# The use of Pop Cultural references in Sermons.



## Ne Oublie

I am wondering and interested in what you all think about referencing pop culture in sermons? (e.g. movies, songs, art, tv, sports, and things similar)

I have heard some others thoughts but would like to hear more and I would really appreciate to hear from both laymen and Elders\Pastors.


----------



## Christusregnat

From a layman's perspective, it can be overdone very quickly, but can also be helpful in connecting with a specific audience (as Paul in Acts 17).

Cheers,


----------



## Jared

I think some people like Mark Driscoll can pull it off. But, sometimes if older people especially try to do it, I think it can have the opposite effect, instead of relating to the audience, it alienates them because it's thought of as corny.

Just my thoughts.

BTW: I'm not saying that older people can't relate to younger people. There are many older pastors that can relate to the younger generation like John Piper and Tim Keller. But, generally speaking they don't do it by using a lot of references from pop culture.


----------



## Skyler

Be sure of your audience first. Most of the folks at our church, for example, would probably be lost if you started talking about pop culture.


----------



## Emmanuel

You certainly are "dating" your sermons if you make references to ever-changing cultural fads.

I agree with both Adam and Jared. Pop culture can provide ample examples of how not to live, but it gets old quick. And, Mark Driscoll can pull it off--that's largely, and admittedly, because of his target demographic: unchurched twentysomethings in Seattle.

When I was unsaved, I attended an Arminian church which had no set pastor, but had a variety of men take turns preaching. One of the preaches was a Fuller grad* who was known for the pop culture references (especially films) in his "messages." I was really into film-making at the time and so it appealed to me. It should be noted that this individual used pop culture as his homiletic foundation rather than for just illustrative purposes.

I love it when pastors make allusions to Greek literature. 

*No, it was not Rob Bell. Though, out of curiosity, does Rob Bell "pull it off"?


----------



## raekwon

Emmanuel said:


> You certainly are "dating" your sermons if you make references to ever-changing cultural fads.



Sermons are delivered to a particular people in a particular place and time. Getting "dated" is kind of built in to the whole thing, and that's okay. How many of us immediately knew the poets Paul was referring to in his Areopagus sermon before it was explained to us?


----------



## Jared

Emmanuel said:


> You certainly are "dating" your sermons if you make references to ever-changing cultural fads.
> 
> I agree with both Adam and Jared. Pop culture can provide ample examples of how not to live, but it gets old quick. And, Mark Driscoll can pull it off--that's largely, and admittedly, because of his target demographic: unchurched twentysomethings in Seattle.
> 
> When I was unsaved, I attended an Arminian church which had no set pastor, but had a variety of men take turns preaching. One of the preaches was a Fuller grad* who was known for the pop culture references (especially films) in his "messages." I was really into film-making at the time and so it appealed to me. It should be noted that this individual used pop culture as his homiletic foundation rather than for just illustrative purposes.
> 
> I love it when pastors make allusions to Greek literature.
> 
> *No, it was not Rob Bell. Though, out of curiosity, does Rob Bell "pull it off"?



I have never agreed with Rob Bell's theology overall. But, having said that, I have always thought that his Nooma video, "Rain" is encouraging, and I'm not aware of any false doctrine in that particular video. I do consider Rob Bell to be a heretic. I know that some people wouldn't bother listening to people like that at all, but at least at this point, I think that you can gain quite a bit from listening to people that teach false doctrine. You just have to be able to discern the truth from the lies and know what you believe. I wouldn't recommend listening to false teachers very often, but you can gain some insight into how they arrived at their doctrine so that you can refute what they believe as well as gaining a few good things here and there.

I hadn't watched that Rob Bell video in a while. I tried watching it a couple of weeks ago. The message was just as encouraging, but I thought he came off seeming really white. It seemed kind of corny in a way. I think it's funny that the emerging church claims to be so culturally relevant, and yet hip-hop is one of the main styles of music that is popular among youth today, and you don't see the emerging church tapping into that at all. Now that the emerging church is pretty much over, I guess they won't be able to fix that though.


