Relevance vs. Content in Preaching

Preaching the truth of God’s word has been a big part of my life for some time now. I preached my first sermon at 13 and began preaching at least one sermon a week, nearly every week, from the time I was 17 until now – about 26 years. I’m passionate about preaching. Proclaiming the truths of God to those willing to listen is at once challenging and extremely satisfying. It’s hard work, important work, and should never be underestimated. Most pastors today have taken countless hours of hermeneutics, homiletics, biblical languages, systematic theology, and exegesis courses designed to equip us to dig deep into Scripture, ferret out its truths, and present them understandably to others.

In days gone by, preaching and preachers were highly regarded. Spurgeon, Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards, and their ilk refused to shy away from the difficult truths of Scripture, but tackled them head on; preaching them to the masses. As a result, Western society in general had a much deeper biblical literacy. Sermons, a mere 20 years ago, were longer and, often times, deeper than much of what you can hear in many churches today. In recent days, the banner around which so many preachers rally is relevance in preaching. Articles have been written on it, books have been devoted to it, and seminars can be taken to teach you how to do it, and many churches that are seeking pastors often include the term relevant when describing what kind of sermons they want from a new pastor. There seems to be a tension among preachers when it comes to content vs. relevance in sermons. Let me illustrate. On the one there’s a preacher like Mark Driscoll who’s known for preaching really relevant messages and admits to spending 1-2 hours per sermon in preparation. On the other hand there are preachers like Mark Dever and John MacArthur who are known for really digging into the text and doing a lot of teaching in their sermons. These men admit to spending 30-35 hours to prepare a Sunday morning sermon. While time in sermon prep does not always reflect depth or content in the message, it does illustrate a dichotomy among preachers today. Some, in the search for the seemingly elusive golden fleece of relevance go from text to application without doing the work of a thorough historical, grammatical, contextual, theological analysis of the text. I’ll readily admit that most preachers, even 20 years ago, either droned on about the minutia of the text or rained down hell fire and brimstone from the pulpit (depending on your denominational bent), and did so for a good 45 minutes to an hour every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday night. They gave deep insights into the text, but produced spiritual zombies by the time they were done. Neither extreme – super relevant, content light or content rich, zombie producer – is necessary today.

Some of the modern emphasis on relevancy in the pulpit stems from the church growth gurus who inspired the seeker sensitive movement. The early seeker sensitive church growth material emphasized cultural relevance to the point of dumbing down the message. The rationale was, don’t make the nonbelievers/seekers feel left out; don’t use church talk or bible speak or they won’t get it; don’t drive them away with deep messages. As a result, preachers began to deliver 25-30 minute therapy sessions rather than deliver the truth of Scripture and apply it appropriately. Don’t get me wrong. I believe every church that desires to reach people with the gospel of Jesus Christ needs to be seeker sensitive to a certain degree. Churches must be culturally relevant (yes, I used the word) and accepting of people where they are, and not be so irrelevant on purpose that they’re out of touch with who they’re trying to reach and whom they’re discipling. Cultural relevance in ministry philosophy, and preaching, does not have to equal content light messages.

A survey of how Paul’s preaching is enlightening as we try to resolve the tension that lies between relevance and content in preaching. Paul was unique in the society in which he lived and ministered. He was a Jew with a pure lineage, a rabbi in his own right who studied under the foremost rabbi of his day, Gamaliel, a Pharisee who had been part of the Sanhedrin before his conversion. He knew the inner workings of the Judaism of his day and was fully equipped to dialogue with the lowest to the highest in Jewish society. Paul was also a Roman citizen. We’re not told how he became a citizen, but most likely inherited it from his father. Being a citizen gave him free access to travel any Roman road to any city or province he desired without fear or taxation. Being from Tarsus, not Israel, meant he was as well acquainted with Roman culture and society as he was Jewish. He could freely move in and out of both cultures with ease. He knew how they both thought and lived, and he tailored his messages accordingly. As was Paul’s custom, he went to the Jews first, usually in the synagogues. As he preached about Jesus, he freely used Old Testament Mosaic law, referred to Israelite history, and employed the messianic prophecies to demonstrate who Jesus is and why the Jews should embrace him as their Messiah. This approach would not have worked among the Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire. The Gentiles had no familiarity with Israelite religion, culture, or Old Testament Scripture. Acts 17 illustrates beautifully how Paul tailored his message to the Gentiles. On Mars Hill in Athens Paul preached to polytheistic Greeks who prided themselves on their philosophical acumen. Some of these Greeks were “God-fearers” (Jewish proselytes) who had heard Paul preach about Jesus in the synagogues, while others had heard him preaching in the marketplace. Rather than begin speaking about Jesus, Paul begins by introducing them to God who created all things, including them. He points out their sin of failing to worship the true God and that God stands in judgment over them through “the man who he has appointed”. He finishes by declaring that God has verified this appointed man by raising him from the dead. Interestingly enough, Paul never mentions Jesus in this discourse. The truth of the Gospel is there, and I am sure he gave a more complete explanation to those who wanted to hear it and believe (v. 32-34). In both cultures, Paul tailored his messages to his listeners, but did not dumb down the content.

 We live in a much different society today than did preachers of a mere decade ago. Information comes to us at lightning speed and in sound bites. Biblical literacy is at an all time low in Western society; particularly America. When the average adult attention span is only about 20 minutes (if they’re really engaged), the average office worker checks his email 30 times an hour, and the average person spends only 4.4 seconds per internet page viewed; delivering a message that captures peoples’ attentions, gives deep content, and makes a relevant personal application is no easy task. The answer is certainly not watered down, sound byte, Oprahesque preaching, but neither is it irrelevant, boring, one size fits all, zombie-maker sermons. I see no need to divorce theologically rich, content deep messages from relevant application that is culturally sensitive to the audience at hand. It is imperative for pastors and preachers to learn and master the skills and techniques requisite for delivering rich, deep, relevant sermons.