To what extent does our time and age influence your preaching?

[Hans Deventer]

Here at the Eurasia Regional Conference, the answer seems to be, precious little. Sometimes the preaching is a like a journey down memory lane, only, I don't even have that memory. To be honest, I don't understand this. You'd hope we'd be equipped to preach the old Biblical message in phrases and concepts that make sense in our time and age. Perhaps it's the diversity of the region that prevents this?

Anyway, myself I'm at least trying to speak the language of our time, though I do not claim fluency. But it seems to me I have to try all the same.

[John Kennedy]

This may be why the development and thoughtful use of the liturgy is so important. It can help center and ground the worshippers to be more responsive to a prophetic word that speaks to our time and age.

Sermonic walks down memory lane only tend to prepare God's people to walk out the door of the church into a world that isn't there any more.

This question, to some extent, relates to the question on another thread about ministerial preparation. I've long maintained that ministers should have an undergrad major in fields other than theology - this could help them better understand the temporal context into which their message would be delivered.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dr. Grider reminded us that Karl Barth said one should not begin devotions without reading the morning paper. That may have been partly a paraphrase, but the point was made.

[Kyle Borger]

I would presume that by saying time and age you are also referring to our culture. The word of God does not change, but the application and explanation must sometimes be adjusted to the culture. Paul wrote about different things to different churches because they had different concerns and different influences. If I were to preach under a tree to an African church my approach would be different than if I were preaching in Connecticut. Of course just moving from one state to the next can sometimes be a different culture. The truth of the Gospel does not change, however different cultures have different concerns and influences that must be addressed more frequently or specifically.

[Steven Martinez]

This question, to some extent, relates to the question on another thread about ministerial preparation. I've long maintained that ministers should have an undergrad major in fields other than theology - this could help them better understand the temporal context into which their message would be delivered.

To be honest with you, I have never seen a correlation between one's degree and the lack of ignorance. The problem is one of personality and not so much education. I have seen people from other degree programs fall on their faces in ministry just as much as theology majors. You cannot teach the ability to pursue understanding, one can only show the path. Some of my friends in college we so bent on living in an imaginary world of theory that the offer little help. Others were so caught up on being practical that they never grasped the impractical aspects of ministry. Sometimes ministry is crazy and it seems like we march around on days without end and then when we finally bring the walls down we realize what God was doing.

IMHO a good preacher is one who has a firm grasp of theology in order to hold it out for others to take when they are ready. I like to refer to it as theological muscle. Sometimes as a preacher we are required to hold onto and wrestle with the truth until the congregation can catch up. I do not believe that a preacher can have too much theology, at the same time I do not believe that a good preacher only has theology to hold onto.

[Todd Erickson]

I grew up with a specific style of preaching that I still see (and avoid) when I find it.

It's a three point sermon that seeks to convince the audience by impassioned rhetoric, that often takes between 30 minutes to 45 minutes to preach, but whose conclusion is telegraphed in the first five minutes.

Increasingly, we live in a society where, if it takes you that much time to say something simple, people are going to tune you out. If somebody sends me a video that's more than 3 minutes long, if I am not really hooked by the first minute, I'm not going to bother to watch the rest, and I probably won't watch it until a later time.

We also live in a society which values interaction, and especially within a post-modern mileu, we do not value authority as we used to...in fact we actively mistrust it (at least, within my generation). When somebody tells me "you should listen to me, because I'm preaching for the Bible, and the Bible is God's word, so I'm right" they have automatically guaranteed that I'm not really listening to them. Or that I'm actively critiquing them in my head.

What I have come to value are speakers who are conversational in their approach...they're conveying information, but perhaps also asking questions, seeking interaction, seeking reflection of their ideas. I have heard of several churches that actually go into dialogue in some of their sermon periods, which i think is immensely valuable.

The fear of this is, of course, loss of control. But control is an illusion anyway. No matter what you preach, what people actually hear and are affected by is in the hands of the Spirit.

[Billy Cox]

Here at the Eurasia Regional Conference, the answer seems to be, precious little. Sometimes the preaching is a like a journey down memory lane, only, I don't even have that memory. To be honest, I don't understand this. You'd hope we'd be equipped to preach the old Biblical message in phrases and concepts that make sense in our time and age. Perhaps it's the diversity of the region that prevents this?

Anyway, myself I'm at least trying to speak the language of our time, though I do not claim fluency. But it seems to me I have to try all the same.

