[This document did not have the convention name or date, but is authentic. From the discussion of stockings at the end of the sermon, it would possibly date from the early 1950's, possibly from the Milltown Convention.

For those of you unfamiliar with the group's history, John T. "Jack" Carroll was one of the early group of workers who professed directly under William Irvine. Irvine appointed him chief overseer over the western portion of N. America (George Walker ruled in the east). His brother William Carroll was overseer in Australia, and two of his sisters (Frances and May Carroll) were well-known early workers. Jack Carroll was among those who deposed William Irvine and took a leading role in excommunicating Edward Cooney in 1928. Jack Carroll died in 1957 and is buried on the convention grounds in Milltown, Washington state.]

J. Carroll

We are more anxious than ever that God's children should be rooted and grounded and established in the faith, and that they should be able to give sound and Scriptural reasons of the hope that is in them, and for all that they believe as God's children. One of the reasons why many of God's people hesitate to give their testimony and speak to their friends and relations about the things of God is because they are a little bit afraid they [sic] they might not be able to prove from the Scriptures the statements they might make, and because of this fear they remain silent. There is no excuse whatever for this, because we as the people of God are building upon a sure foundation. There is absolutely nothing about the truth in Jesus that we need be ashamed of. Every child of God, and especially the younger children of God, those who will some day fill the places we are now filling, should make a special effort to master what the Scriptures teach about the New Testament church and ministry.

I have always had a feeling in my mind that I had to see before I believed, and I rejoice that from the beginning of my life as a child of God I recognize[d] the importance of being a diligent student of God's word and wanted to prove everything I was supposed to believe, and especially the truths I was expected to contend for as the faith once for all delivered unto the saints. We have been tremendously disappointed in many of our young people that they do not show this diligence, and that they do not witness for Him among their friends and associates as they might, and in this way fit themselves for filling a place in God's great harvest field later on. We hope one of the results of this convention will be that all of us, young and old, will be more diligent in our study of God's word, and will form the habit of mastering those precious truths that have been given to us, so that we will be able to speak intelligently to our friends about the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I believe many of us in this meeting have not ventured to give our testimony, except in Sunday morning meetings or week evening meetings, and the only time we confess Christ is in the presence of God's people. Perhaps the root reason for this is that they do not feel very sure of their ground, and that feeling can be attributed to their own lack of diligence in the matter of proving for themselves from the scriptures that we are building on a foundation that cannot be moved, and that we are in our day contending for the faith that was once for all delivered unto the saints.

Sometimes we have a little difficulty when people ask us what we call ourselves. It is very comforting and assuring to know that the word of God from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelationis on our side, and that we find our way of worship and our way of service clearly defined within the covers of God's book, and within no other book. These sixty-six books talk all we need to know abou tGod's way of salvation and worship and of service. There is nothing that we need to be ashamed of in connection with the ministry, and there is certainly nothing we need to be ashamed of telling our friends with regard to what we believe about the church. If this convention is to be of any real value in the extension of the Kingdom of God, it can only be such as we witness for Him by life and lip.

If I were to ask you a number of questions about the ministry, how many could turn over to chapter and verse in order to give me the true scriptural way? Would you be able to tell your friends just exactly the scriptures we necessarily must fulfill if we are to have any place in this ministry? In talking to our friends we are very vague. We give answers to their questions which lead them up into the air, and after they have talked to us they are just as wise as they were before. How good it would be if the younger children of God, as well as the older ones, would spend a little more time in searching the scriptures and getting to see how solid is the foundation we are building on as God's children.

While we can doubt and question every other faith, so-called, and while we recognize that men everywhere are building on sinking, shifting sand, how good it is to be able to look into the faces of men with confidence and with the deep conviction that God Himself has created within us, be able to give a sound and solid reason for the hope that is within us. I wonder if the parents here are taking any real interest in instructing in instructing [sic] their children in the way of life. Do they recognize that they have but a few brief years to sow the seeds in the hearts of their children, which may not ripen perhaps until later in life, but if it is faithfully sown they can have a hope that the seed will ultimately have the same result as in the life of Moses, who at forty years of age refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.

