My last post on the dangers of the family anecdote and the philosophical introduction jogged memories of other bad homiletical approaches, so while I’m at it, here are three more.

1) The Moving Personal Experience. I hate these, because they are inevitably boring, but you feel obligated to be sympathetic—a rotten position for a congregant to be in. The preacher attempts to convey to you some event, moment, insight of his; he rhapsodizes about its transformative effect; he invites you into it. You can’t go there, because it’s not the time or the place or the person, so at best it’s like hearing someone tell a joke when he can’t remember the punchline, but asking you to believe that it really is hysterically funny. A particularly annoying subcategory of the M.P.E.: My Trip to the Holy Land. In the end the whole approach is arrogant—usurping the pulpit to convey the preacher’s own take on life instead of proclaiming God’s word.

2) Secondary and Tertiary Reflections on the Spiritual Life. This is kind of like the philosophical intro, except in this case it’s assuming a spiritually homogenous congregation that makes the same mistakes and needs the same corrections. It never gets to the actual Scripture or any word of God, because it can only make derivative suggestions for ecclesiological improvement. “None of us prays as we ought. Let’s recommit ourselves to a life of prayer.” (Maybe someone out there does pray as she ought. Maybe the people who aren’t praying as they ought are unlikely to start doing so because the preacher is passive-aggressively pressuring them into it!) “I don’t know about you, brothers and sisters, but I find the mercy of God hard to comprehend.” (Why are you pitting your comprehension against theirs? Why are you talking about your personal struggles from the pulpit? Is this God’s word or yours?) “This is how we need to start reading the Bible.” Rather than suggest it—do it!

3) Instruction on How to Make the World a Better Place. You shall know the tree by its fruit, but no tree bears fruit because it got hounded or guilted into it by someone with a cause. I don’t care how worthy the cause is—whether preservation of our planet from our greedy habits, or the feeding of the poor, or defending the lives of the unborn—the pulpit is not your soapbox. Let me make clear that I am not opposed to moral teaching. What I am opposed to is platforming—spelling out for your captive audience what they can and should be doing to make the world a better place, with a subtle “show how much you love God”guilt trip tucked into the mix. The sermon is not the place for tips on recycling or writing letters to your senator. This kind of thing is another instance of tacit clericalism, for there are lots and lots of Christians out there with far more expertise on matters of law, civic duty, public policy, and media engagement than the preacher will ever have. These lay Christians should lead the way in protecting and improving the world. Preachers need to stick to their own expertise: declaring the word of God that condemns sin and grants new life through faith in Jesus Christ.