I appreciate preaching that reveals a fair amount of cultural literacy. It tells me that the one preaching lives in 'my world' and it builds credibility.

[John Kennedy]

I appreciate preaching that reveals a fair amount of cultural literacy. It tells me that the one preaching lives in 'my world' and it builds credibility.

It is the desirability, if not actual necessity, of cultural literacy that underlies my opinion about ministers having a background in some non-theological area.

[Steven Martinez]

It is the desirability, if not actual necessity, of cultural literacy that underlies my opinion about ministers having a background in some non-theological area.

I here ya. I just think one's education has only a part. When I went to PLNU, I worked in the cafeteria and in the kitchen. At NTS, I worked in a bank before moving to the Nazarene Archives. I was also able to work overseas for a couple of summers. The point being that I spent my education time in theology/pastoral ministry but spent many hours being educated in other areas, primarily working with people. I think the point we are both making is that effective preachers do his/her best to expand upon their experiences to better communicate the Truth of God in a meaningful way.

[Cynthia Prentice]

Dr. Grider reminded us that Karl Barth said one should not begin devotions without reading the morning paper. That may have been partly a paraphrase, but the point was made.

A woman named Phoebe used to tell my grandfather, "You preached another Houston Post (newspaper) sermon today." She was in the news industry and it was meant as a compliment. Both my grandparents instilled in me a love for the Text, the News and a good dictionary.

[Ian Gentles]

The average message should not exceed 20 mins, as people today have short attention spans.
I like what has been said about reading, a good, newspaper, one needs to be in touch with ones community/global village.
I'm still in favor of a preacher wearing a suit/collar and tie, but them I am old school.
Good illustrations are important, people remember stories.

[John Kennedy]

A preacher I know says that the 3 point sermon acutally has 6 segments:
tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em
tell 'em (the three points)
tell 'em what you told 'em
shut up and sit down

[Steven Martinez]

The average message should not exceed 20 mins, as people today have short attention spans.
I like what has been said about reading, a good, newspaper, one needs to be in touch with ones community/global village.
I'm still in favor of a preacher wearing a suit/collar and tie, but them I am old school.
Good illustrations are important, people remember stories.

I hear the time issue a lot but I do not buy it. Movies are encroaching 3 hours, sporting events events seem to get longer and longer. Even in the UK the average Hooligan can tolerate 45 minutes of action on the pitch. To me it is not how long one preaches but how one uses the time. I have been in services that went 3 hours where someone preached an hour. No one was in a hurry to go. I think one of the travesties of preaching in our day today is the felt need that it has to be "something." We could all describe our dream style and we would come up with different answers. Yet I think we could all agree that if the Lord is truly with someone that the sermon works. To me the only thing the sermon has to be is an honest message from an honest heart.

On a side note Ian... you would be happy to know that this younger minister (31 years old) wears the collar everyday except Sunday where I wear a suit and tie. Every once in a while I will wear my robe.

[Glenn Messer]

I am a 'story teller'. I love to incorporate them into my sermons; sometimes I will build a sermon around a story that is rooted in scripture. Sometimes I will flesh out a scriptural story with 'imaginary' narrative, but when I do I make sure that the congregation knows what I am doing and why I am doing it. Like all components of a sermon, a story should be theologically sound and spiritually enlightening.

A story is only effective if your audience understands the story and can relate to the components of the story --- AND can draw an application for life from the story. A story must have a point. For this style to be effective requires that it be relevant to the world outside the church. I read the newspapers; I listen to radio - both talk and music; I 'listen' to facebook; I try to be aware of what's going on in education, politics, entertainment, science, medicine, etc. I try to stay in touch with a good age cross-section of my congregation.
Of course, sometimes I just open a scripture and walk through it with an explanation of its origin and time. Then I try to transfer its truths to the world in which we live.

My greatest satisfaction comes when someone says to me, "I had a situation this week and I wasn't sure what I should do. Then I remembered something you said in a sermon a couple of weeks ago. That helped me make a good decision." I was with a group of people a couple of weeks ago and one of the ladies mentioned how her daughter (21 years old) tries to conduct her relationships with guys. Afterwards she grinned at me and said, "She got that from you." It's been 7 years since I was that young lady's pastor.