----------



## Matthew V

I believe well-known popular cultural references are helpful, if used to reinforce a point which is raised as God's Word is expounded. If there is a chance that some in the congregation might not know what is being referred to, I usually add a few words of explanation. 

I also think the use of popular cultural references should be limited, and other kinds of illustrations used from everyday life. Jesus regularly referred to the natural world, human vocations, etc when he taught people. As long as the illustrations illustrate and illuminate what is being taught from Scripture, it's a good idea. However, we must make sure that the sermon doesn't become a string of jokes, anecdotes and illustrations linked by the occasional Bible reference. 

A couple of years ago, my family and I were on holidays and decided to attend a local Baptist church (in Queensland, Australia). The people were warm and friendly, however the sermon was simply awful. The 'sermon' was part of a series: "7 ways to deal with stress". The preacher quoted only 2 verses during the entire address, and only 1 of them was used in context! Furthermore, just before the 'sermon' began, I thought I'd grab a Bible to read along with the Bible reading. To my shock this church does not have any Bibles available to read! Nor was there a Bible reading at all!


----------



## Ne Oublie

In reference to Acts 17, was Paul not preaching to unbelievers? What about to professing believers on the Lord's day? or is there not a difference besides the obvious?


----------



## raekwon

Unless one wants to argue that Christians should aim to be ignorant of pop culture, I don't know if that really should make a difference as to whether or not it's references in sermons.


----------



## Montanablue

I think you should speak the language of your audience. 

I visited Boston a few years ago, and went to a PCA church with a friend. I was struck by how academic his sermon was. He discussed how the text interacted with and addressed various ideas in philosophy and used illustrations from works of literature. It really appealed to me and I'm sure it worked for his congregation - there were lots of highly educated people there and a large number of students (many grad students too). I don't think that would work for my congregation though. We have a lot of aging cowboys, younger ranchhand types. When our pastor uses sermon illustrations, it generally involves a horse or a truck! And that's completely appropriate for our congregation. 

Basically, as long as Scripture is the foundation of your sermon, I think its completely appropriate to "translate" it into whatever language your audience speaks. And that may include pop culture.

---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------




raekwon said:


> Unless one wants to argue that Christians should aim to be ignorant of pop culture, I don't know if that really should make a difference as to whether or not it's references in sermons.


 
Out of thanks, but I agree.


----------



## Andres

Apparently my pastor or the preachers I listen to do not do this. I am having a hard time understanding exactly what everyone means by referencing pop culture. Can someone please give me an example because everything I am thinking of seems like it would be terrible to use. Thanks.


----------



## Christusregnat

Actually, now that I think of it, "pop culture" does come up in Acts 17, but the poets Paul quotes would not qualify as "pop culture." They would have been literary or high culture. A modern equivalent would be quoting from Merlowe or Shakespeare. Pop culture would have been the idolotrous love of novelty in the Athenians.

Cheers,


----------



## raekwon

Christusregnat said:


> Actually, now that I think of it, "pop culture" does come up in Acts 17, but the poets Paul quotes would not qualify as "pop culture." They would have been literary or high culture. A modern equivalent would be quoting from Merlowe or Shakespeare. Pop culture would have been the idolotrous love of novelty in the Athenians.
> 
> Cheers,


 
When you consider the audience, I might still consider it pop culture.


----------



## littlepeople

Easy test: If the congregation thinks in response, "Hey this preacher really gets me!".....utter fail.

If the congregation's response is, "Oh this Jesus really gets me"...Bingo


----------



## Tim

I have been to churches in Cape Town where rugby is mentioned in nearly every sermon. I was so tired of it.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

I think it may be used, _if_ it helps to introduce, explain, prove, or apply the main idea of the text in some way. The preacher has to make it obvious to the congregation how it does one of these three things, so they can't miss the connection between the illustration and the text. Otherwise there is no point in using it.

One other thing to consider is that I would not want to create a stumbling block by making reference to a movie or other media form that someone in the congregation may regard as sinful to watch, because in effect I would be admitting that I had watched it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Andrew (Andres),



> Can someone please give me an example



One such might be referring to Tolkien's image in the trilogy, "the shadow of Mordor", when speaking of the encroaching darkness of our present times.

