With her accounts of “Elias” (Elijah?) speaking audibly to her and references to “these last days”, Carolyn still sounds like she’s running a Left Behind Fever of around 106. (Not that uncommon in these days of general End-of-the-World Zeitgeist, just the Christian expression of it.)

And her comment on “conviction of sin”; these days “preaching conviction of sin” can all too easily mean going Fred Phelps in their face. When you mix “convicted in his heart that he is a sinner” with worm theology, things can turn into a very vicious putdown party very fast. (And when they reject your resulting obnoxiousness, you can mine their rejection for “Persecuted for Righteousness’ Sake” warmfeelies and never learn from your experience.)

I’ve seen all kinds of preachers use film clips to make points and almost completely abandon the Bible as the center of the sermon. A lot of people would say the preacher is being “relevant” by using the film clip. I think that’s a serious prejudgment. — IMonk

Chesterton (or was it Lewis?) wrote that the Church throughout its history has been tempted to attach the Gospel to a passing fad, binding it to a particular time. And were this to happen, the Church would become just another fad of that time, to become old-fashioned and forgotten in turn as that particular time passed into history. (Think on the construction of the term “Post-Modern?” Since “Modern” means contemporary or “the latest”, how can something be “Post-Modern”, or “later than the latest”? Did the Modernists think history ended with themselves — After Me, Nothing?)

Nothing gets stale faster than over-relevance. Except pretentious over-relevance.

Pray that all goes well.

Will we ever get to a place in our SBC’s where the Lord’s Table get’s to be a central part of our services again? At least once a month?

Your study habits are being continually in the Word, challenged to repeat truth and given unbearable circumstances in your private life. You may put it together in a couple hours but it’s a lifetime of preparation.

My greatest desire is for real honest feedback from those I speak to. Not every message but occasionally. And yes, I have had the church member go out the church door trumpeting how wonderful it all was and then heard him/her 30 minutes later in the next booth at the restaurant having roast preacher (more than once). But sincere truth delivered in kindness; humble pie for me as well as gracious appreciation. If what I have delivered is effective in relating them to Christ or His Word or in any way, I often do not see it because I feel like I didn’t get closer then eighteen inches from reality.
Keep it coming because we all need mentoring.

SMHG John

Bill, I sincerely feel one reason people are not open to Jesus is due to misunderstanding concerning ‘he came to his own and they received him not.’ A feeling of ‘why should we value him as Messiah when those who knew him best…did not receive him as Messiah.’ So relevant is the REASON his own didn’t receive him. The reason is recorded in Isaiah….closing of their ability to ‘receive’ at that time. He came to die…..and ‘his own’ were appointed by God to play a huge roll in Jesus as Messiah.

God bless! “beautiful are the feet of them………”

In my opinion, announcements of what we believe about scripture can serve as a starting point, but we have to realize what we are doing there. We’re saying “I’m not going to explain this to you. I’m going to assert.”

Then we have to do one very important thing: We have make the message substantiate the assertion. Of course, only the HS can ultimately do that, but we have to work in that direction.

Tomorrow morning I am preaching on he came to his own, but they did not receive him, but to those who did receive him….etc.

I’m going to introduce this talking about the resistance all people have to various claims and implications of believing in God. Then the message will say: the Bible recognizes why we are so resistant to God and tells us the larger story of our unbelief, God’s grace and the alternative in the Gospel.

My intro will establish relevance with my unbelievers. I’ll talk honestly about unbelief. My use of scripture will illustrate the truth of scripture by its description of our condition.

On your other question: I don’t over do background. That’s for the study. I give what’s necessary to preach the passage coherently. I try, over time, to develop a shorthand history of Biblical events that I can refer to, and of course, I teach Bible to most of my audience if they get to high school.

peace

ms

I have a question for you as I think about establishing relevancy with the people I am blessed to preach to. (saying “preach to” sounds like I could be saying “talk down to”… but I definately do not mean that. I am blessed to share the riches of Christ with them weekly)

Question: Do the following two short statements/actions, done as an introduction, establish relevancy?

1) Giving a short background about the context of the particular passage, explaining why it was written…

2) Making a short statement regarding belief in the innerrancy of Scripture and that this was God’s Word concerning this matter for us…

Read text

Get into Body of Sermon

I know it depends on how well I bridge the gap between original context and current audience, but do you think those two things, done well, serve as relevance? I’m looking for a practical answer to help apply this in my preaching.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks for the clarification…and I agree. Rob Bell said something along the lines of “yes, I certainly do want to engage people- I have something to say. But I’m not interested in amusing them. (A- muse: without thinking.)”