We have a sort of knowledge of the truth. We know God's people are divided into saints and servants. Sometimes they are called sheep and shepherds; sometimes they are called saints of the Kingdom and the undershepherds are called ambassadors. That is all fine, but are you clear in your mind with regard to the scriptural distinction between the saints and theservants of God? If I were to ask you the real New Testament difference between the saints and the servants of God what would you say? One man answering this question said the difference was that the servants of God sacrificed all and the saints of God used all in the extension of God's Kingdom. All that man had--his home, his business, everything, was fully consecrated to God, and his greatest delight was to use his home and all he had for the extension of God's Kingdom in the world. He got real joy out of his worship and service, far more than those who are half-hearted in their self-denial.

How many of us are really clear on the conditions that must be fulfilled by those who are to have a part in this ministry? God's people demand greater sacrifices from their preachers than any other people in the world. They insist that their preachers must sacrifice all, and they say they believe in no other kind of preachers but those who sacrifice all for the Gospel's sake. That is quite right, but suppose you were askedfor Scriptures to prove this, could you talk intelligently to your friendsabout it? There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in anything thatJesus lived and taught. Jesus said on one occasion, "If any man is ashamed of Me and My words, of Him will the Father be ashamed." We are not so bold in our witnessing for Christ as we ought to be as His people in the world. It may be that the reason for our silence is our lack of confi[d]ence and assurance, wondering if this foundation we are building on is solid and if these things are clearly taught within the pages of God's own word. I would to God that your convictions were deepened, and were so deep that you would have no hesitation whatever in telling men exactly what you believe.

Sometimes in talking to our friends we say we don't believe in a preacher who is preaching for hire and lifting a collection, but when asked what kind of a preacher we do believe in, we find it difficult to explain.There is nothing to hesitate over in connection with God's way of taking care of His bondservants, and if we have been somewhat backward in making clear this thing, it isn't because we are ashamed of God's way, but we have hesitated to speak lest some should think we had an unworthy motive in making clear what God's method really is.

Supposing that at the close of this meeting some should come up and say they would like to go forth to preach, what conditions would we put before them? We would ask them first of all, are you willing to make yourself poor for Jesus' sake? Are you willing to become homeless forJesus' sake? Are you willing to recognize the claims of Jesus above the claims of brother or sister, father or mother? Are you willing to go forth preaching the Gospel without any guaranteed support, and with no liberty to lift collections or to beg for money? Are you willing to go anywhere in the world to preach the Gospel? When a man makes up his mind to go forth he can set no limit, for the commission is "Go ye forth into all the world." The last question we would ask, and perhaps the most serious, Are you willing not only to go anywhere, but with anybody?

In the Kingdom of God a sacrifice is demanded on the part of the servants of the Lord that no other people in the world consider as being part of the teachings of Jesus; and yet when we depart from the simplicity of this plan of Jesus, or weaken on any of these fundamentals, then we depart from the faith. Do you love these men and women who have made this sacrifice? Do you look upon it as something that is entirely one-sided? Or do you recognize the privilege you have of having fellowship with them in living for the furtherance of the Gospel and the extension of God's Kingdom?

The word church occurs 112 times in the N.T. and in the Gospels it occurs three times. The word church occurs more frequently in the epistles than it does in the Gospels, and the reason is that the church is God's chosen instrument for the realization, and manifestation, and extension of His Kingdom in this world. Every individual child of God, every member of His church, is here for one purpose as far as God is concerned, and that is to so walk and order their lives that God's great Kingdom may be furthered and the coming of His Kingdom hastened.

