Occasionally, I hear that listening to my sermons is like trying to drink from a fire hydrant. Although I'm not sure whether that's a compliment or a correction, it has prompted some reflection.

There are two ways of thinking about sermons. One is that they should be very streamlined in content, conveying only vital information to know and apply. The idea is that people only learn on a "need to know" basis, and that extraneous information hinders real learning. 

I think there is some wisdom in this, which I probably need to heed more. (Although, believe me, I really do leave out some things I would love to say!)

Preaching's Frequent Emptiness

On the other hand, the most frequent complaint I hear about the general tenor of preaching today is that it's so shallow and hollow. Since I don't hear many sermons, this is difficult for me to judge.

But some of my non-preaching friends tell me that most sermons they hear are just repackaged pop psychology, or how-to/self-help sermons with a few proof texts for "biblical support." Thoughtful exposition; deep, heart-focused application; and careful reflection on the relationship between the gospel and culture seem to be in short supply. While some people actually want heavy content, they have a hard time finding it.

Preaching's Overlooked Cleansing

But is it possible for the listener to grasp a detailed exposition of a biblical text with multiple application levels? Shouldn't we keep it simple? Yes, but sermons not only benefit people through what they learn and remember but also through the Word's sanctifying influence. 

After all, water is useful not only for drinking but also for bathing. A person who has difficulty drinking from a fire hydrant could benefit from its gushing outpour by washing. And don't we all hear the preached Word not only as thirsty people needing to drink but also as filthy people needing to be cleansed?

Jonathan Edwards seemed to think so. Writing in another context (the Great Awakening) to answer those who objected that more preaching was not helpful because all of the sermons could not be remembered, he said: 

"The frequent preaching that has lately obtained, has in a particular manner been objected against as being unprofitable and prejudicial. It is objected that, when sermons are heard so very often, one sermon tends to thrust out another; so that persons lose the benefit of all. They say, two or three sermons in a week is as much as they can remember and digest. Such objections against frequent preaching, if they be not from an enmity against religion, are for want of duly considering the way that sermons usually profit an auditory. The main benefit obtained by preaching is by impression made upon the mind at the time, and not by an effect that arises afterwards by a remembrance of what was delivered. And though an after-remembrance of what was heard in a sermon is oftentimes very profitable; yet, for the most part, that remembrance is from an impression the words made on the heart at the time; and the memory profits, as it renews and increases that impression" (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. I, 394, emphasis added).

In other words, Edwards viewed preaching as beneficial more for its power to change hearts on the spot. But that won't happen unless the message is thick with biblical exposition and heart application. 

Conclusion

So if someone says that listening to your sermons is like drinking from a fire hydrant, encourage them to submit their soul to the Bible bath they are receiving. Challenge them to drink in what they can. Even if they miss a lot of the information and fail to record some points, remind them that there is probably no more sanctifying thing they could do than sit under God's Word.

A fire hydrant, after all, may be a welcome sight to someone caked in mud and wanting to be cleansed. I, for one, need and want frequent baths.