[Hans Deventer]

I hear the time issue a lot but I do not buy it. Movies are encroaching 3 hours, sporting events events seem to get longer and longer. Even in the UK the average Hooligan can tolerate 45 minutes of action on the pitch. To me it is not how long one preaches but how one uses the time. I have been in services that went 3 hours where someone preached an hour. No one was in a hurry to go. I think one of the travesties of preaching in our day today is the felt need that it has to be "something." We could all describe our dream style and we would come up with different answers. Yet I think we could all agree that if the Lord is truly with someone that the sermon works. To me the only thing the sermon has to be is an honest message from an honest heart.

On a side note Ian... you would be happy to know that this younger minister (31 years old) wears the collar everyday except Sunday where I wear a suit and tie. Every once in a while I will wear my robe.

Having arrived at the end of the conference, I can say that none of the speakers here was buying it either. As to the listeners, that may have been another story. I personally know a few folks that can speak for 45 mins and keep my attention. One of them was present at the conference. We had more speakers though, and they all spoke at least for 45 mins.

[Shea Zellweger]

What's the difference? Old preachers have a lifetime of experiences from which to draw illustrations and stories. I, on the other hand, have to write my own material.

I grew up with a specific style of preaching that I still see (and avoid) when I find it.

It's a three point sermon that seeks to convince the audience by impassioned rhetoric, that often takes between 30 minutes to 45 minutes to preach, but whose conclusion is telegraphed in the first five minutes.

It's popularity is probably because of John's friend:

A preacher I know says that the 3 point sermon acutally has 6 segments:
tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em
tell 'em (the three points)
tell 'em what you told 'em
shut up and sit down

I'm not particularly fond of this formula either. Actually, I don't like the idea of having a set pattern for preaching. Maybe I'm just a product of the anti-box generation, but having a specific formula in place for preaching feels like trying to force God's message into a box. While I don't see anything wrong with having 3 points in a sermon, and I know I've had precisely that many on more than one occasion, I also like the fact that if God so moves, I could have 1 point, or 10 points (imagine if God had stopped at 3 commandments... :P), or I could tell a story which contains my points, or... yeah, y'all probably get my point .

[Todd Erickson]

The statement "Why should they have trouble sitting and listening to me for 20 minutes? They watch movies and sporting events that are up to 3 hours long!" is a false analogy.

1. Movies and sporting events will often have people emotionally invested.
2. Movies especially tend to be built to get people emotionally invested in them. There is character development, and specific points built to clue you in to characters and get you to react. You could say "this is why I have clever jokes and stories in my sermons", but where somebody will remember the movie itself a week later, they will often only remember your most clever or amusing jokes or stories a week later. It does not carry over.
3. People go to see sports and movies because they want to. They come to see you preach because they have to.
4. More time /= more convincing.

[Steven Martinez]

The statement "Why should they have trouble sitting and listening to me for 20 minutes? They watch movies and sporting events that are up to 3 hours long!" is a false analogy.

1. Movies and sporting events will often have people emotionally invested.
2. Movies especially tend to be built to get people emotionally invested in them. There is character development, and specific points built to clue you in to characters and get you to react. You could say "this is why I have clever jokes and stories in my sermons", but where somebody will remember the movie itself a week later, they will often only remember your most clever or amusing jokes or stories a week later. It does not carry over.
3. People go to see sports and movies because they want to. They come to see you preach because they have to.
4. More time /= more convincing.

Todd all I can say is describe a church I do not go to nor would I go to. Your third point:They come to see you preach because they have to. is based upon a false precept that might describe your experience and throws your entire argument off. If you are basing your argument on this belief than you seriously need to get out of your box. Your post has reminded me that the laity have just as much to prepare for to hear a sermon as the preacher who preaches. If you seriously believe you are going to church because you have to, you are already in a poor state of mind and spirit. If we cannot approach church the same way we approach a sporting event, movie, etc. than we as the church are to be pitied.

It seems to me that biggest problem I face in our post-modern world is that preaching has been greatly reduced to simple story telling, emotional anecdotes, and entertaining moral lessons. I thought I left that behind went I left my parent's boomer church. I am just thinking about the Gospels and I am sure there were times when Jesus spoke to long, too short, not enough emotional invest, etc. What ever happened to preaching the Gospel with an honest heart? Is that not the root of effective preaching? To me the freeing aspect of my ministry was when I decided that I simply do not care about how I preach or who likes it. To me there are two things I can control and truly influence in my preaching and therefore are my rules for preaching. 1. Preach only what I need to hear. If God is not speaking to me than how would I know if God is speaking to anyone else? 2. Be myself. I am not afraid of my past experiences nor am I ashamed of not having certain experiences. I cannot be someone that I am not, so why bother trying?