Among such references one could allude to apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic stories (in literature or film) and compare them to the Biblical data. For instance, the "Judgment Day" of many films — which _multitudes_ in our generation see — is a far cry from the one spoken of in Scripture. They are bereft of a Divine hand meting vengeance for wicked idolatry and the harming of His beloved people (and rewarding the faithful), but are humanistic, with human heros "saving the day" and starting a new humanity.

As an artist (a poet and writer) I am deeply involved in the arts (especially the language and film arts) and their influences on the generation I seek to evangelize. If there are people I am preaching to that are not attuned to these things — as is the case with my present congregation — I do not bring them in; but otherwise I would be free to.

My pastor while we were in NYC, Tim Keller, did this in a godly and interesting way. The arts are an extremely powerful cultural force — mostly for ill — and can be countered by a discerning vision.

But I must add this caveat: our entertainment industry is an expression of harlot Babylon in her seducing the people of the world away from God and His Christ; the tv and movies are addictive, mind and spirit numbing, and draw even the saints away from maintaining an awareness of the Lord, which is our strength as the days darken. Even books may do this.

Living where I presently do about all on tv are Greek soaps, so for 8 years I have lived in a wilderness of sorts, protected in great measure from Babylonian culture. I will watch a rare movie / DVD. When I do return to America (DV), I will have to be on guard. I have been blessed living in this cultural desert.

Hope this helps.


----------



## kvanlaan

It's funny, but while we were in China, we were likewise largely protected from Babylonian culture as well. Now that we're back, I find it a little overwhelming - it is _everywhere_. And many here don't see it; it is not unlike the frog in the pot that doesn't know that the water is near boiling because he was dropped in while it was cool.

We must watch out in the use of these references that we don't "go down to Egypt" in aid of spreading God's Word.


----------



## Philip

Christusregnat said:


> Actually, now that I think of it, "pop culture" does come up in Acts 17, but the poets Paul quotes would not qualify as "pop culture." They would have been literary or high culture. A modern equivalent would be quoting from Merlowe or Shakespeare. Pop culture would have been the idolotrous love of novelty in the Athenians.


 
Since Marlowe and Shakespeare were Christians, I'd say the modern equivalent would be quoting Hemmingway or Steinbeck.


----------



## ADKing

As a preacher, I studiously avoid making connections with pop-culture in sermons, unless on rare occasion to point out the rampant sin in certain things and warn the people against partaking in prevalent sins. Time is so short and people are already too steeped in the world. As I endeavor to preach as a dying man to dying men, I do my best to stay entirely on the one thing truly needful rather than distract people and bring them back to the fading follies of the world. Analogies can easily be drawn from Bible stories (the Puritans were masters of this) rather than the foolish nonsense of movies and TV that it is our delight to leave behind on the Sabbath day! When I hear a sermon I want to hear sound doctrine and more about Jesus and I usually resent references to other worldly things. Without attacking any particular preacher (and I realize that generalizations have limitations), I can say that I have obsevred that the preachers who are most liberal in such references to pop-culture are usually the preachers who have less Biblical content and shallow sermons. These are just the observations and opinions of one preacher, for what they are worth...


----------



## Michael Doyle

I am frequently worn out from pop culture references and usually find them quite distracting. It seems to me a bit lazy to forsake the depths of the historic biblical cultures for equivocation. For one, you miss the intent of the author to his audience when rather than unpacking the historical narrative you say something like, "what Paul is saying here is like..." if you get my drift. Just my 2 cents.

I am likewise not saying it is all bad but that I as a lay-person would rather be stretched than talked down to.

BTW... it was tremendous meeting you and your family this past weekend Robert and look forward to seeing you again this Sunday. Grace and Peace


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Michael Doyle said:


> I am frequently worn out from pop culture references and usually find them quite distracting. It seems to me a bit lazy to forsake the depths of the historic biblical cultures for equivocation. For one, you miss the intent of the author to his audience when rather than unpacking the historical narrative you say something like, "what Paul is saying here is like..." if you get my drift. Just my 2 cents.
> 
> I am likewise not saying it is all bad but that I as a lay-person would rather be stretched than talked down to.
> 
> BTW... it was tremendous meeting you and your family this past weekend Robert and look forward to seeing you again this Sunday. Grace and Peace


 
I appreciate much of what you guys are saying, but as John Stott ably illustrates, the preacher must stand between two worlds. It is his task to bring the listeners into the world of the text, and the message of the text into the world of the listeners. I think to get the right balance we need to hear from some average to immature laypeople, to see if these types of illustrations help them to understand, believe, and incorporate into their daily lives the truths of Scripture.


