The field of communications theory is vast and sometimes intriguing.  Take, for instance, relevance theory.  Relevance theory, in basic terms, argues that perceived relevance over effort required equals response of audience.  To put it another way, listeners will respond more when they perceive the message to be more relevant to them, and less effort.

So in non-preaching terms, if someone receives a good benefit (reduced risk of cancer), for less effort (just a low-cost drink once per day), they are more likely to respond positively (i.e. make a purchase).  In contrast less benefit (marginal increase in strength), for more effort (two hours in a gym every day), they are less likely to respond positively (i.e. they won’t join the gym based on this message).  Fairly basic, fairly obvious.

So how does relevance theory apply to preaching, if at all?  After all, preaching is communication with an inherent element of persuasion:

Some preachers seem to go whole hog on this theory.  That is, they make every message as relevant and practical and felt needs focused as possible, while at the same time minimizing biblical or theological content, or life demands, as far as possible.  Such messages tend to be easy to listen to, easy to apply, easy to take notes, easy.

Others resist such an application of the theory by suggesting that the gospel makes demands on listeners and this should not be simplified to the temporal things of this life.  The road is narrow, after all.  So preaching tends to be more scholarly, application tends to be more abstract, and response tends to be more variable (but perhaps deeper in the lives of the committed).

I am not convinced either approach is right.  The former one seems to come close to catering to the self-concerned lifestyles of the spiritually immature who think Christianity is primarily about their own benefits.  The latter seems to tend toward legalistic righteousness that coerces by duty (but perhaps offering an equally temporal benefit of spiritual pride).

At one level, I believe we cannot ignore relevance theory, simply because it is an observed reality of human response.  But on the other hand, I feel the need to shift from a sales or persuasion metaphor to that of relationship.  When my heart is captivated by my wife, then no effort is too great, even just for the “small perceived benefit” of her smile (since the benefit that motivates my sacrifice is really hers and not mine).  Somehow it seems to me that our task is not to make things easy, or to pile on the pressure, but to present the grace of God so that hearts are stirred to respond fully . . . for His benefit.

Perhaps we need to think not only of the relevance for us (which is important if people are to listen), but go beyond that to the relevance of our application for our Lord (since it is the benefit that accrues to the other that stirs the heart and life of a lover, which is what we are, right?)