[Todd Erickson]

What I want out of church often seems to be the last thing that fits anywhere within it. So I come to fill holes and to serve. It is not fulfilling or pleasing, necessarily, but perhaps eventually enough of the pride within me will die that I at least won't care about this at all.

After all, that's the key to all of our arguments about worship and preaching, isn't it? Becoming the person who doesn't care if anything pleases him at all, so that he can't be offended by anything? To live is Christ, to die is gain...

[Billy Cox]

I here ya. I just think one's education has only a part. When I went to PLNU, I worked in the cafeteria and in the kitchen. At NTS, I worked in a bank before moving to the Nazarene Archives. I was also able to work overseas for a couple of summers. The point being that I spent my education time in theology/pastoral ministry but spent many hours being educated in other areas, primarily working with people. I think the point we are both making is that effective preachers do his/her best to expand upon their experiences to better communicate the Truth of God in a meaningful way.

That's a start. I wonder how long your experiences at PLNU and NTS will qualify as cultural literacy. What if the last sitcom you regularly watched was Everybody Loves Raymond - circa 2005? What if the only movies you have seen in the past ten years have been those 'approved for evangelical Christians' movies? (Fireproof, The Grace Card, The Passion of the Christ etc.)

I can understand that the role of pastor is immersive; who has time to partake in popular media - except of course for watching sports on TV?

[Billy Cox]

2. Movies especially tend to be built to get people emotionally invested in them. There is character development, and specific points built to clue you in to characters and get you to react. You could say "this is why I have clever jokes and stories in my sermons", but where somebody will remember the movie itself a week later, they will often only remember your most clever or amusing jokes or stories a week later. It does not carry over.

It's also true that there is not a movie producer alive who produces 52 movies per year, with most/all of them being nominated for an Oscar.

[Todd Erickson]

It's also true that there is not a movie producer alive who produces 52 movies per year, with most/all of them being nominated for an Oscar.

I'm not clear what this has to do with anything.

We tell people that they aren't really Christians if they don't go to church on Sunday. It's not quite a threat of excommunication, but by definition, Christians go to church.

I think that if, as pastors, the concern is whether you're being as entertaining as a movie, there may be something off with what the sermon is for. But then, once again...I think that we are quickly going to approach a period where we must realize that the methodologies which worked great for church for the last 500 - 2000 years are losing their potency and relevance.

If you want everybody to behave like uneducated peasants who need to be preached at every sunday to know how to live, then keep doing what you're doing, and those are the people who will stick around, right? You will retain your target audience, correct?

But the lecture is changing, and advanced college courses are going to discussion level and interactivity, because you get better results out of it overall. But we aren't doing that in the church. We can say that the Gospel never loses relevancy all that way want, but if we refuse to be relevant in how we present it...

[Steven Martinez]

That's a start. I wonder how long your experiences at PLNU and NTS will qualify as cultural literacy. What if the last sitcom you regularly watched was Everybody Loves Raymond - circa 2005? What if the only movies you have seen in the past ten years have been those 'approved for evangelical Christians' movies? (Fireproof, The Grace Card, The Passion of the Christ etc.)

I can understand that the role of pastor is immersive; who has time to partake in popular media - except of course for watching sports on TV?

That is the scandal of particularity. Should we all just give up because eventually we will grow old or do we continue to learn? This is why the logic of undergrad degrees seems trivial to me. So a psych degree in 2002 is going to stand the test of time but a theology degree will not? The point is, all of us chose to either live in a bubble or live reality that we experience as the world. How could you possibly make a connection between interpersonal relationships and a manufactured sitcom or movie? There will always be a limit. When was the last time that you were black or a woman? My experience has taught me to continue to learn and continue to adapt to an ever changing culture. Of course having kids keep you more involved in popular media than one might think.

[Steven Martinez]

I'm not clear what this has to do with anything.

We tell people that they aren't really Christians if they don't go to church on Sunday. It's not quite a threat of excommunication, but by definition, Christians go to church.

I think that if, as pastors, the concern is whether you're being as entertaining as a movie, there may be something off with what the sermon is for. But then, once again...I think that we are quickly going to approach a period where we must realize that the methodologies which worked great for church for the last 500 - 2000 years are losing their potency and relevance.