----------



## Rich Koster

There are many ways to use "pop culture" in a sermon. One use is to illustrate how a society pushes aside Jesus and calls evil good. It can also be used to give examples of idolatry that people just accept as "normal behavior". Bottom line: there is nothing new under the sun. Satan just repackages the same stuff and re-markets it slightly different for each generation. The sermon, using my fore-mentioned examples (and the like) should expose the current marketing technique so we can mark and avoid it.


----------



## SemperEruditio

I think there is a place for pop culture in sermons. I don't use them when I preach from my sermon. Yet if I see that there are looks of confusion of some people I might try to find an example to be understood. Sometimes the examples I use are pop. culture references. I've heard some great use of pop. culture particularly movie references and I've some devastatingly awful use of them as well. I don't think a reference to Tony Montana from Scarface can ever be used appropriately.


----------



## AThornquist

There have been several helpful responses thus far. As for my congregation, not many illustrations are used unless they are very general, and thus almost never referencing pop-culture. That primarily has to do with the fact that our pastors do not want to distract from the text and do not find illustrations outside of Scripture necessary most of the time (and I agree with them), though another factor is that our church body is so diverse that it would hard to have common ground with any sort of pop-culture references. We are full of cowboys, ranch workers, highly educated doctors and techies, lowly educated manual laborers, wealthy and poor, and of course the fact that a lot of people in our congregation don't watch TV and watch not many movies.

As others said, it depends on the audience and the references must be used to clarify the teaching of the text; the text must _never_ be set forth to prove an ethical point of an illustration or reference.


----------



## Grimmson

ADKing said:


> As a preacher, I studiously avoid making connections with pop-culture in sermons, unless on rare occasion to point out the rampant sin in certain things and warn the people against partaking in prevalent sins. Time is so short and people are already too steeped in the world. As I endeavor to preach as a dying man to dying men, I do my best to stay entirely on the one thing truly needful rather than distract people and bring them back to the fading follies of the world. Analogies can easily be drawn from Bible stories (the Puritans were masters of this) rather than the foolish nonsense of movies and TV that it is our delight to leave behind on the Sabbath day! When I hear a sermon I want to hear sound doctrine and more about Jesus and I usually resent references to other worldly things. Without attacking any particular preacher (and I realize that generalizations have limitations), I can say that I have obsevred that the preachers who are most liberal in such references to pop-culture are usually the preachers who have less Biblical content and shallow sermons. These are just the observations and opinions of one preacher, for what they are worth...



I think it is important to make a categorical difference between pop culture and sin. It is true that sin is all around us, but is that the fault of pop-culture per say or the natural depravity of men that make up that culture? I would say it is the latter compared to the prior. Pop culture is the popular culture of the day and I think it is important to recognize the sinful acts in pop culture, like the sexualation of our youth, however if there positive references in pop culture then it may be profitable to enjoy it. We don’t want to be running around and say everything in culture is a sin, especially when the true concern is actually the slippery slope to a given sin. 

Chrysostom once said, using J.N.D. Kelly’s translation ( see page 95 of Golden Mouth), in his _In Evangelium Iohannis Praef_., “The Exegete’s task is to clear up obscure passages as succinctly as possible (only resorting to long winded explanations when demolishing heretical interpretations), the preacher’s” job “ is to spread himself to the heart’s content (presumably in the intent of edification) on passages which are already clear.”

