Rethinking Preaching

I’ve heard it most of my life. Preachers explain their approach as seeking to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” It sounds bold. It gets loud “amens” though it provokes little reflection.

Why wrestle with complexity when you can fit your preaching philosophy neatly between a fish decal and a cross symbol on a bumper sticker?

Here’s why I think it’s the wrong take — and why it hurts more than it helps.

First, it’s usually presented as if it’s deeply biblical, maybe even lifted straight from Scripture in word or principle.

It’s not. The line traces back to journalist Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936), who used it satirically to critique self-righteous writers who thought their newspapers could fix the world — to “comfort th’ afflicted, afflict th’ comfortable.” It later made a cameo in the 1960 film “Inherit the Wind.”

In other words, it began as a newspaper quip. Not a prophetic mandate. It’s been used in politics and pop culture. It shouldn’t be used in the pulpit.

It’s no surprise that fundamentalists adopted it as a permission slip for legalistic preaching. The phrase gained traction in the early 1900s alongside the rise of the Scofield Reference Bible and the distribution of The Fundamentals. It’s still around today. And it’s still not a good approach to preaching.

Second, it elevates the preacher to a lofty position. 

Is the preacher able to discern who needs what? No.

Is the preacher somehow above these categories — not also in need of both comfort and correction? Also no. (Spoiler: pastors are people.)

While such preachers don’t claim the ability to read hearts — this phrase lets them sound like they can, splitting their message into two neat camps as if people were that simple.

Third, it presents a false dichotomy.

The phrase divides a congregation into tidy groups, those who need affliction and those who need comfort. Before we even ask whether those are biblical categories, notice how simplistic they are. Real congregations aren’t split down the middle like a game of “Red Rover” with saints on one side and sinners on the other.

People are complicated. On any given Sunday, the same person may need both a word of encouragement and a word of reproof — sometimes in the same sermon. And those deep in a sin struggle aren’t going to be shamed back to grace. That’s not how it works.

Prideful people still need encouragement. Humble people still need correction. And all of us are a mixed bag.

The “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” framework isn’t just oversimplified. It’s not biblical. And it’s not helpful.

Fourth, it’s not an effective way to reach people far from God. 

The Apostle Paul writes that it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). Yes, in his kindness he may use hardship — even affliction. But Paul didn’t say it’s God’s affliction that leads us to repentance.

If God, who perfectly knows every heart, chooses kindness as his stated strategy, how can a preacher with limited knowledge assume a better one? Preaching aimed at “afflicting the comfortable” often just hardens hearts and bruises tender consciences. That’s not revival. That’s collateral damage.

Finally, it’s not like Jesus. 

Did Jesus speak strong words to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Absolutely. But are those categories a good overlay for most gathered worshippers on an average Sunday? Not really.

I’d gently suggest that any preacher who repeats the mantra about afflicting and comforting pick up Gentle and Lowly: The Heart of Christ for Sinners and Sufferers by Dane Ortlund. Watch how Jesus speaks to suffering sinners and struggling disciples. Notice his posture. His tone. His heart.

Maybe Christ himself is a better model for preaching than a clever newspaper line from the early 1900s.

Just maybe.

————————————

Check out my new podcast Why I’m Not, a journey of verbal processing and theological reflection upon my experience in and through Christian fundamentalism.