If you want everybody to behave like uneducated peasants who need to be preached at every sunday to know how to live, then keep doing what you're doing, and those are the people who will stick around, right? You will retain your target audience, correct?

But the lecture is changing, and advanced college courses are going to discussion level and interactivity, because you get better results out of it overall. But we aren't doing that in the church. We can say that the Gospel never loses relevancy all that way want, but if we refuse to be relevant in how we present it...

Todd, it still seems your problem has very little to do with preaching and more to do with the idea of Church. The average "good member" in my church is involved in church activity for 5-8 hours a week. Of that time, only 1 hour would be exposed to preaching (if someone went to 2 of the 3 services we have every week). The vast majority of the time is spent in small groups and compassionate ministry where they are engaged with other people all over the spectrum of mental, physical, spiritual and economic health.
At the same time, I truly believe there is a vast difference between preaching and teaching. Dr. Noble is a fascinating preacher, IMHO, and he is a fabulous teacher, IMHO; yet his style of preaching is so different than his style of teaching. Sure we can educate while we preach but the goal is not teach as much as it is to proclaim. This is why we should never preach our homework. As one of my mentors taught me, the difference between the pulpit and the lectern is that the lectern breeds discussion while the pulpit is to breed action.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

As far as keeping the newspaper in one hand, our news organizations are biased in a number of ways, not just liberal vs conservative USA. We read and learn only what they deem important enough to publish. I refer to news only when it is really relevant to the point of the sermon.

[Billy Cox]

That is the scandal of particularity. Should we all just give up because eventually we will grow old or do we continue to learn? This is why the logic of undergrad degrees seems trivial to me. So a psych degree in 2002 is going to stand the test of time but a theology degree will not? The point is, all of us chose to either live in a bubble or live reality that we experience as the world. How could you possibly make a connection between interpersonal relationships and a manufactured sitcom or movie? There will always be a limit. When was the last time that you were black or a woman? My experience has taught me to continue to learn and continue to adapt to an ever changing culture. Of course having kids keep you more involved in popular media than one might think.

I agree that cultural literacy is a matter of continuing to learn and remain aware of the culture in which we operate. I think that those in local church ministry (with/without degrees) are uniquely susceptible to 'coming out from among them', fostering a subculture instead of a counterculture. How can the church critique a culture in which it no longer has any meaningful presence? My reference to dated TV/movie exposure is just one of many indications that a spiritual leader is losing touch with the world I live in.

[Todd Erickson]

Todd, it still seems your problem has very little to do with preaching and more to do with the idea of Church. The average "good member" in my church is involved in church activity for 5-8 hours a week. Of that time, only 1 hour would be exposed to preaching (if someone went to 2 of the 3 services we have every week). The vast majority of the time is spent in small groups and compassionate ministry where they are engaged with other people all over the spectrum of mental, physical, spiritual and economic health.
At the same time, I truly believe there is a vast difference between preaching and teaching. Dr. Noble is a fascinating preacher, IMHO, and he is a fabulous teacher, IMHO; yet his style of preaching is so different than his style of teaching. Sure we can educate while we preach but the goal is not teach as much as it is to proclaim. This is why we should never preach our homework. As one of my mentors taught me, the difference between the pulpit and the lectern is that the lectern breeds discussion while the pulpit is to breed action.

So the purpose of preaching is to create an emotional crisis reaction which will lead to action?

Ah, the revivalist heart of the Nazarene church rears it's head.

[Steven Martinez]

So the purpose of preaching is to create an emotional crisis reaction which will lead to action?

Ah, the revivalist heart of the Nazarene church rears it's head.

Todd, if you even for one second believe that I actually wrote that or intended that message than you are completely void of my participation on NazNet these last few years. You criticized my earlier comment because apparently preaching does not invoke an emotional response like movies do. I then share how they do convey emotional responses and therefore it must be emotional crisis? Which is it for you Todd? So we are either preaching to mindless robot peasants or raping people emotionally in order to get our way? What about the emotional experiences of love, joy and hope? Is it wrong to proclaim to addict that there is hope of deliverance?

[Steven Martinez]

I agree that cultural literacy is a matter of continuing to learn and remain aware of the culture in which we operate. I think that those in local church ministry (with/without degrees) are uniquely susceptible to 'coming out from among them', fostering a subculture instead of a counterculture. How can the church critique a culture in which it no longer has any meaningful presence? My reference to dated TV/movie exposure is just one of many indications that a spiritual leader is losing touch with the world I live in.

