Many valid reasons could be offered in great detail.  Some would be that the freedom to practice sins, in public and private, are now socially acceptable.  These sinful practices are no longer called sin but are now called "alternate or different lifestyles."  To practice these sins one has to "change" the doctrinal points which govern the church.  Also, the internet has helped to get pornography into homes which would not have ever thought of having such in their homes.  And many do not want the responsibility of openly opposing such things.  Thus, they become susceptible to these influences, or at least yield to the influence within the church and choose to ignore them or refuse to condemn them.  These attitudes make it easy for that which is false to be taught and forced upon those who refuse to take a stand against anything.  And, surely, one reason is that preachers have not been attending to their God-given responsibility of preaching the whole counsel of God over the past 30 to 40 years.

The above conclusion may sound harsh or even untrue. But, before you quickly condemn this thought, give some careful reflection over the methods used in preaching and to the actual messages that you have heard from the pulpit.  What sound did the pulpit manifest?  Was it one of total respect for the church and the word of God?  Was it one where the word of God was proclaimed or was it simply talked about?

Preachers over the last fifty years, like N.B. Hardemen, Gus Nichols, G. K. Wallace, Guy N. Woods, Franklin Camp, Foy E. Wallace and B.C. Goodpasture to name a few, preached the word unlike many today.  

Those men of years gone by loved God’s word and wanted to create within others also this love.  To achieve this, they preached the word (II Tim. 2:4). They did not preach about the word; they preached the Bible.  These did not allude to a few scriptures here and there, but filled their messages with scriptures.  Once in the word, they stayed there explaining and comparing any and all scriptures dealing with their subject until the audience had been fully made aware of the meaning of the thought of passage being dealt with.

They dealt with subjects found in the Bible and they taught the whole truth about the subject.  Many times they would deal with any of the objections that one might raise concerning their subject and would give an answer to the argument (Jude 3).

These men did not take three unrelated points to a subject and speak for twenty to thirty minutes and feel as though they had earned their pay.  Neither did these make three to five illustrations from present day situations for each of the points they were trying to prove.  Usually, their illustrations came from God’s word and not today’s social columns.  Nothing is wrong with using illustrations unless the "sermon" has more illustrations than it does scripture.  The Bible is "all sufficient" for our needs and this would certainly include preaching, that it has ample illustrations in the Old and New Testaments to prove or illustrate any point of any sermon.

But if one objects to using these great soldiers of the cross for role models in preaching, then look to Jesus and the inspired apostles.  Jesus and the apostles referred to and used enormous amounts of the Old Testament in their preaching. 

The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapters five through six, has numerous Old Testament quotations with pertinent teaching and application of the same. 

When you listen to sermons today, it is easily discernable that a major difference exists been the sermons found in the Bible and them.  This fundamental lack of Bible preaching has laid the foundation for the "change agents" to sweep away many from the flock.  For when all one hears are illustrations and not the Bible, or if the Bible is not taught and explained, then people are susceptible to falsehoods.  Preachers are responsible for preaching and teaching God’s word.  And failing to do so has two drastic results: One, many will not become grounded in faith and can be led astray, and two, the preacher will be lost for failing to do his job.  When points like these are raised, preachers take offense.  None is intended.  But we, as preachers, need to sit back and examine our sermons’ content, methods of delivery, number of illustrations, etc.  Because it is very possible that we have become a part of the problem without realizing it.  We may have contributed to the problem by our sermon delivery.  It is quite obvious that somewhere some one has failed miserably.  Such is evident from the ease with which these change agents have swept away many individual Christians and even complete congregations.

Yes, I am aware that it is the "individual’s" responsibility to study and know the truth. But if such completely lies within the individual’s range, then what need is there of having a preacher? To preach only to the lost? No!

Perhaps the preacher’s role is seen in Acts 8. The Eunuch had some knowledge, but it was Philip who helped him to a greater appreciation for Isaiah 53.