by Thom S. Rainer 28 Dec 2004

The data is clear on the importance of preaching to the formerly unchurched. But how do the sermons of leaders of unchurched-reaching churches connect? My research team and I desired to hear from the pastors on that key issue.

We conducted follow-up interviews with the leaders of unchurched-reaching churches after they completed the extensive survey we sent them about their preaching style. Their responses could be categorized with five significant adjectives: biblical, relevant, transparent, illustrative and well prepared.

More than any other factor, the leaders of these churches insisted that their sermons must first be biblical. This issue carries several possible connotations, but the leaders were clear on their meanings.

First, a biblical sermon means that the Bible's authority is sufficient. We have already heard from these pastors regarding their high view of Scripture. Almost all of these leaders' theology of Scripture could be described as conservative and evangelical.

Second, these leaders are determined that the biblical text must be the focus of the sermon. Even if the sermon is topical with several passages, "the biblical text is the authority," one Evangelical Free Church pastor insisted.

Finally, a majority of the pastors told us in unsolicited comments that it is important to provide a good contextual understanding of the passages from which a sermon is preached.

"I believe it's important," noted an Alabama Southern Baptist pastor, "that if you preach from one of Paul's letters, you must understand the times in which Paul lived. You cannot know the passage fully without knowing the times in which it was written."

While the leaders of these effective churches would never compromise the biblical foundation of the sermons they preached, they also knew that the messages must connect with the hearers in their life situations. Indeed, "relevant" was an adjective used frequently by these pastors when speaking about preaching.

I personally interviewed a nondenominational pastor from North Carolina who spent hours each week collecting articles on current events and lifestyle issues. While he did not compromise the biblical integrity of the passages from which he preached, he was determined to make the ancient words relevant to the everyday lives of the listeners.

"I get more comments about how I apply the texts to the people's lives than any other aspect of the sermon. I've also discovered that they remember the passages better when I make them relevant to where they are."

We asked some of the leaders if they felt any tension between biblical faithfulness to the text and relevancy to the listeners' lives.

An Oklahoma pastor said, "Absolutely not. I've heard some of the debate between biblical and relevant or expositional and relevant, but I've never felt like it was an either/or situation. It's ludicrous to say that you can't have relevant preaching if you're giving a good exposition of the text. That's stupid. We don't have to make the Bible relevant. If we're faithful to the text, it can't help but be relevant."

"I don't use the pulpit as a place of personal confession," said a pastor from a Seattle-area church, "but I do let the people know that I'm like them, that I have struggles, that I'm human."

We heard the formerly unchurched on several occasions say the pastors that influenced them did not have a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

A Kentucky pastor told us the story of how he used himself as an illustration to show lack of patience.

"I moved the church to make some changes faster than they could handle," he said. "You could just sense the tension in the church. I realized I had made a mistake and needed to let the church catch its breath. So I told the people in my sermon on patience that I had been a poor example; I told them I needed to be more sensitive to them. Boy, was that well received!"

Many of the formerly unchurched shared with us about the transparency of the pastors of the churches where they eventually received Christ. This issue was critical to the formerly unchurched because many of them were "searching to see if anybody cared anymore, if anybody was real," Nancy A. of Virginia told us.

Of course the high visibility of the pastor, particularly in the role of preaching, was a factor in the formerly unchurched becoming Christians.

"I realize that every time I preach," said Henry M., a Nazarene pastor, "there are probably several lost people listening to me. If I'm not authentic, then they may think Christ is not real either. It's an awesome responsibility."

Both the formerly unchurched and preachers of the effective churches agreed that good sermons make effective use of illustrations. But the preachers were often careful to point out that the illustrations were not the central thrust of the message.

Leonard T., an Assembly of God pastor said: "Illustrations are important, but too many preachers build their sermons around them. The Bible passage must remain central."

Jarvis D. from Oregon said he spends a few hours each week finding good illustrations.

"I've been told that my preaching really connects with the unchurched. I think one of the reasons is the illustrations I use. You can tell the congregation really understands the passage better when a good illustration is used. Jesus did it in his preaching, and he's a pretty good example."

If time is a good measure, the leaders of effective churches prepare well for the sermons they preach each week.

By a ratio of greater than 5 to 1, the leaders of the effective churches spent significantly more time in sermon preparation than the pastors of the comparison churches. Effective preachers spent an average of 20 hours a week and comparison church pastors spent an average of two hours a week working on sermons.

What did the comparison church pastors do with the 18 hours of "extra" time that was not spent in sermon preparation? For the most part, they were counseling church members; visiting hospitals, homes, and nursing homes; performing weddings and funerals; and spending several hours each week telephoning absentee and inactive church members.

The pastors of the effective churches did not neglect these duties, but they did spread the work of ministry among the laity of the church.

Not long ago, I spoke to a large gathering of church leaders in the Midwest. The issue of preaching and its correlation to reaching the unchurched was the topic of discussion and debate. And when I presented the average hours spent in sermon preparation by the effective pastors, a few of the attendees responded with skepticism. In fact, one person challenged my findings rather vigorously. He also gave me the names and addresses of four churches where he promised me the pastors spent no more than five hours each week in sermon preparation. All of the churches, he told me, were growing significantly.

My response was polite, but I really had little interest in taking up his challenge. We already had the data on hundreds of churches. Even if his four examples were exceptions to our averages, our study would not be countered by only four churches. I determined that I would not worry about his challenge. It is not unusual for me to encounter at least one person who has trouble accepting the data I present in speaking.

But for some reason I could not get this man's challenge out of my mind. Realizing that it would not resolve his questions, I nevertheless wrote the four churches and asked them for the past five years' statistics on conversions, attendance, and membership. Three of the four responded; the results were interesting.

First, in some respects, my conference antagonist was right. All three of the churches had at least doubled their attendance in the five years I studied. If he was right in asserting that the pastors only spent five hours each week in sermon preparation, they had done so while increasing their attendance.

But the data immediately revealed something the questioner had not obviously considered: none of the three churches met our criteria to be an "effective church" (having at least 26 conversions a year and a conversion ratio of less than 20:1).

All three churches were indeed growing rapidly, but their source of growth was Christians moving from other churches to their churches. The leaders who spent an average of 20 hours per week in sermon preparation were in churches that reached the lost and unchurched.

One issue still lingers. For preaching to be effective, it must be heard, and the unchurched by definition are not in church. So how can preaching reach the unchurched? The formerly unchurched and the leaders of the effective churches gave us three responses to the question.

First, "unchurched" does not mean "never in church." Research has shown that one million atheists and agnostics attended church on Easter Sunday. It is highly likely that an unchurched person will "try" your church at some point. And, as we heard repeatedly from the formerly unchurched, their initial perception of the church is closely tied to the preaching.

Second, the effective preaching we have noted throughout this series of articles is a great motivator to those attending the church. The members are both motivated and convicted to invite the unchurched and to witness to them.

Finally, while these leaders spend significant hours in sermon preparation each week, they also spend significant time dreaming, seeking God’s vision, setting goals, and doing the work necessary to reach people for Christ. They are passionate about reaching the unchurched. It is this passion to reach people that often sets them apart from other leaders.

Read part 2 and part 1 of this series.