Just remember Billy that you are older than me.

We do have to remember that cultural relevance is relevant to the culture. For example, knowing the latest movie does not get you far on our Wednesday night services where the majority of the congregation are homeless and we do not have a movie theater in the area. However, they are more abreast to the actions of the city council than most of the employed members of the congregation because their lives are directly impacted by the decision of the local government. In fact, in our congregation local politics is a vital area of knowledge required to effectively pastor in the community.

[Todd Erickson]

Todd, if you even for one second believe that I actually wrote that or intended that message than you are completely void of my participation on NazNet these last few years. You criticized my earlier comment because apparently preaching does not invoke an emotional response like movies do. I then share how they do convey emotional responses and therefore it must be emotional crisis? Which is it for you Todd? So we are either preaching to mindless robot peasants or raping people emotionally in order to get our way? What about the emotional experiences of love, joy and hope? Is it wrong to proclaim to addict that there is hope of deliverance?

1. I'm not certain that most people go to see emotionally exciting movies every week. For families especially, it's probably closer to once every couple of months. I'm lucky to go to a movie theater twice a year, personally, though I will occasionally watch something on cable. But that's likely to only be once or twice a month.

2. People go to see movies because there is pleasure and entertainment in doing so. There is a level of satisfaction, often not present in anything in the daily work week, found in engaging in a story for several hours.

3. Many people come to sermons mostly to be told what they're doing wrong. There is an emotional reaction, but it's mostly a guilty one, "what am I not doing". There are indeed pastors who can get their parishoners to feel guilt every week. I'm not clear that that's actually something you aim for, but there you go.

4. I suppose that there is a potential for a sermon to bring hope or joy. I have not had a sermon bring up those emotions within me for longer than I can count; I don't remember the last time that this occurred. But then, I don't remember the last time that going to church caused those emotions in me. I do, however, remember the last time having a conversation about God with somebody caused me to feel those emotions.

To sum up. People go to movies to feel good. People do not, mostly, go to preaching to feel good. Preaching cannot be compared to the movies, because it has an entirely different purpose, and we have somehow taking on the tradition or meme that preaching always hits something useful and necessary in humans that all humans need to hear all of the time, and that it is the best way of doing what it does. I would venture that it is, in fact, not always the best method of doing what it does, especially with regards to people who have been in the church their entire lives.

It's fine to proclaim to an addict that there is hope of deliverance. But if preaching only mostly operates at that level, what are the people who are no longer addicts supposed to take away from your sermon?

[Steven Martinez]

1. I'm not certain that most people go to see emotionally exciting movies every week. For families especially, it's probably closer to once every couple of months. I'm lucky to go to a movie theater twice a year, personally, though I will occasionally watch something on cable. But that's likely to only be once or twice a month.

2. People go to see movies because there is pleasure and entertainment in doing so. There is a level of satisfaction, often not present in anything in the daily work week, found in engaging in a story for several hours.

3. Many people come to sermons mostly to be told what they're doing wrong. There is an emotional reaction, but it's mostly a guilty one, "what am I not doing". There are indeed pastors who can get their parishoners to feel guilt every week. I'm not clear that that's actually something you aim for, but there you go.

4. I suppose that there is a potential for a sermon to bring hope or joy. I have not had a sermon bring up those emotions within me for longer than I can count; I don't remember the last time that this occurred. But then, I don't remember the last time that going to church caused those emotions in me. I do, however, remember the last time having a conversation about God with somebody caused me to feel those emotions.

To sum up. People go to movies to feel good. People do not, mostly, go to preaching to feel good. Preaching cannot be compared to the movies, because it has an entirely different purpose, and we have somehow taking on the tradition or meme that preaching always hits something useful and necessary in humans that all humans need to hear all of the time, and that it is the best way of doing what it does. I would venture that it is, in fact, not always the best method of doing what it does, especially with regards to people who have been in the church their entire lives.

It's fine to proclaim to an addict that there is hope of deliverance. But if preaching only mostly operates at that level, what are the people who are no longer addicts supposed to take away from your sermon?

Todd, perhaps you need to stop using the term "people" when you mean yourself. I seriously have no experience of the "people" you make reference to.

[Todd Erickson]

Todd, perhaps you need to stop using the term "people" when you mean yourself. I seriously have no experience of the "people" you make reference to.

Believe me, I understand this. Most of the people I deal with on a daily basis proceed in terms of "the world only works this way". *shrug*