How exactly is a sermon plain? Is it the language you use or the illustrations that make the points clear? Or is it the overall presentation that brings the biblical and theological message into the everyday world of the listener?

Just trying to learn more. (If the answers are in the sermon just say so. I haven’t read the entire sermon yet.)

Great question, Scott.

I guess it’s the audience who draws that line, but it’s so subjective. I was heavily criticized at a former church for using movies for illustrative material, but others loved it.

It’s one of those “in the eye of the beholder” type deals that can be really frustrating with a varied audience.

Personally, I’d shy away from some language in the pulpit that I might feel okay with just hanging out with the lads, just because of my audience’s sensitivity.

Folks like you mention are even more under the microscope because of their popularity and range of audience.

Good question.

In seminary I was told that we must avoid being crude. I have personally been criticized in my own church for being too “common” in my speech. However, no one accuses me of not communicating the message!

I agree with Spurgeon and find his comments very encouraging (maybe I’m just using him to justify myself). But is there a line and who draws it?

Perhaps you and I have some of the same friends.

; )

The archaic language often gives cause for a smile akin to those who like the KJV because it’s harder to understand. If it’s easy to get, then it’s not very spiritual. Of course, the KJV was an English Bible and one designed for the common man to be able to read (as most were not as well versed with Latin for the Vulgate usage). Akin to that is the Koine Greek of the NT.

Clarity in communication is key, as we see with Joe Thorn.

I’m Gunny Hartman and I approve this blog post.

(Political Ad paid for by the Friends of All Things Holy.)

Good point on Edwards example as an excuse, and I agree with your assessment.