Talk:Homiletics

Non-Catholic homiletics?
Greetings. This article obviously focuses on the Catholic approach. There are other approaches, such as Jewish homiletics. Probably parts of this article should be merged with Sermon. And maybe this article should be set up as a spin-out from Sermon, i.e., in summary style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HG (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is written like an apology for homiletics. In WikiPedia the texts shouldn't be written like this, since it would be like an advertisement, and those are not accepted on WP either. I believe the claims in the text are correct, but the article should be rewritten to be WP:NPOV, so it should pinpoint who explains/uses homiletics this way, other interpretations/uses, problems (if existing), opposing views (if existing). The text is also christocentric, while in real life there are moslems, judaists, hinduists, buddhists and more in this world. If possible, this should be reflected. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what happens when people copy from a single dated and POV source. So you end up with sections like "Middle Ages - It has been commonly said by non-Catholic writers that there was little or no preaching during that time. So popular was preaching, and so deep the interest taken in it, that preachers commonly found it necessary to travel by night, lest their departure should be prevented. It is only in a treatise on the history of preaching that justice could be done this period. As to style, it was simple and majestic, possessing little, perhaps, of so-called eloquence as at present understood, but much religious power, with an artless simplicity, a sweetness and persuasiveness all its own, and such as would compare favourably with the hollow declamation of a much-lauded later period. Some sermons were wholly in verse, and, in their intense inclusiveness of thought, remind one of the Sermon on the Mount --Rumping (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the article is a total mess. Not only it lacks any reference to protestant homiletics (other than one mention of Karl Barth), but also its order is not understandable. A lot of facts are not suitable for WP, e.g. "notable French preachers". Eh? Someone with better English than mine clean it up, please. 139.30.62.62 (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is here because it was converted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as it says at the bottom and also incorporates info from the EB. The "Middle Ages" paragraph sounds particularly lame and needs rewriting. We have to start someplace. Student7 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Guys it's been 10+ years and this section of the article is still really poor. The tone and pov are wildly inconsistent with Wiki's house style. The discussion of 'the East' is Orientalist at best, verging on anti-semitic. I get it; the text y'all pulled from is Catholic and apparently from 1910. But to just lay down that Jews Love Ostentation Not Learning!! is a hell of a thing. I don't edit here bc it's honestly cliquey&I've had minor points on stuff I have grad degrees in deleted time&again, but those of you who hang here, please fix this. 82.37.218.159 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Relation to profane rhetoric
Rather than tag onto the discussion on Non-Catholic homiletics, I've added this new section. It may well belong as an extension of that discussion.

The contents below the heading on Profane Rhetoric fails to define the topic for the general reader, (such as myself). I was drawn to the article by way of the article on Billy Sunday ("By listening to [John Wilbur] Chapman preach night after night, Sunday received a valuable course in homiletics.") Either the topic heading should be changed, or a new paragraph added that defines "profane rhetoric".

GeeBee60 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Tone of "Preaching of the time" section
I've had several people flag me on Twitter (as "the Wikipedia guy" they happen to know) that this section reads to them as glaringly antisemitic.

Here in 2020, it reads like a cut'n'paste from a 19th century encyclopedia that was in the public domain - and I see that large chunks are sourced (and possibly cut'n'pasted) from the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. So that may be tone coming through from the tone of the times ... but it's unlikely to be good sourcing, or good WP:NPOV.

I'm not knowledgeable about homilectics - but I suggest the CE may not be a good or reliable source to make claims about Jews, and this section urgently needs revision - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I came to this page through a link from an article on Hasidic Judaism and, like other readers, found a discussion of Catholicism. Sadly I lack the knowledge to correct this deficiency, but if there is any reader who does have a scholarly understanding of Jewish ( or Islamic, or any other) homilitics, the improvement would be greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.5.187 (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)