Category Archives: relevance

Posted on

Preaching Jesus’ First Sermon in Luke 4:14-21

by

Image

One of the challenges of preaching in the Gospels is trying to apply to Christians what appears to be written/said to non-Christians. For instance, in Luke 4:18-19 Jesus reads from Isaiah 61:1-2. Isaiah’s message seems tailor made for an evangelistic sermon or as a call for social justice (i.e., the poor, captives, and oppressed are mentioned). Isaiah and Jesus certainly contain an evangelistic and social thrust. Primarily, however, Luke writes for the Church to bolster their faith (cf. Luke 1:4). If, as Jesus says in Luke 4:21, this Scripture from Isaiah was being fulfilled that day, Jesus’ short message is a time for us to challenge believers to be sure they are experiencing the reversal of fortune described initially by Isaiah. All who profess faith in Christ move from poverty to spiritual wealth/power, from captivity to spiritual freedom/power, from blindness to spiritual perspective/vision, and from oppression to spiritual courage and hope.  According to Luke 4:22-30, the church-going folks in Jesus’ hometown did not believe Him. They did not believe they were needy. Believers, by definition, need to believe that Jesus does what He says He’ll do and receive His gracious gift of salvation/sanctification.

I’m not saying evangelism or social justice have no place. It’s just that Luke intends to say something to the Church about their response to Jesus’ person and work.

For those who are interested in preaching Christ from such a seemingly-already-Christ-centered text, remember, Jesus would later face rejection greater than that recorded in Luke 4:28-29. On the cross He would experience the deepest and darkest forms of human distress described in Luke 4:18. And He would do so so that those of us who believe His Word would never have to experience them.

Posted on

Do You Sound Like A Contemporary Preacher?

by

I am enjoying reading Barth’s, Homiletics. In the preface, Bromiley previews Barth’s “belief that closeness to life, important though it is in the sermon, must not be at the cost of closeness to the text” (p. 14). That got me thinking about whether or not we preachers sound like our world with respect to our voice and delivery. Closeness to life is another way to speak of relevance; closeness to the text, of course, speaks of preaching with accuracy.

Lately, I have wondered if all TV news anchors and field reporters take a course in how to speak or how to sound while they’re reporting the news. Listen to them and you’ll discover that they all sound the same. At the risk of overgeneralizing, I’m suggesting that there are two dominant preaching styles, the traditional preacher and the conversational preacher. The conversational preacher includes the real relevant, seeker-sensitive approach.

What do you sound like when you preach? Would our listeners say that we sound like a preacher (with respect to how we say what we say)? When we report on what God has said, do we sound like all the other contemporary, seeker-sensitive preachers who evidently took the same class on how to speak or how to sound? We must be constantly aware of the tension between closeness to life (relevance, or, in this case, sounding relevant) and closeness to the text (accurate reporting). I loved Barth’s advice: “For in preaching it is always better to be too close to the text than to be too thematic or too much in keeping with the times” (p. 117).

Sometimes I wished just one TV news reporter would break from that mold, be real, and talk to me about what happened.