Expounding a little bit further. It is not the job of the church to condemn culture, let that be God job. The job of the preacher is teach and strengthen the sheep under him. You would not be giving the gospel message in English to someone that spoke only Chinese. It would not be edifying the person at all with regards to the doctrines of the faith. Therefore one needs to learn how to speak Chinese and the culture references in order to communicate the message you are trying to send by the grace of God. Man being steeped into the current pop culture may need at times references of understanding to get to the point of the pastor’s message. We no longer live in the age of the Puritans and bible knowledge is lacking by most of our congregation today. Therefore we cannot take for granted at times clear cut understanding of a passage of reference and thus take a chance of a point going over the head of an immature believer; which is way we cant always assume that biblical stories can necessarily be an easy analogy to use if they don’t have a background or understanding of a given text for that understanding and if they were taught a different application of that story wrongly to begin with; which in turn can confuse your given point.

Does this mean we shouldn’t use scripture to reinforce our points in application of other scriptures? No, but as pastors and teachers we need to be careful to know our audience and what they need so that we can reach the full spectrum of people in our churches. We want everyone to understand the doctrine of the church which is being taught. Some people relate well by use of the psalms, given the doctrine, some a narrative, some from a Pauline epistle, and some by a personal reference that strikes at the heart of their own experience that they can relate to. Christians are not cookie cuters of each other and have a variety of different learning and processing styles. By using pop culture with wisdom, we can guide people to not only understanding of doctrine but also provide guidelines of Christian liberty in certain sections of the culture. 

Now I admit that I am no pop culture expert. I spend most of my days reading theologians that have been dead from three hundred years to well over a millennia and a half. I can actually find it difficult at times to relate to particular aspects of the culture which I live in. However I do recognize the power as a teacher of relating certain principles to students by using ideas and mediums that a group is familiar with. I would make the argument that God has always be condescending to our level so that we can understand him, and that includes on how scripture was written at the times in which it was. Likewise we must as reflections of God go to the level of the unchurched and immature with the prospects to build them up in the faith in understand; not just to tear them down in sin and say all is wrong when in fact it may not be as reflected by other teachers of the faith within our own traditions. 

The accusation of a sermon having little biblical content is a relative and subjective in nature. There is no guideline to say how much scripture you should be directly quoting from and how much time is to be sent on the side passages that you do reference. Is there a lack of content in my option? Yes, but I think that more of a reflection of the lack of biblical learning that goes on in our churches and to some degree knowledge of our pastors in these congregations. It is not the fault of the culture, but of the church in interacting with that culture and educating her members. And some of the shallow sermons that are present maybe currently the milk that is needed for the young. The problem does exixt that to many sermons in general are shallow and not just the ones that reference pop culture; therefore let us not place blame on the culture. 

I know if we got our way with things then we could possibly send people to damning works righteousness pharisaical state that in turn will destroy the joys of life given to man by God. There are already people who think that you can have no joy in the life of the church and all that you say and do is wrong within the church. Tell me if that is the message we want to be sending when we absolutely condemn culture and distinguish between the acts within a given pop culture. People are not dumb and I have meet plenty of young people who revolted against the church because that exactly the message that they were given, such as with drinking, or reading a particular book, or with a given subset of music. Pop culture is a powerful device that can be held by the pastor, which would require some wisdom in how to approach pop culture. To close oneself off completely from such can result in the disregarding of certain subsets of people that we are commanded to reach out to. Therefore we need to learn how to talk to them and engage personally with them in regards to their own state of references. 


So in a short summary, I am ok with the use of certain references if used with caution and care for the people of God.


----------



## Christusregnat

P. F. Pugh said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, now that I think of it, "pop culture" does come up in Acts 17, but the poets Paul quotes would not qualify as "pop culture." They would have been literary or high culture. A modern equivalent would be quoting from Merlowe or Shakespeare. Pop culture would have been the idolotrous love of novelty in the Athenians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Marlowe and Shakespeare were Christians, I'd say the modern equivalent would be quoting Hemmingway or Steinbeck.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, although Paul uses the poets in a Christianized way, but your point is well made.


----------



## SRoper

Willem van Oranje said:


> One other thing to consider is that I would not want to create a stumbling block by making reference to a movie or other media form that someone in the congregation may regard as sinful to watch, because in effect I would be admitting that I had watched it.


 
This can also undermine parents who don't allow their children to watch the entertainment the pastor referenced.


