Nice job. I think it helps a lot when the sermon is so closely tied to current events. I think your point that “such faith isn’t manufactured overnight” can’t be stressed too much. It is tough to suddenly find Jesus in a disaster if you have not looked for him in the good times.

I can’t think of how to word this right, so I’m just going to hope you can figure out what I mean: I was a little surprised of the line, “We are the hope…the people of America and members of the human family around the world..” I would of guessed that “Christian” would of came in there somewhere (not that only Christians can provide hope). Some people take John 3:16 and say that they are saved because they “believe”. Then they go live their life like anybody else. They miss that to believe requires action. “Love your neighbor as yourself” comes to mind as part of this sermon. More hope should come from us because of who we follow and what we believe…more than because we are Americans and members of the human family (so aren’t the snipers).

Did this feedback feature get announced anywhere? I’m surprised there hasn’t been more folks taking advantage of having a virtual Bible Study whenever they want one (or am I abusing this feature?).

Roy,
Thanks. Certainly I meant that it is the Body of Christ both here and around the world that provides the hope. Where I branch out a bit is that I think that just as there are those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, the opposite is also true. That is, there are those who live like Jesus did (or try to) without consciously professing the Christian faith. I think the confusion of the folks on both sides of the aisle in Matthew 25 speaks to that, as does Jesus saying that many will say "Lord, Lord" and he'll respond, "Who are you?"

While we are not saved by our works, I do think it is by their fruit that we shall know them, not by the profession of their mouths. So I try to be careful in my language. I think God's call is for every human being to live as Jesus lived and according to the principles that Jesus taught.

So to single out professing Christians as the only ones who could carry the work of Christ to the world in a situation like this, is more than I wanted to say. Sometimes Christian evangelism is encouraging people to behave like Jesus before they ever come to believe what Christian faith teaches about the nature and origin of Jesus. Some people believe their way into behaving and others, I think, behave their way into believing.

I hope this makes some sense.

To your other question, no I haven't advertised this website feature here in Westford. Good idea. I didn't think of it. No, you're not abusing the feature. I love the opportunity to discuss. In one church I did a service where we did that as part of the service. It's great to have the feedback.

 
Great sermon, it plays well on emotion.
 
I don't mean to sound callous, but aside from the message of hope that Christian churches feel obligated to preach, we need to think about responsibility of action with N.O. The Jews seem to have figured this out long ago and reconciled it with religious teachings much better than Christians have. I digress. If you are told to flee Sodom and Gomorrah and not look back, then you should probably leave. Now I am not equating N.O. to S&G, nor am I equating but those people were told to leave. Many (not all, but many)of those who stayed in N.O. drove to the Superdome and had every intention of looting and creating havoc, regardless of the damage done by the storm. Americans love to believe that we are rescuing lily white virgins and poor, orphaned Websters when that is not the case. I truly feel sorry for those who were too poor or too sick to get out. I also feel that, regardless of the decision they made before the storm, people in trouble need to be helped. I am frustrated though by the talk about setting up a disaster relief fund for these people similar to the 9/11 fund. It was the choice/responsibility of those people to insure their own property and get themselves to safety (if possible), why do they deserve tax payer money for a failure to prepare? Any money we give directly to citizens based on this storm will encourage future acts of lunacy when other storms hit the U.S. "Just stick it out and we'll make $100k." I hope that some sense will prevail from this disaster once the realization hits of how preventable the human casualties were. I also agree that serious thought should be given to relocating N.O., not rebuilding it. If my tax money is going to be used, I want to vote!

All good points; and I agree "doing" is very, probably most, important. But I'm not sure you didn't go a bit too far. The story on the road to Emmaus can be read as, first Jesus revealed to them the scriptures as they walked, then he revealed himself. Or better, you only became the run-away slave because you knew she had been there before you. If you went through the trap door with no knowledge of the house's history, or had you been wrongly informed that the hidden room was used by pirates to hide their treasure, you would of had a totally different experience. Knowledge was necessary for you to understand the truth of it all.

