The use of Pop Cultural references in Sermons.

[Christusregnat]

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

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

 

[Ne Oublie]

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

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

Would this be a linguistic pop cultural reference?

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

 

[Jared]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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..