Sermon competition evaluations

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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

This evaluation pertains to josephw, not Whodey.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
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!

Disqualification for blatant ass kissery before a verdict is rendered.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This evaluation pertains to josephw, not Whodey.

I read each evaluation carefully and I saw that that evaluation was mine.
No problem.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Conclusions

I found a nice blend of personal piety, community ethic, spiritual journey, and hope amidst troubled times in this first group of sermons. I hope all who took time to read them will find a couple of things. Firstly, I hope they will appreciate the wide range of ideas that people have around faith and religion. Secondly, I hope they will ...[text shortened]... ever wonder why sermons are so boring, just imagine doing a 30 minute sermon three times a week.

I do believe you and the other judges that have spoken up have
put as much into this as the writters, well done.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do believe you and the other judges that have spoken up have
put as much into this as the writters, well done.
Kelly

Will you be participating in the next round?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Will you be participating in the next round?

I'm going to try yes.
Kelly

Originally posted by kirksey957
The judges will use this thread to comment on the sermon entries that have been posted int he sermon competition thread. To review, the theme was "How God's word has made me a better person." They were limited to one passage and to "five minutes." The judges were looking for clarity of thought, creativity with Scripture and how they might be "won over" am, forget not the simple sinner who can work with his hands.

End of sermon. Amen.

May I make a suggestion for the next round if you go through with it.
Ask those that are planning on writting one suggest the topics they
would like to write about, the judges then can pick what one they would
like to see and everyone will write about that. Since everyone from
atheist to Christian and all other points of views may be wanting to
write one not all can share in some topics. It may be that you reject
all suggestions from the writers, but they may also give you some
ideas. Just a thought.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
May I make a suggestion for the next round if you go through with it.
Ask those that are planning on writting one suggest the topics they
would like to write about, the judges then can pick what one they would
like to see and everyone will write about that. Since everyone from
atheist to Christian and all other points of views may be wanting to
write o ...[text shortened]... all suggestions from the writers, but they may also give you some
ideas. Just a thought.
Kelly

I like the fact that the topic is preset. It makes you work harder to do it.

Also, the presupposition here is that you are to write a sermon that could be delivered in a church. I think it makes sense that an actual pastor set the boundaries around what kinds of messages are rhetorically appropriate to that setting.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
I like the fact that the topic is preset. It makes you work harder to do it.

Also, the presupposition here is that you are to write a sermon that could be delivered in a church. I think it makes sense that an actual pastor set the boundaries around what kinds of messages are rhetorically appropriate to that setting.

I do too, that is like the idea that is it preset so we can get different
flavors of how others view any certain topic. I think even the topic
suggestions would be some what revealing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
May I make a suggestion for the next round if you go through with it.
Ask those that are planning on writting one suggest the topics they
would like to write about, the judges then can pick what one they would
like to see and everyone will write about that. Since everyone from
atheist to Christian and all other points of views may be wanting to
write o ...[text shortened]... all suggestions from the writers, but they may also give you some
ideas. Just a thought.
Kelly

I've thought about blind-folding myself and opening a Bible to a page , putting the page on a wall and throwing a dart at it. Where the dart lands is the verse to be expounded and cogitated upon.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I've thought about blind-folding myself and opening a Bible to a page , putting the page on a wall and throwing a dart at it. Where the dart lands is the verse to be expounded and cogitated upon.

Your initial approach was perfect, please stick to that criteria. Plus, I was planning on taken a pagan religion approach to my next sermon, the bible would be irrelevant.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Your initial approach was perfect, please stick to that criteria. Plus, I was planning on taken a pagan religion approach to my next sermon, the bible would be irrelevant.

Actually, I was going to suggest to Kirksey that future topics should be presented in a way to include non-christian ideologies.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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 ...[text shortened]... political soapbox in the style of Jerry Falwell. This earns a score of 1.


Total Score: 9

One can only wonder if the judge's well known antipathy toward my choice of topics was an overriding factor in his evaluation. But as I knew in advance that I would be judged in part by an Objectivist Pharisee, I suppose I can blame only myself for failing to tailor my sermon to avoid conflicting with his well documented biases. Still, given the questionable nature of the judge's impartiality, one might have expected him to recuse himself from rendering a verdict in this case.

Originally posted by rwingett
One can only wonder if the judge's well known antipathy toward my choice of topics was an overriding factor in his evaluation. But as I knew in advance that I would be judged in part by an Objectivist Pharisee, I suppose I can blame only myself for failing to tailor my sermon to avoid conflicting with his well documented biases. Still, given the questionabl ...[text shortened]... rtiality, one might have expected him to recuse himself from rendering a verdict in this case.

To the extent that I commented at all upon the merits of the ideology expressed, it was to note that it fulfilled the requirement of remaining true to the intent of the verse. Otherwise, the actual ideology had no bearing whatsoever on the ratings.

I bested you once as a competitor; no need for me to leverage my position of power to do it again.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
To the extent that I commented at all upon the merits of the ideology expressed, it was to note that it fulfilled the requirement of remaining true to the intent of the verse. Otherwise, the actual ideology had no bearing whatsoever on the ratings.

I bested you once as a competitor; no need for me to leverage my position of power to do it again.

Your evaluation for points 1 and 3 contradict themselves, Herr Doktor.

Criterion 1: ...I remain wholly unconvinced that RWillis's economic ideology actually derives from Acts. This earns a score of 1.

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

How do you account for this discrepancy?