Thanks again for this chance to "talkback".

Hi Anne, it's been a couple months since I've read your sermons. Shame on me because you feed me from afar through your website. Earth, air, fire, and water may be common pagan elements, but even they point back to the Creator. You made that point well with the sermon for World Communion. I look forward to your next epistle. Thank you.

I didn't missed an excellent sermon today, thanks to you posting it. I like the comparison between physical and spiritual birth. It allows me to not worry quite as much as to whether or not I'm born again (I never really felt like I was). But since I meet the qualifications of being spiritually conceived, I can at least take comfort in seeing myself in the development stage. I'll settle for that and not worry about popping out. That will happen in its own time, as long as I keep trying to develop.

Well I'm just finishing up my Sunday school lesson for next week and I based it on your "Why be Good" sermon. Thanks for the material. Two thoughts came to mind as I was working on this. One has to do with Satin's claim that Job only praised God because of all Job had. It always seemed to me more folks turn to God when they have needs, not when they have abundance. But I guess the point is the same, turning to God for material wealth or want isn't a good reason. The other thought is how you would do a sermon titled, "Why Not Be Bad"? A look at this from the opposite point of view, worshiping or praising God only because you are afraid of the penalty of not doing it. I'm currently of the opinion that you would not preach about the penalty of being bad. Is that opinion accurate? Note that I believe that doing good because you are afraid of the penalty of being bad is just as worthless as being good so that you can get a reward; and that you can't scare people into worshiping God. But shouldn't we hear both sides of the story?

Just finished reading last week's sermon. I think it is very cool how your sermon match my Sunday School lesson which match our Daily Walk reading which matched Wayne's 11:00 discussion which matched our small group discussion. Although I believe what I read in the Bible, it just makes it that much more real when everybody is talking about the same thing. Not to mention how much easier it is to understand the message with all the various points being made. I think our approach to the Daily Walk is working out great. Thanks.

Sorry for the late "talkback", I've been off-line for a week. So everyone knows where I'm coming from, I consider Anne more liberal than myself. But, here's why we can both co-exist very nicely (and have some great conversations): She asked in her sermon how she knows what she is stating is true. She answered that question, "From the Bible’s own pages". That being the same place where I'm looking for the truth, the liberal and the conservative can get along. I'd also like to add that being on the conservative side doesn't mean everything has to be taken literally. After all, Jesus taught in parables. They have no meaning without being interpreted. And yes, I may have a different interpretation now than several years ago. That doesn't mean the Bible was wrong several years ago, or that my understanding of it was wrong. The same part of the Bible can have several true meanings depending on who is reading it. Bottom line, being more of a conservative there are parts of the sermon I would say differently. But in the end, as long as we are both using the Bible as our source of discovering the truth, we'll end up in the same place.

Another reason that Roy and I can get along just fine is that he is gracious. He can challenge my interpretations without calling my faith or my moral character into question. That's what healthy dialogue should look like. Conservatives and liberals need each other...the Bible challenges both and we always need the reminder of the other view. Thanks, Roy!

