This post is part of a series of posts. Be sure not to miss part 1, part 2, part 3, part4 and part 5.

Thank you everybody for participating in the discussion.

“The medium is the message.” What that means is that the content of a particular medium is not necessarily the most important thing. TV influences and changes our lives much more than the actual content of what comes through the TV. Thus the medium through which the content is presented, is just as important as the content itself.

Of course truth remains truth no matter what way it’s presented. But we’re talking about communication here. I don’t know how this conversation got sidetracked. The presentation doesn’t change the truth, but it changes “the truth that is being conveyed” or the message. And it can change it in a way that it becomes an untruth that is being conveyed. The message is no longer true.

Check this out. What does that communicate? If anything it communicates “God may not really be love because Daniel isn’t saying it like he really believes it.” If I communicate “God is love” in a really boring way, it doesn’t change the truth, but it does distort it. You might say, “truth speaks for itself.” “A boring sermon is still good as long as it speaks the truth.” These statements have NO meaning. A message depends on a speaker and a listener. If the speaker says one thing, and it is interpreted by the listener as something else, no message has been communicated. There is a breakdown in communication. No truth has been communicated. That is basic communication theory. There is a speaker, a medium and a listener. Every part of this equation is important to communication.

You can’t say, “As long as the speaker intended to speak the truth it’s good enough.” No it’s not. If a teacher is supposed to teach history but presents history in such a way that everyone fails the final, the teacher did not do his/her job. In the same way, if a pastor preaches a boring sermon and people go away not learning anything, the pastor should not have preached that sermon.

Watch that video clip again. Is that genuine? Is that authentic? Is that true? The problem is that boring sermons do not bring people closer to God. They are anything but genuine. They are anything but authentic. They are fake and shallow. Boring sermons may not be “hyped up” but they are definitely false.

“What about a preacher that has a good heart but does not have talent?” Well it depends if he is talented enough to convey authenticity. If the pastor cannot even convey that he believes in the truth himself, then no, get him off the pulpit. If the pastor is boring, but can at least convey his authenticity, then he is not completely void of talent and there may be something redeemable about the sermon. But some sermons are so boring that people don’t even listen to them. They tune out. In that case, nothing can be conveyed. Even authenticity cannot be conveyed because nobody is listening. That sermon should not be preached.

The medium influences the message that is conveyed A LOT. The message conveyed through a preacher preaching “God is love” in a really boring way can have the same effect as someone saying, “God is not love.” Remember, I never said, “boring sermons are not true.” I said “boring sermons distort the truth.” I don’t think there can be any question that boring sermons DO distort the truth.