----------



## Ne Oublie

many valid thoughts from all...which is why I asked in the first place....

a couple of thoughts that have been stirred up by you all...

Referencing popular culture assumes the awareness or knowledge of the reference to say the least.
Is this not a vital communication point? What if one is not privy to it, would he not feel he should
be? would he understand the point? (I realize this could be about any matter, but this is the
whole issue, a discerning of what we refer to having an awareness that we are teaching others and literally
pointing others to other sources to learn) 

It is important to recognize that a reference may impose on your audience.

It is important to recognize that a reference may indeed endorse itself.

It really seems to be evident to give liberty to the audience in referencing pop culture by
discerning if it would edify, if it would be helpful, if it would be building one another up....

I also noticed in reference to Paul and Acts 17, what he referenced he did not seem to partake in,
as he may have knowledge of a thing, but he did not partake in the idolatry he was speaking of,
he did not validate them as true or glorify or praise them in any manner. 

Just observations.


----------



## Christusregnat

Ne Oublie said:


> a couple of thoughts that have been stirred up by *you all*...


 
By the way Robert, it's *y'all*!!!


----------



## Ne Oublie

Christusregnat said:


> Ne Oublie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a couple of thoughts that have been stirred up by *you all*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Robert, it's *y'all*!!!
Click to expand...


Would this be a linguistic pop cultural reference?

I try my best to not write like I speak.....


----------



## Jared

Tim said:


> I have been to churches in Cape Town where rugby is mentioned in nearly every sermon. I was so tired of it.



I get tired of hearing certain preachers talk about sports in every sermon too. It gets old after a while, and I think it's really distracting. It seems like they care more about sports than the the things of God.


----------



## raekwon

Jared104 said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been to churches in Cape Town where rugby is mentioned in nearly every sermon. I was so tired of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of hearing certain preachers talk about sports in every sermon too. It gets old after a while, and I think it's really distracting. It seems like they care more about sports than the the things of God.
Click to expand...


Paul did it in his letters. (But yeah, every sermon would be distracting.)


----------



## Philip

> I also noticed in reference to Paul and Acts 17, what he referenced he did not seem to partake in,
> as he may have knowledge of a thing, but he did not partake in the idolatry he was speaking of,
> he did not validate them as true or glorify or praise them in any manner.



Where do you get that? To me it is obvious that a) he has read the works in question b) he has seen some value in the ideas they express c) he then chooses to use these quotations (inspired by the Holy Spirit, mind you) in an appropriate manner. Was it partaking in idolatry to read Sophocles? No more than it is idolatry to read Steinbeck.


----------



## markkoller

ADKing said:


> As a preacher, I studiously avoid making connections with pop-culture in sermons, unless on rare occasion to point out the rampant sin in certain things and warn the people against partaking in prevalent sins. Time is so short and people are already too steeped in the world. As I endeavor to preach as a dying man to dying men, I do my best to stay entirely on the one thing truly needful rather than distract people and bring them back to the fading follies of the world. Analogies can easily be drawn from Bible stories (the Puritans were masters of this) rather than the foolish nonsense of movies and TV that it is our delight to leave behind on the Sabbath day! When I hear a sermon I want to hear sound doctrine and more about Jesus and I usually resent references to other worldly things. Without attacking any particular preacher (and I realize that generalizations have limitations), I can say that I have obsevred that the preachers who are most liberal in such references to pop-culture are usually the preachers who have less Biblical content and shallow sermons. These are just the observations and opinions of one preacher, for what they are worth...



Well said! Not to turn the thread into a discussion of the Sabbath day, but we cannot discuss preaching without keeping the Lord's Day at the center of our thoughts. Preachers should keep in mind our standards, specifically the Larger Catechism's warning against "needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations."



> Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
> A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day,624 not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but *even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful*;625 and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy626) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship:627 and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, *that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day*.628
> 
> Q. 118. Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
> A. The charge of keeping the sabbath is more *specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors*, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own.629
> 
> Q. 119. What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required,630 all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them;631 all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful;632 and by all *needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations*.633



It is difficult enough to keep our minds from such things on the Lord's Day, we certainly don't need such distractions from the pulpit. 

