Hand of Hecate
1.Integrity with the passage 33/33
2.Creativity 7/33
3.Convincing manner 12/33
4.Score: 52/99
I was disappointed. The most creative portion of this was the scene-setting before and after and since it wasn’t part of the sermon, I disregarded it. Without that, you have a sermon that keeps with the integrity of the passage and is technically well written, but pedestrian.
Your entry in the Fire & Brimstone round of last series of competition was terrific and that is what you should try to get back to.
vistesd
1.Integrity with the passage 30/33
2.Creativity 33/33
3.Convincing manner 27/33
4.Score: 90/99
This is beautifully written. You’ve painted an idyllic picture and as observance of nature often leads to contemplation of spiritual matters, you skillfully bring the congregation right along with you. You offer a creative and surprising interpretation of the verse you chose and a convincing argument for it.
The criticism I have it that you took a great deal of time to get to your point. You could have left out 50% of the wildlife in your build-up without sacrificing anything you're saying. It would be more evocative and effective.
That said, this is a stand out among the entries and gets my vote as the winner of this round.
Originally posted by MimorMimor, would you mind if I did my evaluation the same way you did? I was trying to figure out how to rate them on the scale of 1-100. If you don't mind me using your approch it would help me out seeing as this is my first time judging.
Since Kirksey gave us 3 criteria for judging, I divided them into 33 points each to get close to 100 points. Although there were only 4 entrants, there is good stuff here however, I would advise all present and future competitors to be careful not to let what you’re saying get lost in the way you’re saying it.
Following are my evaluations.
Originally posted by pritybettaNot at all.
Mimor, would you mind if I did my evaluation the same way you did? I was trying to figure out how to rate them on the scale of 1-100. If you don't mind me using your approch it would help me out seeing as this is my first time judging.
I have just read aloud to my wife the three sermons of my competitors here, and would like to make the following points:
(1) Each of their sermons needs to be read aloud; Mimor’s cogent criticism of mine—that I spent far too much time on the nature allusions—touches on something deeper: my piece loses something if you read it aloud; editing (of the sort she suggests) would be necessary to recover the use of refrain, which gets lost in the overwriting.
(2) Reading them aloud, I got the following—
(a) Doc: Relies heavily on the shifting rhythms, with that fast-paced, hard-firing section in the middle, surrounded by what was—at least as I dramatized it aloud—the more sonorously paced beginning and ending sections. It reminded me a bit of Vachel Lindsay’s poem, “The Santa Fe Trail”. (If you read that poem all the way through, you might see what I mean.) That artful use of rhythm in a prose presentation really is the key to this one—I thoroughly enjoyed reading it (a bit histrionically, perhaps) aloud.
—I was really struck by the fact that RHP’s “lion of logic” used dramatic rhythm-shifts to make the point. When I read it aloud, I naturally picked up on those rhythms (without even thinking about it), and it just made it fun to read.
(b) Shav: The irony in this entry is the trite presentation of a fairly typical sermon-style in certain churches (at least as I have experienced them)—but with a “social gospel” twist! The presentation, it’s general language and cadences (complete with the affirmations from the congregation—which may be a concession to the reader here) is straightforward. The questions it raises are not.
—I recall hearing a sermon in this style, where, at one point, the congregation dutifully responded with murmured Yeses and Amens—when the answer to the preacher’s rhetorical question was: No! When the preacher answered his own question with the appropriate negative, one could hear the congregation adjust: now murmuring No’s and shaking their heads...
(c) HoH: Aside from the fact that ya just gotta love the Reverend Blackhand (glad to see he’s still in the pulpit!, and I really enjoyed reading him aloud), and the “sermon within a sermon” construct (whether one likes that or not)—
—has anyone realized that the irony in this sermon hinges on a single word?! The whole narrative is like a jeweler’s cloth, artfully arranged to display that one (disconcerting) gem—on which the whole thing hangs. (I think that various Biblical texts are often intended to do the same thing, but that we, as readers, can get lost in the folds of the narrative “context”.) One would not expect the Reverend Blackhand to be so “light-fingered” in plucking the ironic double-take; and if one misses it, their “pocket” has been well-picked!
____________________________________
I am neither a judge nor do I intend to question their judgments in any way (as in the prior competition, I can see—with just two verdicts in so far—that we are blessed with insightful judges). I do not intend my comments here to influence anything. Yes, I think I generally write well; yes, Mimor’s criticism is right on the mark; but—my offering does not work nearly as well as spoken (as opposed to written) word.
