisably Christian”. In Brett’s judgment, that equates to a miss.
He confirms this when he says “the missing note is the note that makes all the difference: there was no clear exhortation”. Later, “the issue is not whether true things were said, but whether the gospel was actually proclaimed in its complete, sharp, personal form”.
I looked in vain for a definition of what the complete, sharp, personal form of the actual gospel is. But it emerges that his prime concern is the absence he identifies of any clear call on individuals to repentance and faith. The gospel is sort of offered but not pressed home.
According to Brett, “An omission of a biblical exhortation is not a minor stylistic choice. It is a theological decision. Where there is no call to repent and believe, there is no full proclamation of the gospel”.
In addition he says there was “no warning” of judgment. And despite agreeing Michael made a contrast between Jesus and John Laws, Brett is uncomfortable with the degree of continuity he perceives between the two in the sermon. Too much that both are good blokes in a sense, and though one is better, an implication will be taken that both are ultimately OK.
Towards the end of his article, you see Brett damn Michael’s sermon with faint praise again, when he says, “I’m honestly thankful it wasn’t worse.” You don’t make such a comment about a sermon assessed as good: “at least it wasn’t worse.” By this phrase, Brett effectively implies this was a bad sermon, or at best below par.
Now I encourage my colleagues to look for the grain of truth even if there is a lot of chaff to blow away. And I myself have issued strong public criticisms of the actions of Christian leaders, including one which Brett published some years back.
If the claims have merit, they are serious charges. So let’s examine Brett’s claim.
I think Brett’s accusation fails because he ignores the context.
Firstly there is a liturgical context. The sermon occurred specifically in an Anglican funeral service. And although I commend the funeral sermon in its own right, I also encouraged those interested after the event to watch the whole service.
…Because those present in the congregation, and those watching live, via Channel 7 or livestream, heard the sermon in the context of the whole service.
As with most Anglican funeral services the following words were heard (emphasis mine):
“…We face the certainty of our own death and judgment. But those who die in Christ share eternal life with him… God our Father, you alone are holy. Forgive us all our sins and failures” – from the welcome and opening prayer, given by the Archbishop.
“In the midst of life we are in death. From whom may we seek for help, but from you, Lord God, though you are justly displeased on account of our sins? And yet, Lord God almighty, most holy and most merciful Saviour, deliver us from the bitterness of eternal death. You know the secrets of our hearts; mercifully hear us, most worthy judge eternal…” – from the prayer prior to the Committal, also led by the Archbishop.
This helps form the context of Michael’s sermon. In these words, people heard the holiness of God proclaimed. They heard that this God is the only person or place to seek help from. They heard the displeasing nature of sin explicitly named. They heard about the bitterness of eternal death, for all who die unforgiven, and from which we need to be saved.
In the first couple of years of my ministry over 30 years, ago, I did find those words hard to say, because they speak of judgment so starkly. I am sorry to say I even omitted one or two of those phrases on a small number of occasions out of fear and embarrassment. And I have repented, and have consistently included them since, over the next three decades.
Those words were not omitted at Mr Laws’ State Funeral. Michael knew those words would be said before and after his sermon and took that into account in preparing his own words.
Secondly there is the pastoral context. This was a funeral sermon. Not a usual Sunday service with regulars and some guests. Not an evangelistic event. But a funeral.
The first purpose of a funeral is to give thanks to God for the good things he wrought in the deceased’s life. This means space is given to recount the good things that were done by a person made in God’s image.
Secondly, we show sympathy with the bereaved. This means respect for the sorrow of the occasion. It would be odd indeed for sermon or eulogies to major on a person’s bad deeds or on persuading people that the one they loved was really a ‘rotter’. However, it is right to avoid painting the person as a faultless ‘saint’, though this is usually done with discretion.
Understanding the situation of those grieving also explains why we tend not to preach so long, nor with so much theological detail as in other contexts. People wrapped up in sorrow simply can’t take it all in.
Lastly, we wish to proclaim the hope that is available through trusting the gospel of the risen Lord Jesus. We must say something about his saviourhood and lordship; something of his sacrificial death and his triumphant resurrection, and their effects.
If I had a criticism of Michael, it was that he did not mention the resurrection. The preachers in Acts almost always underline that ingredient, even if they sometimes assume the cross or don’t explain the mechanics of the atonement.
However Michael made it clear that in John’s Gospel, we could hear “the Voice that offers to us the eternal kindness of God in Jesus, and the hope of eternal life with him.”
