Tim asked the following question in reference to “Introductions: The Essential Ingredients” –

I’m interested in this ‘create or surface need’ idea. Is there not a danger that this tends towards sermons being man-centred and self-help focussed? Like ‘what felt need (not even necessarily true need) does this text provide the solution for?’ Does this encourage a sense that God and His Word are merely felt-need-meeters?

I’m not being negative – I like the idea of ‘create or surface need’. It just raises questions in my mind.

Peter Mead responds: This is an important question. When people speak of preaching for “felt needs” the concern is with preaching that is primarily “how to” in nature. For example, how to raise teenagers, how to have a happy marriage, etc. There is a concern that preaching these kinds of messages do please listeners, but fail to address their real needs, fail to be God-centered, and often fail to honor the intention of the Biblical texts. These are important concerns!

The reason that “need” is included in the introduction to a message is not to determine the nature of the whole message (man-centered rather than God-centered), but to create an opportunity for the Word of God to get into good soil. Using the parable of the four soils for a moment, the key issue there is a “listening heart.” I believe it is naive to assume that people are always eagerly listening when they sit through a sermon. Let me quote Haddon Robinson in Biblical Preaching, “When you start, the people listen because they ought to, but before long, you must motivate them to listen because they can’t help but listen.” (p.168)

The core conviction here is this – do we believe the Bible should be applied to life? Or to put it another way, do we believe not only that all Scripture is God-breathed, but also that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work? (2Tim.3:16-17) Of course we do, which is why most preachers at least make some effort at application at the end of a message. If application is acceptable at the end of a message, then why would it not be acceptable in some form at the start? The reality is that many listeners may be long gone by the end of a message that shows no clear connection to their lives (maybe they will be asleep, or drifting to thoughts of pressing concerns – their upcoming confrontation at work, resolving the increasing tension in the family, how they can improve their golf swing, etc.) Some concerns and distractions may be frivolous, some are very understandable. So what to do? Serve up some relevance early on in the message, thereby helping hearts to be listening to the Word of God as it is preached.

Consider how Peter began his sermon on Pentecost – by promising to clarify the concern of the listeners regarding what was taking place before them. In fact, consider also Acts 3 and 17 for two more examples. The truth of God’s Word does not need to be watered down or changed in response to itching ears. The Word of God is highly relevant to life, our preaching should reflect that early on as well as at the end (and throughout).

I am not advocating God-less or Bible-weak self-help motivational speeches with seven steps to successful living. I am suggesting we preach theocentric, God-honoring, Biblical messages that by His grace, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, can change lives and conform people to the image of Christ in all areas of life. Being Biblical and relevant are not mutually exclusive options in preaching, they are both vital. It just helps listeners to listen if some of that relevance is strategically placed at the beginning, instead of all at the end.

More thoughts on this?