And so, I suggest that these offerings need to be spoken aloud, if the judges and other readers have not already done so (they may well have). When I did that I really got how well-constructed each of the others’ sermons were, and how the construction served the irony in each case.
Originally posted by MimorSadly, I agree. I found myself intrigued by the history of Jericho and struggled tying this into a sermon. I also wanted to show a softer side of the Reveredn Billy Bob Blackhand. This drew me away from the fundamental strengths of the black sheep preacher who's flaws bring that much more to the presentation. I should have stayed simple.
Hand of Hecate
1.Integrity with the passage 33/33
2.Creativity 7/33
3.Convincing manner 12/33
4.Score: 52/99
I was disappointed. The most creative portion of this was the scene-setting before and after and since it wasn’t part of the sermon, I disregarded it. Without that, you have a sermon that keeps with the integrity of the passage and is ...[text shortened]... round of last series of competition was terrific and that is what you should try to get back to.
Still, I liked my choice of material Joshua, Jericho and that transitionary period of biblical history is quite interesting.
Edit: I'd point out that I was shizit faced from snorting large amounts of Irish Vodka when I typed my sermon (as I am now), but, as at least 2 of the remaining 3 competitors were likely similarly trashed, this is not likely to win me any points.
Edit2: Didn't I lose the Fire and Brimstone round? I plan on getting the Rev Billy bob Blackhand completely cranked for his next sermon.
Originally posted by vistesdI agree and dork that I am, I usually do so. However, I couldn't get to the sermons until I was at work today and so was inhibited. 🙂 Still, I tried to give them the thought they deserved.
And so, I suggest that these offerings need to be spoken aloud, if the judges and other readers have not already done so (they may well have). When I did that I really got how well-constructed each of the others’ sermons were, and how the construction served the irony in each case.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI believe I chose you as the winner for that round. Maybe I was in the minority.
Sadly, I agree. I found myself intrigued by the history of Jericho and struggled tying this into a sermon. I also wanted to show a softer side of the Reveredn Billy Bob Blackhand. This drew me away from the fundamental strengths of the black sheep preacher who's flaws bring that much more to the presentation. I should have stayed simple.
Still, ...[text shortened]... round? I plan on getting the Rev Billy bob Blackhand completely cranked for his next sermon.
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate...as at least 2 of the remaining 3 competitors were likely similarly trashed, this is not likely to win me any points.
Sadly, I agree. I found myself intrigued by the history of Jericho and struggled tying this into a sermon. I also wanted to show a softer side of the Reveredn Billy Bob Blackhand. This drew me away from the fundamental strengths of the black sheep preacher who's flaws bring that much more to the presentation. I should have stayed simple.
Still, ...[text shortened]... round? I plan on getting the Rev Billy bob Blackhand completely cranked for his next sermon.
Doc must’ve been stone-cold sober. But, as the poet (A.E. Housman) hath it: “Malt does more than Milton can...”.
Originally posted by MimorDork that I am, I didn’t think of it till my wife asked me to read them to her. 🙂
I agree and dork that I am, I usually do so. However, I couldn't get to the sermons until I was at work today and so was inhibited. 🙂 Still, I tried to give them the thought they deserved.
Sermon Evaluations
Shavixmir sermon has more the feel of an Old Testament pronouncement . Let this be a lesson to all those who question whether atheists “get it.” I found it to be clear and to the point, though I felt the first sentence about wanting to talk about politics was a little off and distracting. I might have said “I want to talk about the difficulty of being and feeling redemptive in a time of war.” I felt this was really what you were talking about. There were a few sentences that distracted from what you wanted to say, but I know you are prone to overemphasize at times to make a point. The “camel jockey” was one.
The first time I read it, I found the “amen” section a little annoying, but it seemed to work a little better on the other times I read it. I am curious as to how it felt for you to read it aloud. You were very clear and I think in integrity with the passage. Your style of repetition would work really well in a black church and you wouldn’t even have to supply your own “amens.” Good job. I give you an 85.
DoctorScribbles sermon was the most fun to read out of the group. He takes an unusaul twist in what is sometimes called “going with the resistence” in describing church as somewhat hell-like. Who would dare preach about how hell-like church is? The paragraph in caps would surely leave even Jonathon Edwards and Billy Sunday in the dust of God’s whirlwind. I wasn’t convinced about the faggotry and Muslims and all that, but that is my problem as it didn’t fit my theology. I found the greatest value of the sermon was the “backdoor” (apologies to the gay community) entrance to the idea of church being a less than pleasing place to be. Creative and engaging throughout. I assess your score to be 93.