At the risk of maybe just repeating myself, I felt the need to comment more specifically on sections of “The Bible Trap” sermon. When I stated that I considered it dangerous to not believe what the Bible said, that seemed to put a label of “conservative” on me. Not that I don’t think that is true, but I think some of the concerns of being a conservative may be over-played in the sermon. If my point is being missed, maybe by addressing specific points in the sermon, my point will be made clearer.
Also please note, I agree with a great deal of this sermon. Its bottom-line points at the end are perfect. I didn’t comment below on points I agreed with (where’s the learning or fun in that?).
Sermon said:
 As you head toward the more conservative end of the spectrum, you find the attitude which used to be my own…that the Bible more or less came straight from the mouth of God, through the pen of human beings but without any of their own contribution. At that end of the spectrum the Bible is literally what God meant to say to all people for all time; and because God spoke it all and God is infallible, there can be no errors. When it is seen as being the exact word of God for all people, it can’t be interpreted in terms of the culture or age in which it was written.
Response:
 I can think of it as what God meant to say for all time and still interpret it. Jesus forced us to have to interpret his teachings because he only taught in parables. The Bible can be true and still need to be interpreted. I find that perfectly acceptable. What I find disturbing is not believing what the Bible says because we don’t know how to interpret it or we don’t like our current interpretation. If we don’t like our current interpretation, don’t label it as ‘must not be true’. I prefer to label it as something I can’t understand right now. Using the puzzle analogy, if I can’t figure out where a puzzle piece fits in, I don’t decide it isn’t part of the puzzle. I put it aside until I put more pieces of the puzzle together and I finally can figure out where it fits in.
Sermon said:
       For the extreme conservative, opening the Bible is almost sure to scare the pants off of you because God is asking you to rise to a standard that none of us can possibly reach and the fires of hell await us for eternity if we don’t.
Response:
        Maybe it is just because I’m not an extreme conservative, but I don’t see why this statement is true. Even a very literal interpretation tells us that we don’t have to be scared because Jesus died for our sins. We don’t have to be perfect, but we do need to repent. The only reason I would be scared would be because I didn’t know the whole story. Or I know the whole story and realize I haven’t done as guided by the Bible.
Sermon said:
       There are some places in the Bible that I believe are truths told for all time in all places and other things that I believe were written for a particular historical context. I think the verse that says, “God is love,” is an example of the former and the prohibition against women having authority in the church is an example of the latter. Women in first-century Palestine were not given religious education, and I see Paul saying simply that those who haven’t studied their subject shouldn’t teach it. Once the doors of religious education were opened to women, the specific prohibition against women having religious authority goes away.
Response:
 This conservative agrees. In this example, you have great reason to interpret what Paul said as you did. Even a literalist can do that. I have problems when someone dismisses what the Bible says just because they disagree, or it doesn’t sound fair to them, or they simply don’t want it to be true or they simply don’t understand it.
Sermon said:
        There are 66 different books of all sorts of literary types, written by all sorts of people…most of whom did not know each other or even live in the same historical period. There is history, poetry, letters, sermons, proverbs, songs, myth, and fable. It is sometimes straightforward, sometimes symbolic.
Response:
        The sermon probably should have clarified that most of the New Testament writers probably did know each other and did live at about the same time. I do dislike the sermon explicitly saying that the Bible contains “myth and fable”. How does anyone know that? And how does anyone draw the line between “myth and fable” and what is true. It is a lot easier not to make a major mistake by simply taking the Bible as true. How can that harm me? I can see how picking and choosing what to believe can cause great harm.
Sermon said:
        The Bible was written in two basic languages…ancient Hebrew for the Old Testament and ancient Greek for the New Testament. Both are dead languages, meaning that no one speaks them today.
Response:
       Isn’t it more likely that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew (given that the writers were Hebrew) and that we only have Greek translations because that is what survived? The sermon didn’t explain why you brought up that they are dead languages. I assume you did that to suggest that the meaning may have been lost and to justify not believing all it says. I guess this is where my faith comes in. I can’t believe that God would give me a faulty guide book. It makes no sense.
Sermon said:
        God Having four different Gospels is no longer a problem for me, but is instead an invitation. This is our experience of God, say the Gospel writers…each in his own way.
Response:
 It is not a problem for this conservative either. Yes we get little different twists from different experiences, but the basic truths remain the same.
Sermon said:
       The trap that I used to be in was the trap of thinking that there was only one way to interpret the Bible…and I had better find out the right way or I was bound for hell.
Response:
 Are we debating whether the Bible is accurate and true or are we debating how we interpret the words? I think there is an important difference. Some parts don’t seem very interpretable. When you don’t believe them, that is where costly mistakes can be made. And yes, I believe there can be very costly mistakes by choosing not to believe some parts. And I’m not sure how anyone can confidently choose what to believe and disbelieve (again, different from interpret). I don’t think it is an interpretation not to believe in a final judgment; the separating of the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff. I think that is refusal to believe what you read. I’d like to discuss this some more. It is important to me.
Sermon said:
        If the Bible revealed God, and God was a living God, then the Bible had to be alive as well. If there were only one interpretation, set in stone for all time, then we don’t need a living God. God can just go on vacation and not worry about having to say or do anything ever again. We’ve got the whole message. We know what God has said, we know what it means, and there’s no need to say anymore.
Response:
        Not quite true. Most of us don’t know what the Bible says (which is why the Daily Walk is important)
Sermon said:
        But until they catch me and lash me to the stake, I will continue to say with Isaiah that the grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of the Lord endureth forever. Not endures as carved stone…as a graven image…but endures as the living word of a living God…speaking afresh to every person in every time and place.
Response:
 Yes, but endures as the truth. That doesn’t change and I’m not sure that God’s absolute truth is interpretable.
Sermon said:
        How do I know that? From the Bible’s own pages.
Response:
         Ditto