Not that cultural references are always forbidden, they are sometimes necessary to some degree. The use of them should cause the pastor to think very deeply whether or not the ill effects will outweigh the good. Sometimes a reference is required, usually not. Generally sports and movies are the first to come to mind because they are both too much in our thoughts. Let us turn instead to God's inerrant and infallible Word. 

Thank you for a useful post to give us preachers pause to consider our words more deeply.


----------



## Ne Oublie

P. F. Pugh said:


> I also noticed in reference to Paul and Acts 17, what he referenced he did not seem to partake in,
> as he may have knowledge of a thing, but he did not partake in the idolatry he was speaking of,
> he did not validate them as true or glorify or praise them in any manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that? To me it is obvious that a) he has read the works in question b) he has seen some value in the ideas they express c) he then chooses to use these quotations (inspired by the Holy Spirit, mind you) in an appropriate manner. Was it partaking in idolatry to read Sophocles? No more than it is idolatry to read Steinbeck.
Click to expand...

 
Reading Sophocles is surely not partaking in idolatry, unless it is held in higher regard than that of the truth, as you know. I was trying to point out,
and badly at that, that in Paul's use of references that it was clearly for a point to edify and clarify the Gospel, using what was well known and respected with the 'knowledge' keepers and then to show its insufficiency, and the same goes for all of Paul's references to sports. And as I mentioned before, it is notable to see whom he was speaking to. I am not against referencing the culture, but strongly advocate the discernment and consideration of and for the hearers.

For instance, if I were to give an example of what would be appropriate for a Christian to wear, I could contrast this with defined, and articulated pop cultured facts, like naming who on TV dresses a way that we should not, or naming the magazine or video game that is a bad example or I could generalize enough to where I am not putting thoughts are images in the hearers ears. As you can imagine the difference and the point is made, albeit maybe not as graphically or accented. The great liberty this gives is underestimated in my opinion.


----------



## jayce475

Grimmson said:


> Expounding a little bit further. It is not the job of the church to condemn culture, let that be God job. The job of the preacher is teach and strengthen the sheep under him. You would not be giving the gospel message in English to someone that spoke only Chinese. It would not be edifying the person at all with regards to the doctrines of the faith. Therefore one needs to learn how to speak Chinese and the culture references in order to communicate the message you are trying to send by the grace of God. Man being steeped into the current pop culture may need at times references of understanding to get to the point of the pastor’s message. We no longer live in the age of the Puritans and bible knowledge is lacking by most of our congregation today. Therefore we cannot take for granted at times clear cut understanding of a passage of reference and thus take a chance of a point going over the head of an immature believer; which is way we cant always assume that biblical stories can necessarily be an easy analogy to use if they don’t have a background or understanding of a given text for that understanding and if they were taught a different application of that story wrongly to begin with; which in turn can confuse your given point.
> 
> Does this mean we shouldn’t use scripture to reinforce our points in application of other scriptures? No, but as pastors and teachers we need to be careful to know our audience and what they need so that we can reach the full spectrum of people in our churches. We want everyone to understand the doctrine of the church which is being taught. Some people relate well by use of the psalms, given the doctrine, some a narrative, some from a Pauline epistle, and some by a personal reference that strikes at the heart of their own experience that they can relate to. Christians are not cookie cuters of each other and have a variety of different learning and processing styles. By using pop culture with wisdom, we can guide people to not only understanding of doctrine but also provide guidelines of Christian liberty in certain sections of the culture.
> 
> The accusation of a sermon having little biblical content is a relative and subjective in nature. There is no guideline to say how much scripture you should be directly quoting from and how much time is to be sent on the side passages that you do reference. Is there a lack of content in my option? Yes, but I think that more of a reflection of the lack of biblical learning that goes on in our churches and to some degree knowledge of our pastors in these congregations. It is not the fault of the culture, but of the church in interacting with that culture and educating her members. And some of the shallow sermons that are present maybe currently the milk that is needed for the young. The problem does exixt that to many sermons in general are shallow and not just the ones that reference pop culture; therefore let us not place blame on the culture.