Hand of Hecates sermon (I through out he beginning and end) had a very nice introduction with some historical context. I also like the imagery he used of the river behind them and the walls in front of them. He painted a nice picture. The theme of the sermon was absolute obedience to God’s will. I’m not sure if this is what Visteds was talking about , but I was going along fine until the part about “this part requires a commitment to carnage and obedience.” I guess I am a “soft Christian” and this seemed a little severe and distracted me the rest of the sermon. An interesting thing about these competitions is comparing one sermon to another. Put Shavixmir’s next to this one and you will have a very nice theological debate. Good job. I give you a score of 85.
Visteds reflection on his awareness of nature and being in connection with the many aspects of creation was very well done. They say the mark of a good sermon is one that stays with you throughout the week. I had the chance to try this one on as I took my hike through nature with my pack. The intriguing thing about his style is that it runs parallel to his message. Very meditative and serene. The Unitarians would love this kind of message/reflection. As I compared Shav’s and Hand’s sermon side by side, I also put Visteds’ and Doc’s sermons next to one another as a “compare and contrast.” One was a “here and now” awareness and the other was a fear for what might happen to you. I guess it depends on what pew you want to sit on. Doc’s was a very hard pew and this one was very soft. So the question is for all four sermons is “how do you want you God to be?” Well done. I give you a score of 98.
Originally posted by kirksey957The intriguing thing about his style is that it runs parallel to his message. Very meditative and serene.
Sermon Evaluations
Shavixmir sermon has more the feel of an Old Testament pronouncement . Let this be a lesson to all those who question whether atheists “get it.” I found it to be clear and to the point, though I felt the first sentence about wanting to talk about politics was a little off and distracting. I might have said “I want to talk about ...[text shortened]... for all four sermons is “how do you want you God to be?” Well done. I give you a score of 98.
Thanks, Kirk. That’s quite a compliment. I really just write from where I am, and see if I can make the pieces fit.
I haven’t got the talent for irony that those other guys have. And we all know that I absolutely cannot do fire & brimstone.
Yeah, “carnage” was the word I had in mind in Hand’s sermon. It was like the snake in the woodpile. Take that word out, and you have a pretty staid, well-stacked but run-of-the-mill sermon about obedience to God—which would surprise me coming from either HoH or the Rev. BBB. Now, can’t you just hear Will Campbell—in his droller style of speech—slipping that in: “God is our salvation and to claim this promise requires a commitment to carnage and obedience”? Will would’ve have drawn it out, though. He would’ve sharpened the challenge to his audience, especially if they were members of his own SBC—
“Well, some of my Baptist brethren seem to rest in the comfortable and complacent thought that God would never ask us to commit carnage of any kind. Would he? Does our God approve of any of the carnage committed by human against human that we see in our times? If so, which carnage? If some preacher were to stand in some pulpit and declare that Christ wants you to kill your neighbor and your neighbor’s children...? Would you believe? Would you obey? And who are our neighbors? Are they only Christians? Are they only Baptists? How near must our neighbor be, to be our neighbor—near in both place and likeness? I remember when many of my Baptist brethren did not consider a black man, or a black woman, or a black child to be their neighbor. And so they chose not be a neighbor to those whom they saw as living outside the ‘neighborhood’. I remember when white Baptists and black Baptists could not meet together in the same church; it was the Episcopalians who let us into their churches.* And some of my Baptist brethren were not unwilling to lay in wait with rope for a lynchin’. And it wasn’t only my Baptist brethren; it was other ‘Christians’, too.
“And if we are complacent in the face of carnage committed by others? To whom are we to be a neighbor? How about to that swarthy-skinned Muslim man lying beaten in the ditch over there? How about to that homosexual man dragged half to death behind somebody’s pickup truck, and left to bleed by the side of the road? How about to that person dying of AIDs? How about to that person who maybe even wants to ‘crucify’ me?
“I am so glad that my Southern Baptist brethren are quick to tell women their place, in order to abide by the Bible; now I am waiting for them to instruct us about neighboring to our neighbor as the Samaritan did.** As we strain at the Biblical and doctrinal gnats to ensure our personal salvation—maybe we should remember that to be a Christian is also to be a neighbor to whomever is left lying in the ditch, a victim of whatever carnage.
