There is an increasing argument (in some circles) that the so-called “moderns” of the last century responded well to more concrete biblical messages (on passages like the Epistles, for instance). Whereas, the postmodern mindset responds far better to the storytelling approach to biblical preaching. Further, there is the thought that people in housing schemes can’t listen to a message more than 10 minutes long unless accompanied with some video footage and an all singing, all dancing PowerPoint presentation.
We live in a visual age, after all, or so I’m told. Well, I hardly use video; PowerPoint a bit more, perhaps, and even then it looks like I put it together with the help of my neighbour’s cat. I just use the Bible and words. I just believe what I preach and try to illustrate and apply it in everyday language. I do it systematically and, in the main, expositionally. Do you know what? People stay in and listen. People you wouldn’t believe stay in, and even take some of the message on board.
Now, expository preaching gets a bad rap from many people (not all) who like to debate the merits of social justice and mercy ministries. They think it is too one dimensional and an irrelevance in a nonreading culture such as ours. All the talking heads and experts say so. They think that poorer people listen better when we “story” the Bible and that we shouldn’t have just one approach from the pulpit. We shouldn’t even have a pulpit!
Instead, we should mix it up and have more dialogue. Certainly, when we look at the NT we find little evidence for a set pattern of preaching. Indeed, the whole idea of the NT “pulpit monologue” has scant evidence full stop. The Bible is also full of wonderful true stories (I tell my girls the difference between a Bible story and Cinderella—one is made up for our entertainment and the other is true and has been written for our spiritual benefit). So, should we be teaching our people more biblical narrative and maybe having a more interactive approach from the pulpit in our housing schemes and council estates? In a word, no. Here’s why.
1. I base my ministry not on what people want to listen to, but on what God’s Word has to say.
I can debate with my people every day of the week, but for 30 plus minutes a week I am going to declare God’s Word loud and clear from our pulpit. Often, people will remark: “I heard you preached for 40 minutes on Sunday. How did your people handle that?” Implying what, exactly? Usually, I will shrug and respond: “Fine, thanks.” It’s not as if we’re reaching out to monkeys here in Niddrie.
Enough of the patronizing drivel that seems to suggest that because a person didn’t finish their education they are unable to listen well. I have heard all the stories and read all the reports that talk about the difference between visual and physical stimulation. People here are smarter than we give them credit for. In fact, in my congregation, most of my new Niddrie believers read more than my educated middle class members, including those who find it difficult to do so and had never even picked up a book pre-conversion. Pick the bones out of that!
2. Anybody who thinks that interactive, dialogue-style approaches from the pulpit are effective in areas like ours is welcome to come to Niddrie and show me how it’s done.
Here’s a golden rule (and most visiting speakers fall into it): Rhetorical questions are taken literally. As a preaching device in a scheme, it doesn’t always work. So for instance, “Have you ever been lying in bed in the morning and thought, I can’t be bothered to go to work?” Response here? People shouting out the answer. Some arguing with you say they don’t get up until the afternoon. Some saying they have to be at the chemist to get their script.
Christians who know the literary tool stay silent (amused). It is then very difficult to move the topic on without having to be very firm and telling people to be quiet and, usually, you lose the flow of the point you were (cleverly) taking your people toward. I am not saying that you shouldn’t use rhetorical questions, but here declaration works far better than investigation. They are very often literal thinkers.