This word church is used in two different senses in the N.T., it is used of God's people as a whole, and in a local sense. In the first chapter of Revelations the church is spoken of under the figure of a golden candle.The thought that this suggests is that every little group of God's people, the citizens of His Kingdom who are called out and separated from the world, are to be in their own particular community a light. "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father in Heaven." Every individual child of God is to be a light giver. The little groups we speak of as being churches are also supposed to be light givers. Sometimes I am almost staggered by this thought that the only light God has in the world, His only means of helping and enlightening others, are the individual citizens of His Kingdom, and the little groups that meet together as churches throughout the land. They are to be as a light to the community. We have been gladened [sic] by hearing of some of the neighbors of the saints, who after a period of years have been so impressed by seeing the children of God seek in and seek out, year in and year out, meeting together in certain homes, that they have come and asked permission to attend those meetings, with the result that many after attending three or four Sunday morning meetings have gotten up and said, "Thy God shall be my God; and thy people shall be my people."

God's eternal purpose was that every little group should feel the tremendous responsibility that reses [sic] upon them, not only as individuals but as agroup, that they are God's only witnesses in their community. If this thought took root in our minds it would cause us to walk more carefully in the future. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if every child of God realized, I am expected to be a light, and if every little group lived in such hearty fellowship with Him and with each other that as a result those people, too, who may have been looking on perhaps for years would say, "I would like to come in among those people, too." The heartiest people we know are those who are most interested in witnessing for Christ and seeking to win others to be members of His body.

The church in the home and the preacher without a home are vital. We cannot depart from either of them. I have rejoiced ten thousand times in the wonderful wisdom of God in connections with the gathering together of His people on the first day of the week. What a terrible calamity it would be if we as the servants of God had to be continually occupied with building synagogues, but our eyes have been opened to see that the building of synagogues and the hiring of preachers belongs to Babylon. When we hire preachers, we, too, have become associated with that Babylonish system which will ultimately be destroyed. It is very wonderful that God has so planned it that instead of amassing substance, His people can meet together and His work be carried on without the very things other religious people of the world claim to be absolutely essential to worship and serve Him.

You might ask, Where are the scriptures that teach us so simply and clearly that God's people in the N.T. days met together to worship God in homes, and only in the homes of His own people? That would be a revelation to your friends to know that there is absolutely no record in the N.T. of the early Christians investing a dollar in real estate, and yet today billions of dollars are invested in every country in the world, so-called Christians, for what they claim to be the worship and service of God.

It is a very wonderful thing that Jesus instituted the brea[k]ing of bread on the night of the passover feast. That is always a very comforting thing to me. I wonder if you really value the simplicity of Jesus and the church in the home. When you leave your own home to meet in the home of another where two or three are gathered together in the Lord's name, you should look upon that as one of the greatest privileges you can have as God's child today; and as you walk or drive there it is a testimony to your friends which may perhaps some day result in their becoming interested in and wanting to have a part in this thing also with you.

Do you who have the church in your home look upon this as a privilege? We would not like to have a church in any home where this was looked upon as an irksome thing, or a hard thing, or where those in the home looked upon it as meaning a lot of extra work. If we thought any had any of thses [sic] thoughts in their minds we immediately take the church from your home and place it in another that would be more worthy. On that Day on the side some of your sweetest memories will be the fact that you had fellowship with Priscilla and Aquila, and others who at great inconvenience welcomed God's people under their roof, to sing His praise and worship Him in spirit and in truth.

I wonder if there are any who have formed the habit of being absent from the meeting on the first day of the week, forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is. That was written to saints who were suffering a great deal of reproach. They were feeling that this was entirely too much, and little by little they began to absent themselves from the meetings. The writer to the Hebrews had a great fear that some of them might first go altogether and fall down and go over to the enemy, and that they would fight in their ranks against their former friends. What would you think a reasonable excuse for a child of God being absent from the meeting? It might be easy for you to make an excuse, but it be [sic] more difficult to give a reason. This is an appointment which we don't make with one another. It is an appointment we make with God, and He has said that wherever two or three are gathered together in His name He will be there in their midst. Those who feel a desire to honor, and please Him, and submit to His rules, will be in their right place on the first day of the week.