“Now, I am a farmer. And if one of my goats is injured and lying in the ditch, I do not ask first how he got there. I do not ask if it was his own dumb fault. I do not ask if he was a baaad goat who deserved what he got. I do not even first make sure that he is my goat and not my neighbor’s. I just try my best to take care of him. How can I call myself a follower of Jesus Christ if I do less for my fellow human beings?
“I do not pray to a God of carnage. I pray to a God of love and forgiveness and grace and healing. I pray to a God whose justice and faithfulness (as John tells us) is to forgive. I pray to a God whose judgment is to heal (salvation means healing). I pray to the God who, like the Samaritan, lifts me out of the ditch even when I cannot speak his name, or declare my belief, or ask for grace; the God who searches for me when I am lost, even if I do not know that I am lost, and so cannot ask to be found. I pray to the God who asks me to do the same whenever I see anyone lying helpless in the ditch, without askin’ how they got there, or whether they believe anything at all.
“What God do you pray to? The ‘God of the Bible’, you say? Well, the folks who wrote the Bible books have lots of things to say about God. Now, don’t go strainin’ at them gnatty jots and tittles. I got a simpler way for you to answer the question. It’s just like when the folks asked Jesus who their neighbor was. He turned that question around. Will you be a neighbor to the person in the ditch, just as the Samaritan was, without questions or conditions? How you answer that question will tell you what God you pray to. Because whatever God you pray to will always be the one you hear sayin’, ‘Go and do likewise’.”
—Well, I certainly don’t have Will’s voice. But I don’t think he would disagree...
_________________________________________
* Will did say this.
** Will actually did say something close to this once, but I can’t recall his exact words—it was clear, however, that he was dripping irony.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'd like to say that I entered the competition without actually having heard a sermon for something like 30 years or so.
My sermon was two-tracked in its sarcasm:
The first being the obvious attack on US foreign policy which is led by a self-proclaimed Christian, the second being that, according to me, Jesus actually comes away with a pacifism which is unusable in reality, if followed to the extreme.
However, whilst I was writing it, I did manage to convince myself that the examples of turning the other cheek, would probably have been a better alternative for the US to follow and certainly wouldn't have been worse.
-----------
I like the concept of "situation - conflict - resolution", I think Duecer says, we should adhere to for the sermon. It's very much like problem analysis.
And I'll certainly make sure my next sermon incorporates personal examples. I see what you mean by that it makes it all the more personal.
What's the next subject?
Originally posted by vistesdI probably should have developed the "carnage" aspect of my sermon more than I did. Looking at it again, I could have worked it into a more compelling arguement that victory/success lay through a willingness to do anything that God asks us to do.
[b]The intriguing thing about his style is that it runs parallel to his message. Very meditative and serene.
Thanks, Kirk. That’s quite a compliment. I really just write from where I am, and see if I can make the pieces fit.
I haven’t got the talent for irony that those other guys have. And we all know that I absolutely cannot do fire & brim ...[text shortened]... this once, but I can’t recall his exact words—it was clear, however, that he was dripping irony.[/b]
I do find the scorched Earth policy that seems prevalent in the OT interesting. I am always left with the lasting impression that if you weren't on of God's chosen people, you were expendable. Much of the OT isn't about bringing others into the flock, but, preserving God's people by putting all those in your way to the sword. Interesting the fundamental shift in perspective/approach with the coming of Jesus.
I do think, as much as we may not like it, my sermon has a valid message. We do live in tough times and, perhaps, the best way to make our way through is to crush everyone and take what we need. Charity is a luxury of the wealthy and it is best that any charity starts at home.
In a related observation, I am astounded that we give billions away to aid other countries, spend millions on disability aid to the morbidly obese and yet throw the blinders on to allow our own citizens to wallow in illiteracy, suffer abject poverty and otherwise fall ignored to the wayside. I often think that we've got our priorities so far out of wack we'd have to get lost just to find them again. Put a couple of fat pigs to the sword and burn a few criminals at the stake and watch the rest of them straighten up.
“We do not have a money problem in America. We have a values and priorities problem.”
Marian Wright Edelman
Originally posted by pritybettaAre we going to see your evaluations or are you punting on this one?
Mimor, would you mind if I did my evaluation the same way you did? I was trying to figure out how to rate them on the scale of 1-100. If you don't mind me using your approch it would help me out seeing as this is my first time judging.