Negative Positive
Title: What Makes A Classic Sermon?
Review: Wiersbe's collection of classic sermons on the resurrection of Christ is disappointing fare. Twelve sermons are included. They come from such luminaries as Alexander MacLaren, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Harry Ironside, and Charles H. Spurgeon. What disappointed me was the effusive, even excessive use of pulpit rhetoric, and the absence of concrete insights into the meaning of the resurrection and gospel stories associated with it. Only four of the sermons provided this kind of help for me. So, this raises the question as to what constitutes a "classic sermon" for author Wiersbe? Since this is only the first compilation by him I have read, and it may well be the last, I do not know if the selections here are representative of his view on the subject. If they are, however, he seems to prefer praise, repetition of assertion, and abstractness over against concrete and insightful analysis, illustration and exposition.
Is the review positive or negative? 