You should not come too early to the meeting, but if you come early don't spend the time in useless gossip. It would be much better to take your place in the meeting room, and read and meditate, and seek to have your spirit brought into the condition where you will enjoy God's fellowship. Many a meeting is absolutely ruined by too much talking before the meeting begins, and sometimes by too much visiting after the meeting is over. I don't say you shouldn't have a little friendly word with each other, but don't waste time in useless conversation.

I have said more than once that if some of us attended your meetings for five or six times we would be able to memorize your prayers, for you pray the same prayer all the time. Each one of God's children should form the habit of praying briefly if they want to pray in Sunday morning meeting. We don't care how long you pray in private, but in public your prayers should by short. It isn't necessary to pray all around the world, and for everybody in it. Do that in the secret place, but in fellowship meeting remember you are expected to pray to edification. Two or three phrases from your heart, that all your brethren could say a hearty 'amen' to would result in everyone being edified and blest. We like parents to bring their children to the Sunday morning meeting, but we don't like those children to be wearied unnecessarily by the long prayers of God's people. If there are a number in the meeting it would be well to arrange to have periods of prayer, one at the beginning and the other at the close of the meeting, so that all would have an opportunity to take part. Make a fresh start and let your prayers be brief and fresh next Sunday.

Sometimes if we went to your meetings for five or six Sundays we might be able to memorize not only your prayers but your testimony also. Don't say the same thing every Sunday morning. Be fresh in your testimony and don't preach too long. Very often a meeting is absolutely ruined by someone deliberately and wantonly taking time that belongs to another and using it. An average meeting should not take up more than one hour or and hour and a quarter. I have been in meetings where other workers took part and the meeting was over an hour and a quarter. The kind of testimony that goes on for ever will not help or edify anyone.

If there is anything that is calculated to hinder others and hinder the extension of God's Kingdom, it is for any of you as God's children when a stranger comes into your midst to whet your sword and go for that man o rwoman and hack him to pieces. That is what some of you do. Many and many a person has been hurt and wounded and caused to say 'I will never go back to that meeting again,' by the spirit manifested toward them, and the way in which they were needlessly attacked by those who should have recognized they were responsible for speaking to the edification of the saints. What is the right and proper course for saints to take when strangers are present? It is to conduct your mtg. as if they were not there. Speak to edification, pass on those thoughts God has put in your hearts and minds, without any particular reference or applying what you may say to any person present. If you do that those who come into your midst will go out to confess that God is in your meetings of a truth. I believe the older workers are responsible where any transgress along the lines I am speaking, for talking personally with that person and asking him never again when a stranger comes into a church meeting to make it unpleasant for him. But to forget about his presence and endeavor to speak whatever of edification God has given to him as a member of His Church.

It would be a mistake for all who have the privilege of having the meeting in their home to assume that they were necessarily elders in the N.T. meaning of the word. Some are elders, and some who now lead meetings may some day be considered elders of the church, but it would be wrong for all who give out the hymns to consider thay [sic] they are elders.

We gave you four words last year to guide you in connection with your purchases during the year--economy, simplicity, modesty, and neatness. What the scripture teaches about the dress question is covered by these four words, and we will have no complaint if the daughters of Zion give evidence that in all their purchases during the year they do it as unto the Lord, remembering that if they are to have a testimony of value it will be well for them to be guided by these four words. We don't want to make rules or laws for God's children that would bring them into unnecessary bondage. We believe we can safely trust our sisters in Christ in this matter, which is such a serious matter, as far as they are concerned, if they will be guided by these four words. If they do this, it will result in their having a testimony for God that will be of value.

We would like our sisters here to look upon the sister workers as a safe guide in this matter. There is no need for an absolute uni[f]ormity. We know this is a very serious question, and we believe that in some cases at least there could be a little improvement in this matter. We don't like to see any searing [sic] stockings so closely like having no stockings on at all, and we feel perfectly sure that when you buy your next pair if you remember these fo[u]r words, especially the word modesty, you will be more careful not only with regard to material but also with regard to color.

