Woody Hayes, legendary coach at Ohio State (1951-1978), ran an offense which the sportswriters dubbed “three yards and a cloud of dust.” When asked, “Woody, why don’t you ever throw a forward pass?” Hayes replied, “Three things can happen when you throw a forward pass, and two of them are bad.”

In that same vein, I would like to suggest: “Four things can happen when you alliterate, and four of them are bad.”

Alliteration, in ordinary writing, is the literary device of repeating the same initial sound or letter several times in rather close succession (e.g. ‘conspicuous consumption,’ ‘nattering nabobs of negativism,’ and ‘you draw attention to the speaker’s cleverness rather than the Scripture’s content’).

In homiletics, alliteration is most frequently used to convey the major outline points of a sermon.

There are times, of course, when alliteration is appropriate and effective in preaching. Succinct and accurate words can crisply communicate the concepts of a short outline—e.g., “Today we’re going to look at the cause and the cure of our problem.” (Note—crisply communicate the concepts, a serendipity.)

But when a sermon outline extends to multiple main points, the use of alliteration runs the risk of “four bad things.”

  • It may use a word nobody knows, and thus be unclear.

  • It may change the author’s meaning, and thus be biblically inaccurate.

  • It may highlight the outline more than the central truth and its relevance.

  • It may draw more attention to the cleverness of the speaker than to the truth of God’s word.

First, alliteration may cause the speaker to use a word nobody knows, and thus to be unclear. In order to sustain the same alphabet letter, the speaker searches his thesaurus. Unfortunately, the only word which accurately conveys his concept is a word few of his listeners are familiar with:


  1. The purpose of prayer

  2. The power of prayer

  3. The perspicacity of prayer

The speaker may be accurate with the text, but he is unclear to the listener.

Second, alliteration runs the danger of changing the author’s meaning. If the speaker resolves to alliterate with only familiar words, he may find himself finessing or manipulating the true meaning of the text in order to remain intelligible to the listener. The speaker may be clear, but now he is biblically inaccurate.


  1. Cooperative (17:17-24)

  2. Curious (17:25-27)

  3. Consistent (17:28-30)

  4. Courageous (17:31-37) V. Careful (17:38-40)

  1. Confident (17:41-47)

  2. Conclusive (17:48-51)

Cooperative ,” “consistent” and “careful” do not accurately reflect what is happening in the text. “Obedient,” “persistent” and “wise” come closer to describing David’s actions in those verses.

Worse than changing the meaning of a small paragraph within the text, alliteration sometimes violates the author’s entire flow of thought as the speaker turns the biblical “progression” of ideas into an artificial “list” of parallel points.

It is doubtful that the author of I Samuel said to himself as he came to chapter 17, “I will now write about the seven characteristics of leadership.” Such an approach to preaching is far from the intent of the author—i.e., a young man from the tribe of Judah, believing the covenant promises of God, finishes the task God gave his tribe by removing the ‘uncircumcised’ from ‘Gath’, thus qualifying himself for leadership among God’s people.

Alliterated “list-preaching” not only violates the author’s theological intent, but also inevitably presents supposed “truths” which are easily contradicted elsewhere in Scripture. Abundant examples could be found of biblical leaders who are uncooperative (Peter refusing the Sanhedrin), inconsistent (Joshua changing strategy at Ai), fearful (Gideon preparing for the Midianites), rash (Jonathan charging the Philistine outpost), and uncertain (Daniel’s friends explaining to Nebuchadnezzar).

Alliteration runs a third danger. Not only may it lead the speaker to be unclear or unbiblical, it also suggests to the listeners that the most important thing in the message to remember is the outline. It subtly says to the listeners, “Get this outline! Remember it!”

But what the listeners really need to “get” is the central truth and its relevance for their lives. They should walk away from the message, not with an outline, but with an awareness of how a biblical truth bears on their life. Their minds should be en- gaged, not with “points,” but with how they, in some concrete way, are going to think or act differently as a result of their time with God.

Worse yet, the alliterated outline, which has been unwisely highlighted, all too often is “content-less”—it communicates no content. If the listeners do manage to remember the points, they still don't know anything.


  1. The process for preaching

  2. The practice in preaching

  3. The product of preaching

Taken from I Thessalonians 1:4-8, the speaker’s message conveys the following thoughts:

  • When preaching the gospel, we must remember that God elects and the power of the Spirit saves.

  • We must practice what we preach.

  • The gospel cuts through human suffering, causing joy and growth.

But none of these thoughts are accessible by remembering the outline. The alliterated outline terms are unnecessary “middle-men” which the listeners must mentally jump over in order to form the concepts in their mind.

If remembering the outline is important, a non-alliterated, ‘content-full’ set of points (i.e., in complete declarative sentences) would be more effective:


  1. We don’t need to sell it.

  2. But we must live it.

  3. It will change lives.

The final “bad thing” that can happen when we alliterate is that the listeners’ attention may be drawn more to our cuteness and cleverness than to the truth of God’s word. They may appreciate our skill more than they absorb God’s message.

The words of an ancient divine still ring true: “No man can at one and the same time give the impression that he is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.”

Alliteration? We could say:

  • It misproffers.

  • It misleads.

  • It misdirects.

  • It mishonors.

But it seems better to say:

  • It may be unclear.

  • It may be unbiblical.

  • It may highlight the outline more than the truth.

  • It may draw attention to the cleverness of the speaker.

Dr. Don Sunukjian is Professor Emeritus of Christian Ministry & Leadership, Talbot School of Theology.

To study with Dr. Sunukjian, consider applying for his Doctor of Ministry cohort at Talbot School of Theology. Click here for information.