Sermon competition evaluations

Evaluation of RWillis's First Round Sermon

Criterion 1: The element of personal transformation was clearly appended as a contrived afterthought to this sermon. I remain wholly unconvinced that RWillis's economic ideology actually derives from Acts. This earns a score of 1.

Criterion 2: I think RWillis exercises due creativity in interpreting the cited passages. This earns a score of 3.

Criterion 3: I agree that these words of Acts contain grains of socialist ideology. This earns a score of 3.

Criterion 4: This is no confessional. This earns a score of 1.

Criterion 5: I remain completely unmotivated to turn to the Word of God to improve my life based on this sermon. RWillis is blatantly using the pulpit as a political soapbox in the style of Jerry Falwell. This earns a score of 1.


Total Score: 9

Evaluation of Whodey's First Round Sermon

Criterion 1: The sermon does convey that some sort of transformation has take place, although it's hardly clear what that transformation was and how it was brought about by the Word of God. This earns a score of 2.

Criterion 2: Whodey was wise in choosing a passage from Revelation, as that book lends itself easily to creative interpretations. This earns a score of 3.

Criterion 3: Who know what Revelations is really supposed to mean. I suppose this interpretation is as authentic as any. This earns a score of 3.

Criterion 4: Whodey succeeds in making this a personal account. This earns a score of 3.

Criterion 5: I wasn't really motivated to turn to Revelations for inspiration or personal improvement. This earns a score of 2.


Total Score: 13

Evaluation of Whodey's First Round Sermon

This sermon attempts to meet each of the criteria, but falls just short on each one. It's not really clear what the transformation was, how the verses have personal meaning or why I should be compelled to seek improvement through the Psalms.

Total Score: 10

In my estimation, Pawnhandler is the clear winner of the first round.

Thanks to all the participants. Following are my evaluations:

Hand of Hecate -
I have to say you met almost all of the criteria very well. You stayed on topic, used a confessional mode and were creative and very persuasive. I could easily picture you up there at the pulpit, sweating and trembling with emotion (or whatever) as you deliver this sermon. It was the part about keeping the integrity of the passage that lost you about a billion points. Nevertheless, it was entertaining and possibly useful as marital aid.

All kidding aside, this was a good, old-fashioned style bible-thumping. It’s the sort of sermon that draws people who want to get caught up in the moment– to not think but to just feel. Despite your tongue-in-cheek topic, you use repetition and emotional words and phrases in a powerful way. Any preacher who wants to engender change in people has to first move them emotionally before engaging them intellectually and would do well to imitate your format.

vistesd -
Now this was an interesting and thought-provoking bit. You did a terrific job of illustrating that love is all-encompassing, passionate, and powerful – a striding Amazon and not a passive and demure Venus. Nicely done.

This is a good example of a sermon that is intellectually engaging and your words have a nice rhythm. Poetic, almost and jarring in some spots (like “God doesn’t need to be stroked&rdquo😉. Some parts, like the last line, are very stirring. Yet, for me, it’s missing something that I can’t quite put my finger on. It feels more like a lecture than a sermon.

I know you mentioned in a later post that your submission wasn’t on topic and you wanted to withdraw it. I didn’t see it as off topic. I assumed you simply used a broader definition of “me” or self

epiphanehas –
Wonderful. Your sermon was moving, intelligent and kept to the criteria laid out by Kirksey. This sermon was well written, focused and honest – like it was written in your true voice.

The only suggestion I would offer would be to throw out the two paragraphs after the first sentence. It’s kind of a slow build-up to your point but I think your message commands more immediate attention when you start at the “Thousands of mediocre congregations…” part of it.

Pawnhandler –
Good use of confessional style preaching. You stayed well on topic, answered it thoroughly and movingly using the required one scripture passage. You were persuasive and creative, I thought, in using that passage to demonstrate that creation didn’t stop on the sixth day but goes on still.

whodey -
I like the way you use levity and current cultural references to draw your congregation and make your words feel relevant and immediate.

You did pretty well on all the criteria except staying on topic. In the 4th paragraph, you said “So what’s my testimony?” and I thought yeah, what is it? And I’m waiting for it and the answer never comes. You hint at it but leave the listener/reader frustrated. I wasn’t expecting you or anyone else to reveal deep, personal stuff on the internet but a certain level of “I was there and experienced something and now I’m here and better for it”. That was missing in your sermon, I thought.

rwingett -
When I was a kid I could guarantee that the nicer the day was outside, the longer the priest would talk. 🙂 However, you did ask forgiveness for the length of it so, ok.

Anyway, you present a unique argument logically and persuasively backed up by the scripture you chose. I found your points to be very enlightening which, in my mind, makes it a successful piece. However, like vistesd, I found it to be more like a lecture than a sermon. You make great points and give good food for thought but in a sermon, I’m looking for something to stir me – to inspire action or change in my behavior or thoughts.

Also, I felt that you were well on topic throughout because I thought you were talking about Christianity as the self made better by God’s word. I assumed you used a broader definition of the topic given. Until your last sentence which you seemed to throw in there just to make sure you hit the topic point. It was unnecessary and ended an otherwise strong piece on a weak note.

josephw -
I feel like you have a great deal to say and some excellent points to make. However your sermon lacks direction. You didn’t stick to one scripture and I didn’t get how you answered the topic. I would suggest to you that, in future rounds, you choose one point and think of it as a ray of light. That ray, put through a diffuser, goes all over the place and is weakened. But shone through a magnifying glass, it becomes focused and powerful. Your sermon should be the lens that magnifies and focuses your point for greater power.

Finally, I just want to say this has been very interesting to me as a guest judge. I appreciate the invitation, Kirksey.

I had considered doing a point system like Dr. Scribbles did but since we weren't going for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, I decided to stick to critiques. However, as I read and re-read these entries and gave thought to them, I felt that both epiphanehas and pawnhandler were clearly out front in terms of meeting the criteria and effectiveness with epiphanehas winning by a nose.

Would any of the judges care to wager which sermon killed (in a bad way) Bbarr?

Is it appropriate to thank the judges for their time? It couldn't have been easy to read all the sermons and write well thought out comments! I appreciate everyone's feedback, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. So thank you!