Regarding the posting of an old convention transcript quoting Jack Carroll, my first thought was, why post such an old "sermon"? Having said that, this is my reaction.

This speech is meant to reinforce:

1. The idea that the workers are special, chosen in ways the rest of us somehow do not measure up for, with a special relationship with God above and beyond the rest of us mortals.

2. Guilt, obedience, and a sense of personal inadequacy. I won't elaborate. Nearly everyone subscribing to this list will recognize these techniques throughout.

In context, a powerful control and obedience speech.

If one views this as an outsider, goes beyond the catch phrases we have all come to recognize, and is not moved by the control techniques used, one is left with only "what on earth is this guy talking about?", and "what kind of self-aggrandizing crackpot is this?" With all his admonition for professing folk to be clear as to the scriptural basis for their belief, he is completely devoid of enlightenment as to what that scripture is. Again, what is left is only a technique designed to leave one feeling hopelessly inferior if one can't readily bring to mind whatever scripture Jack may be alluding to.

I can just hear the Sunday morning testimonies following this sermon; how much each one hopes to do better in understanding this wonderful way, how much they appreciated all the good instruction ("bread") they received at the convention, how they hope to be more willing to submit (and we know to whom they must improve their submission). If they were asked any specifics, they would be unable to give any more substance than Jack did. By this means, any failing will have been cleverly turned into an inadequacy on the poor individual's part rather than any deficiency in this way of worship or any lack of substance in old Jack's speech. They will, however, be well reinforced to obey and submit to whatever he or another worker wishes them to do next. Though probably 40 years have passed, the style of speech and cliches sound the same as today. Amazing.

The detailed rules promulgated in this speech are simply another means of keeping the "sheep" in control. Make 'em into little Pharisees. Keep 'em busy with lots of rules.

I reviewed this speech with my long-suffering, deeply offended, non-professing wife, who has sat through several convention speeches that echoed Jack's. She has seen this same sermonizing, discriminatory attitude by workers in her own home, who, while they were helping themselves to her hospitality with an attitude of "I deserve even more deference and devotion to my personal needs," continued to offend her with the same ignorance, air of superiority and demeaning of her own views.

Viewed from without it can be dismissed as I described above. Viewed from inside and in context, it brings forth a great sadness at the expense in precious time, emotional devotion and interpersonal relationships sacrificed, (and I do mean sacrificed, as in bleeding, painful and wounded) to people like Jack and his system. God did not intend anything like this.

The following sermon was delivered by Willie Pollock on April 2, 1997. This was a Wednesday night. Other than that it is of unknown provenance. In length it is at least 30 minutes long. I have attempted to do an analysis of what was said from a rhetorical standpoint. When I received this sermon it was not divided into paragraphs. The paragraphs were inserted by me where there were logical breaks. My comments are in darker print and follow each of the paragraphs as spoken by Willie Pollock. This is not really a theological analysis of this sermon so much as a ‘rhetorical analysis.’ Rhetoric is the study of persuasion. I was seeking to identify and analyze how and what the speaker was saying and what the purpose of those statements might be. I do not claim to be a biblical scholar. My background is in the art of persuasion. My university studies were in speech. I competed at National Championship levels of speech and debate in both high school and college. After college I served in the US army as an interrogator in a Military Intelligence Unit. I received some highly specialized training and practice in the analysis and creation of propaganda, and in identifying falsehood and deception. Currently my job duties include designing ‘loophole free’ advertising agreements and correctly interpreting complicated and sometimes confusing instructions.

I DO feel qualified to express my opinions on what people say or write. For most of my professional life my ability to understand what is communicated and to critically analyze that communication has been what my employers have paid me to do. I would welcome further discussion of my interpretation of this sermon. I can be reached in two ways:

By e-mail at doginfog@aol.com By conventional mail to: Robert McPhail 4230 Kirkham Ste. B San Francisco, CA 94122

I was a third generation member of Mr. Pollock's denomination. I 'professed' at age 12 and remained a member until I was 20. Many members of my family are still members. While I did not personally hear this sermon delivered I would vouch that it is authentic based on the 1,000 or so sermons I did hear. (That number is based on 2 gospel meetings of 2 sermons each week for approx. 35 weeks a year and two conventions of 48 sermons each plus a couple of special meetings.)