Dear Seeking the Truth,

I have to agree with you on all points made.

In Balaam's second oracle Numbers 23:19 He states that:

God is not a human being, that he should lie,
or a mortal, that he should change his mind.
Has he promised, and will he not do it?
Has he spoken, and will he not fullfill it?

How could we trust G-D if he is "mind changing" G-D?

To me (as an obvious "conservative") The Bible is the truth from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. Things in the World are starting to unfold just as G-D said they would, even to this very day.

Hi Always Happy,
Here you are agreeing with me but I still want to make a little bit of a rebuttal (hopefully this isn't a sign that SpiritSong is getting to me). God doesn't seem to be beyond changing his mind from time to time (note that that isn't the same as saying the scriptures aren't true). But several times God changes his mind because someone asked him to (though I equate that to me letting my boys do something they really shouldn't because they asked 110 times). Probably God's first inclination was best but he gave in to his children's request. And God did seem to think flooding the world wasn't such a good idea. But I certainly agree that we should trust the Bible as being true. I asked before what should we trust if we don't trust the Bible. I don't think there is a reasonable answer to that question.

I am neither well-educated nor well-read, but I do love God and I love reading His inspired Word. "Seeks the Truth" has said much of what I would want to say, but would not be able to express as well as he has done. I do not find the bible scary at all; I see much of what God does in the old testament as simply working with humans in the only way they seem to understand. I see things happening relative to their choices and his working in absolute truth within the parameters of the free will he has chosen to give us.

When the Pharisees wanted to quibble about the meaning of Scripture, they tried to test Jesus by asking him which of the commandments was the most important. He responded with the words from Deuteronomy 6 that we should love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. In that is our unity. Thank you, Windsong!

Well this sermon was a surprise (The Bronze Serpent). Just when I think I have Pastor Anne all figured out she goes and blows the lid off my Anne-box. I never thought she'd get this close to a 'fire-and-brimstone' sermon. I thought it was going to be more of the same ol' Anne, when she started out saying things like, "We tend to be horrified at the thought of God actually punishing people…". But she not only states that God gets angry and that making God angry is dangerous, but she states that she agrees with the punishment. I never thought she'd say, "…the death that they deserved as a result… " of their sin. And most importantly, "that our sin has real consequences". I had thought that she was in the camp that God is too nice to hurt anyone; that God loved us too much. I thought that she thought those were the parts of the Bible that weren't quite true. Now I've got to start all over trying to figure out where she is coming from. I do look forward to continuing that journey as I quest for the truth and to learn for someone much more read and educated than myself. To start, I'm wondering if I found a clue to some of our differences in this sermon. Twice, she attributes a statement to John (the author of the Gospel according to John). But John is quoting Jesus. So in reading the quote, I take it as something that Jesus said, therefore, it must be true (I'm also assuming that God would not let himself be misquoted in the Bible). If she is taking it as something that John said, and people make mistakes, I can maybe see why she questions the words in the Bible more than I do. Is there anything to this or have I just read way too much into the wording of the sermon?