Of course, exactly what we say, and what detail we underline, will vary according to the Bible passages chosen, and the context of the people present, and the pastoral needs assessed. So in burying a man whose voice was so prominent, it seems to me, Michael’s choice of John 1 and his exposition of the Voice of God via the incarnate Word of God was most apt.
So Brett’s accusation fails because it ignores the context. But it also fails because it ignores or underweights the content of what Michael actually said.
Michael did not leave it at just listening to the Voice from above. He also spoke of this Word coming among us humans - the incarnation - but unlike the rest of us, totally without sin.
Michael reported that Mr Laws called Jesus a good bloke and intuited that Laws perhaps felt he could relate to aspects of Jesus’ life and character. So Michael made some comparisons to Jesus of such goodness that still inheres in John Laws, as with every fallen human image bearer.
But he named Laws’ regrets, and said he was flawed like the rest of us. By contrast, Jesus was good without shadows and kind without limits – “what none of us can ever be”. “Jesus shared our humanity, but not our sin.”
And he explicitly says this sinless Jesus had to “die our death” – a reference to substitution – and went to the cross to “shoulder our guilt”, “to rescue us from death” and “to forgive the sins that cling to every one of us, John Laws included”.
Brett refers to this merely as “a hint that Jesus’ death is somehow for us”. A hint? How ungracious can you be? Indeed I judge this concession as close to condescending!
In regard to repentance, Michael did not use the word. But he did say God gives us “an open invitation to return home”. Brett overlooks this phrase in his analysis. An invitation to return has clear implication for responding to the God who has been “beyond kind”. Bible readers should recognise a reference to the prodigal son’s action – often viewed as an image of repentance.
This was before Michael issued his specific (and I judge powerful) horizontal call for individuals to turn from meanness and towards greater kindness, in our national conduct.
Then Michael concluded with the invitation to tune into the “Voice from above” by picking up “today” the Gospel of John that he’d preached from.
It’s true that Michael did not use the words “faith” or “believe”. But he did encourage people to hear the voice of God through Scripture. And since faith comes through hearing the word of God, that seems like an excellent invitation to consider Christ further.
But the worst failure in Brett’s accusation may slip your observation! It’s his assertion that all sermons, perhaps especially funeral sermons, must have a “clear, loving, specific exhortation” to repentance and faith.
Brett just asserts this. But he is trying to bind preachers’ consciences on this specific claim, without showing us why from the word of God, or by good and necessary consequence.
I think this is going “beyond what is written”. Where in the Bible does it say or clearly imply that every sermon, or every funeral sermon, must have an explicit call to repent?
Certainly in his ministry overall, Jesus preached repentance and belief in the gospel (Mark 1:15). And he said that repentance for forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations (Luke 24:47).
It might be wise to call for repentance often in our preaching. But where does the Bible say every single sermon must include an explicit call to repentance?
On Brett’s claim, Jesus’ own parable of the soils would fail, since he simply concludes by saying, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear” (Mark 4:9). Likewise Jesus concludes his the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and prodigal son (Luke 15) without any explicit calls for repentance from the disapproving Pharisees he was addressing.
Likewise, when the Apostle Peter preaches to Cornelius in Acts 10, he outlines Jesus’ good deeds and healings, his death and his resurrection and how this indicates Jesus is the judge of the living and the dead. He concludes with the testimony that those who believe in him receive forgiveness of sins in his name. But there is no explicit call to repent recorded.
More generally no two sermons or teaching passages in the Gospels and Acts are the same. Jesus and the Apostles preach and teach differently in different contexts, and appeal in variety of modes and tones.
It is no surprise that our sermons will also vary according to passage and context. Sometimes highly didactic, sometimes more general; sometimes blunt, sometimes gentle; sometimes warning, sometimes encouraging; sometimes directive, sometimes inviting.
If Brett had simply said, “I wish Michael had sounded a note of repentance more clearly” I would not be writing. That’s a legitimate prudential assessment.
If Brett said, “It was risky comparing John Laws’ qualities with Jesus, because it was ambiguous to casual hearers”, I could weigh that feedback and make up my mind.
But Brett said the sermon was sub-Christian; specifically that the gospel was not properly proclaimed because there was no exhortation to repentance and faith. I respond that Brett has failed to prove such a serious charge.
I do not conclude this article with a “clear, loving, specific exhortation” to Brett (or Michael) for repentance nor some other action. But I think an open-minded and thoughtful reader will be able to work out some worthwhile possible responses.
Sandy Grant
Dean of Sydney
25 November 2025