One of the older workers had passed away and I wondered what was the best way to help God's people. They felt the loss of their overseer and no one had been appointed yet to take his place. One answer was to feed their spirits. I was thinking it would be wonderful if we could feed the spirit of God's people so we could inspire them to be true to God. Not so much to feed their intelligence with theory or revelation but if we could only feed the hearts of people, that would give them the courage to go forth and to be true to God in every experience.(1)

1) This is basically just an introductory paragraph, establishing goals of sermon-very basic rhetorical technique. It would be interesting to get a definition of what ‘being true to god’ means. I also respectfully disagree with Willie; I think that it is very possible to feed the heart and inspire the spirit through ‘theory’ and ‘revelation.’ Knowledge doesn’t diminish real hope or faith; it strengthens it.

I wanted to speak a little about Job 14:7-9.(2) "For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth and the stock thereof die in the ground; yet through the scent of water it will bud and bring forth boughs like a plant." These verses I read started with "for there is hope." (3) God wants to hold out hope to his people. We would never like to think a person would ever get to the place that they would feel that there is no hope. These verses start off with "for there is hope." As we start in this place we would like to hold out hope to every person in every condition, there is hope. Hope is that which leads to consolation and consolation leads to peace and rest of heart, for there is hope. There it says if a tree fall, there is a stump left in the ground and there is hope because from that stump that is left, it will sprout again. As man looks, it is a fallen tree, but God looks at the stump. Man looks at what is lost, but God looks at what is left. (4), (5)

2) As the whole sermon basically is based on this passage. I thought I would check out the context. That would rate a whole separate analysis. In this case the sermon seems consistent at least on the surface with mainstream theology, but it doesn’t appear to be interpreted contextually at all. That can cause theological mayhem in some cases. If the passage is just being used for the source of an allegory; no harm-no foul, but if the passage is being used to justify doctrine there is a major problem.

3) See above this was a rather odd place to start, but it makes for great rhetoric and ties very well to Willie’s next thought. I recommend that those interested might read the whole chapter. The verses being quoted are part of a larger speech and in fact they are at the point at which Job has lost hope.

4) This sounds like a gem--it’s really a rather nice one.

5) Just thought I’d define some terms here. I used the first (most common) definition out of my Random House Dictionary. hope: the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best (noun). That seems to be a much weaker thing than ‘faith’: complete confidence or trust (noun). I know that the word ‘hope’ is used because it was in the passage, but to me at least it implies a certain tentativeness. I think we need ‘faith’ not ‘hope.’ Also what exactly is being ‘hoped’ for. Salvation, the continuance of the way? ? ?. This is addressed somewhat allegorically in the next paragraph, but it is pretty hazy.

As we gather here, there might have been failure, but God has not gathered us to remind us of the sin of our failure. God is not looking at what is lost, whether it is testimony or time or place or name. God is looking at what is left in you and me. (6) If there remains faith, hope and love after the storm, God would like to build up what is left.(7) He wants to get the best out of us. I thought of this tree first of all as God's work in the world and then as God's work in our lives.(8) If a tree falls, there is hope and if that root grows old in the ground and there is no visible evidence of God's work, that root will stay alive and with the scent of water and suitable conditions, it will spring forth again. In one place where we were, the lady of the home called me over to the window as I had mentioned something like this. She called me over and said, "You see those two big trees out of one stump. That was one tree that was cut down and this is out of one stump. That was one tree that was cut down and this is what has grown up." That gave me hope, that from what is left new hope springs up and we stronger grow.(9)

6) I like this part. Mainstream Pastors might talk about ‘grace’ here. That term is conspicuously absent in this sermon, which is highly unusual in a sermon about ‘hope.’