 
Languages are languages and pop culture is pop culture. There may be slight domains of overlap with slang and lingo and such, but generally they stand apart, so using the Chinese language as an illustration merely obfuscates. Now if you're talking instead about Chinese pop culture, which I had been immersed in for the greater part of my teenage years, you've got something totally different.

I fail to see how we should ever avoid scriptural references due to the immaturity of believers in the congregation. If the preacher spends some time explaining and expounding passages that some may be unfamiliar with, the younger believers, and probably the more mature believers as well, would be greatly edified.

Shallow sermons are shallow not directly because they contain fewer bible references or they employ pop culture references. They are shallow because they are shallow, in that they lack biblical depth and do not teach the doctrines of the bible to a sufficient level. I would agree that it is not always easy to know what is an appropriate level, but the preacher ought to strive to convey as much doctrine as possible in the setting (subject to the ability of the congregation), albeit in as understandable a manner as possible. While pop culture references do not make a sermon shallow, the two may co-occur rather often with some preachers padding their sermons with pop culture references in place of properly expounded biblical content. Presenting milk to the congregation does not necessitate cutting down on biblical content, but rather focusing on the fundamental doctrines as per Hebrews 6. Personally I have sit through a number of sermons in charismatic/pentecostal churches where the excuse for the lack of biblical content is that they are catering to unbelievers and young converts. What is left is "Jesus loves you and died for you; God can change your lives; lay down your lives and allow God to change you; there is a world out there that needs to be change; go change it." Take these five points, throw in 20 pop culture references, take 5-10 isolated scipture references and mix everything together, and there you have it, the typical broad evangelical Australian church sermon. 

Interaction with culture is a hotly debated topic and presenting it as if we all ought to acknowledge that we should interact with culture in the manner that you have described is not necessarily fair. 

That's all for responding to Grimmson's points, and if I may throw in my  Using pop culture references can often be done in a way that it endorses the consumption of pop culture. Therefore, we need to first decide on whether it is alright to consume pop culture in the first place. It is one thing to talk about certain pop cultural phenomenons such as "Avatar" (which most normal people would have heard about at some point through various media outlets) and pointing out the pantheistic and paganistic tendencies of the world using it; it is quite another to be using a specific incident in yesterday's episode of "How I Met Your Mother" that nobody would know about unless he is an avid follower of the show or quoting from Eminem's new album. Yes there are many amongst us who don't think it is the least bit wrong to be listening to Eminem and watching sitcoms, but for those of us who do, we ought to be watchful.

Apart from the endorsement that we might be giving pop culture, methinks biblical doctrines are often taught incorrectly due to the use of inappropriate references. For example, the pastor of the Neo-Calvinistic church that I visit sometimes in Brisbane has often used the loyalty and brotherly love that he has found in Chinese gangster movies as a reference to the sort of brotherly love that we ought to show to each other within the covenant community. The proper differences between the two were never touched on. 

In general, I think there is a place for pop culture references, albeit some that are common enough so that most people can relate to them and would not end up with the endorsement of pop culture in general or misrepresented doctrines.


----------



## Michael Baun

Great sermons may have been preached many many years ago or be preached twenty years from now. I myself do not benefit from pop culture in sermons, perhaps others do. I am interested in exactly what these benefits are - maintaining interest, illuminating the truth of a passage of scripture, encouragement, exhortation, etc.


----------



## BJClark

Ne Oublie;



> I am wondering and interested in what you all think about referencing pop culture in sermons? (e.g. movies, songs, art, tv, sports, and things similar)
> 
> I have heard some others thoughts but would like to hear more and I would really appreciate to hear from both laymen and Elders\Pastors.



It would depend, like others I've heard some sermons' that spent more time talking about the culture than God, and the preachers didn't even relate it to the scriptures..


however, if for example your teaching on idol worship, you could certainly relate it to pop culture and how so many of people idolize various tv and movie/sports stars or even friends...

Or peer pressures and how doing things to please others when it goes against what God says..we should always follow God, as we should fear God more than man..

so it can certainly be related..if your reading something in scripture and can look to something going on in society today that brings the point out more, then by all means share it..

there are many people out there who don't see how scripture written 2000+ years ago applies to them or society today..


----------

