To entertain or to edify?

One of my favorite United Methodist clergy-bloggers, Andrew Thompson, has been blogging again lately, bringing us more of his usual thought-provoking fare.

Most recently he is engaging with a New York Times article on preaching - here is an exerpt:

He's talking about preaching. And what he means is that congregations want to be entertained rather than edified. They want a 'feel good' gospel rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ. He relates an experience from his own ministry, where an oversight committee of laity once instructed him to keep his sermons to 10 minutes, with a heavy dose of funny stories and an eye to sending the congregation home feeling better about themselves at the end.MacDonald says that religion has become a "consumer experience." And that like all choices we make about what to consume, our choices about worship are increasingly aimed at obtaining a product that makes us feel better -- like we got our money's worth, so to speak...

Thompson goes on to offer some thoughts based upon his own experience and to some extent agrees with MacDonald but not entirely.

What do you who listen to or preach sermons think? Is there a pressure on the preacher to entertain even more than edify? If so, from whence comes this pressure? (Neil Postman's exellent book Amusing Ourselves to Death certainly has something to say about this, as he argues that all forms of public discourse - including preaching - have been reduced to "entertainment" in our culture; I recommend every preacher read it).

It seems to me that (among really earnest preachers of Christ) there is a tension between the desire to address people on a level that they can grasp and comprehend on the one hand, and pushing them to rise to "the next level" of understanding on the other. Though perhaps we may sometimes underestimate the understanding of our hearers.

I've noticed that many preachers (often including me) steer away from the theologically dense writings of Paul offered by the Lectionary in favor of the simple narratives of the Gospels in their preaching. Does this stem from a fear that Paul - while offering lots of theological meat - is "too dull" or "too abstract" for most folks in our culture to pay attention to? Is such a fear justified? Or does this fear show a lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to capture hearts and minds through the proclaimed Word of God?

Has the Holy Spirit ever made mighty use of a meager sermon in such a way that gives you hope for the church's future?