7) ‘Build’ is kind of a dangerous term as it seems kind of works based. The speaker has the right idea (here) though as clearly stated. Its God’s work not ours.

8) So the ‘tree’ is God’s work universally/individually. It is good to define terms and I understand the metaphor, but I have no definition of what God’s work is. It would be nice to know exactly what the speaker means here. Also note the switch from ‘stump’ or ‘root’ to ‘tree.’ In terms of metaphor while ‘stump’ and ‘root’ are interchangeable with each other fairly easily, they are not so easily exchanged with the word ‘tree.’ One notable difference is that only the tree bears fruit. So to accept this metaphor does one have to assume that Their is not always any evidence or fruit of God’s work on the planet? ? ?

9) This is interesting as it is basically a restatement of the original theme. What I think may be going on here is a rhetorical tactic. The speaker relates a personal experience that validates the scripture. The effect is that any who might question the believability of the story told now ‘know’ it could really happen that way. It also validates the speaker to those who accept the scripture and question the believability of the speaker. "I have seen it just like Job did! ! !" I believe the term for this is ‘Positive Identification.’

We do not say that there always has been a tree of God's work in the world. (10) I don't want to throw a bomb either. We cannot say that this has been continuing and trace it to a day or year.(11) There were times when there was no tree. When there was no fruit,(12) when there was no account of worship,(13) when the children of Israel were in captivity there was no tree. The temple was closed. They didn't even know where the book of the law was, much less read it. The prophets were in captivity, Nehemiah was serving a pagan king instead of worshipping God. There was no sacrifice or incense, there was no light in the temple, there was no worship. But when Daniel opened the door of his window, he prayed towards Jerusalem. There was a stump there, there was a root. Jerusalem didn't have a tree at that time. Nehemiah said, "My countenance is sad because the wall is broken down and the gates are burned with fire. Everything is destroyed." He saw the fallen tree, but in some faithful souls there was a root and when the time came, it sprouted again and the walls were restored. The temple worship was restored, the sacrifice was restored and when the sacrifice began, the song of the Lord began also.(14) In generations past there have been times when God's work was driven underground and there was no visible evidence, there was no tree. But we would like to think that somewhere on this earth there was a root of truth in the earth and that in God's time and condition that came forth and sprouted. Blessed are your eyes for they see and your ears for they hear. Many wanted to do that but they died before that, they didn't see Jesus.(15)(16)

10) If the tree is God’s work, how could it NOT be present in all times? I am not that good at scripture but how about the last words of the book of Matthew "I am with you always" And I can trace this tree. . .Names like Benedict, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and William Penn come to mind. Also are we talking about "the" tree or "a" tree. Though I think I know what the speaker thinks, he really does not make it clear. (at least here)

11) The speaker talks of ‘this thing’ without defining it. I believe that he is referring to his denominational affiliation.

12) I would like to know what the ‘fruit’ of this tree is.

13) So fruit is defined as ‘worship’?

14) All of these examples are used to prove the point that in old testament times there wasn’t always a tree, and the word ‘worship’ is used 3 times and several ‘worship’ terms like ‘sacrifice’ are used so apparently the fruit of the tree is worship. But it seems to me that the tree never died. Daniel was thrown into the Lions Den for worshipping as I recall. So it seems to me that something was bearing fruit. . .

These examples are also being used for their persuasive value. At the top of this paragraph He has stated that ‘this thing’ may not have had a continuous existence. By citing old testament examples, the speaker is building a case for the validity of his denomination, even though it has not been in continuous existence since the time of Christ. Notice the subtlety here; without justifying why or explicitly stating it he has implied that ‘this thing’ which is apparently his denomination is now synonymous with ‘God’s work on earth.’ In addition, early in this paragraph the speaker has stated that ‘this thing’ can’t be traced back through time and then asserted that God’s work also has sometimes disappeared. The implication is that not only is ‘this thing’ synonymous with ‘God’s work’ but is EXCLUSIVELY God’s work. This is only implied, and no form of proof by fact, scripture, or reasoning is offered.

