Tim, you ask a very God-honoring question when it comes to homiletical introduction. Creating or surfacing need is certainly part of what an introduction must do. In fact, as Peter states in his 5/11/2007 entry, an introduction must do four things. It must get attention, create rapport, establish authority and create or surface need. Yet, for these four components to be God-honoring and not man-honoring (which I believe gets at the heart of your question), David Buttrick, in Homiletic Moves and Structures makes a very important point. He states that an introduction must do two things. First, it must give focus to consciousness. Second, it must provide some sort of hermeneutical orientation.
Buttrick is not contradicting the points that Peter makes. In fact, within his chapter on introductions, he makes some of the very same points. Rather, Buttrick establishes an overarching principle that is to contour and influence the direction of the points that Peter makes. In other words, while doing all that Peter has encouraged us to do in an introduction, focus and orientation to the text must occur. This can be difficult. It is much easier get attention, create rapport, establish authority and surface need autonomous from the text that is supposed to be introduced. This happens all the time in preaching and it is a colossal error.
It is all too easy to imagine isn’t it? The preacher stands, opens his Bible, takes out his notes and begins. He starts by catching attention and building rapport through funny or shocking stories. The audience laughs or gasps – sometimes both simultaneously (it is a weird sort of convulsion). The room emits an ethos of warmth and openness and then, the preacher begins to preach. The problem is that the first five minutes had nothing to do with the sermon. The congregation is now enthralled with the preacher not the passage. So, after “warming-up” and “catching the attention” of the congregation, the preacher has to spend another five minutes on a second introduction – this time, focusing on the Word of God. This is a terrible waste of time.
To be clear, the four points that Peter makes need to happen in an introduction. However, they must happen in a way that focuses consciousness and provides some sort of hermeneutical orientation to the passage that is going to be preached. This will take more preparation time, and a lot more effort, but it is worth it. We must capture the attention of our audience while concurrently directing them toward God and His Word. Any other result is not an introduction.
Biblical Preaching 
Concerning Mike Roth’s question, “Introducing What?” let me suggest that we simply introduce the central concept of the text unit. We may give text background, but that is not the theological idea of the text. We may arouse interest by touching on needs, but that interest should reflect directly the text writer’s theological theme. The preacher can begin his sermon with an analogy or contemporary reference to some experience the audience recognizes. But that attention getter can also (and should) reflect the theological idea of the text, which is also the theological idea of the sermon. Attention for the sake of attention is indeed a waste of good preaching time. The first words from the preacher’s mouth can focus attention immediately on the concept to be addressed in the sermon. To arouse attention and awaken interest at the same time, the opening can address experience and need at the point of the theological idea central to the sermon. Every idea revealed in the Bible can be traced to some point of contact in the experience of man. And that point of contact can be identified in terms of normal desires that are not being met, symptoms of trouble in the hearer’s life, wrong thinking from the viewpoint of the biblical worldview. The sermon can begin and end with one clear concept that the preacher understands to be the text writer’s intended theological message.
Well said Wayne. I believe this is the very point that Buttrick is getting at when he says, give focus to consciousness and provide some sort of hermeneutical orientation. Otherwise, we fail to introduce what we are supposed to in our introduction!
What about Barth’s comment that one should not use an introduction? (This is in his book Homiletics, pp. 121-125.) He suggests that there is nothing that can be said before the exposition of the text, such as quotes, relevant examples, etc., that is not man-centered and so any introduction is simply a distraction from the Word of God. He also suggests that the service up to that point should serve as the introduction and that once the preacher stands up to preach, he must move directly to the text. I am curious to know others’ thoughts on this.
Michael- you raise an interesting point. In what way can the service itself act as an introduction to the sermon? In liturgical services this happens all of the time. Everything from colors, to Scripture readings, to songs are connected to the sermon text. In this scenario, I believe Barth is onto something.
With that said, many evangelical churches do not connect to the sermon in this way. I am not saying this is a good thing! Perhaps more time and effort should be put into connecting the service with the sermon.