15) I find this last sentence frightening. As I hear the speaker, some who honestly desired to know Christ did not get the chance to for some unspecified reason. THIS RUNS COUNTER TO THE MAINSTREAM UNDERSTANDING THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL OUR SINS AND HAS, IS AND WILL BE THERE FOR THOSE WHO SEEK HIM.

16) There is also a rhetorical technique going on here. The speaker says many have desired to hear this message and not heard it, but this speaker’s audience has, therefore they are ‘special.’ This is sort of like the letters I get from Ed McMahon telling me that I am one of ‘a select few’ (its more like a select several millions) who have been chosen to participate in his sweepstakes. In both cases the intent is the same, to get the listener to consider the message more important. Please note; that when I use the term ‘special’ here I disagree with its application to the listeners. I personally feel that the Gospel message (that Christ died to save us) is available to everyone. It is the message that is ‘special’ not those who hear it! ! ! Implying that the membership is ‘special’ is also a common characteristic of cults.

As I thought of our coming together here and looking at our friends and workers, I felt very thankful that in our day there is a tree, that there is fruit, that there are workers going forth into the work, that the gospel goes forth to different places and lands, different languages. This country sending forth and sending help to other countries. There is a tree, a fruitful tree. People are professing, being baptized and churches are growing and I am thankful that in our day there is a tree. That tree is producing. (17) In Panama we had to cancel our special meetings - they couldn't travel, there was no money, banks were closed. But then help came. One of the brotherworkers went down to see them. Three of the older workers (not so old--were actually middle-aged) but they were going to Ecuador for some special meetings even though we had canceled our own. This brother went there and some help came. There was money to travel, money for food, so they had many special meetings. This brother and three young sisters, under 30 years of age, and one brother that didn't know the language yet. That did something as twelve decided and six were baptized.(18) One of them was Alan Ashmore's wife.(19) We are very thankful that in our day there is a tree. But friends, it may not always be like this. Truth can be driven underground again. But we hope there will be fruitful souls separated into this fellowship who will stand, that there will be a stump left. There will be a root in the ground, a witness for God.(20)

17) See footnote 14. The speaker is now moving on with the implication that his denomination is the exclusive work of God. Also the concept that the ‘fruit’ is worship is again made quite clear. It is the speaker’s allegory, but I think that this assertion of the definition of ‘fruit’ might be worthy of some explanation and justification, and none is provided.

18) I believe that this is used as proof that the speaker’s denomination is God’s work. The story borders on the miraculous, and the implication is that God is assisting this ministry. This example in no way establishes his other implication--that his denomination is God’s exclusive work. Let me offer a counter example. My Lutheran church in San Francisco, CA has a sister congregation in Soyopongo, El Salvador. About a year ago they were evicted from the land on which they had built their church. A short time before this our congregation had raised an unexpectedly large sum of money to fund our homeless shelter. We wound up with a surplus, which we decided to send to our sister parish. That money helped build a new church so that they could continue to worship. I wonder if the speaker would agree that my congregation is also part of the tree? ? The examples are extremely similar.

19) This is a rhetorical device. Small details make the incident more real for the listeners. This also helps provide proof that the event actually happened and provides the speaker with more believability. I did the same thing in my own example because it involves the listener more with the story.

20) This is very cautionary. The implication is that the listeners must always remain vigilant. This is sometimes known as ‘bunker mentality.’ It also happens to be a characteristic of many cults.

In one place in Cuba during the revolution, a clown in a circus professed and his wife, a dancer, professed and they had the meeting in their home later. The clown was the elder of the church and some of the same people that watched them in the circus professed and wentto their home for fellowship meetings.(21) One Sunday morning they were arrested by the army and taken to the cartel, or whatever you call it. They were warned and one soldier told one of the girls, we're going to take away your meetings and your bibles, your liberty and we willsee to it two people can't meet together to talk about the bible. This girl who afterwards offered for the work, told him, "You may take away our meetings and our bibles, but you can't take away what God has put into our hearts."(22) That is the root. In that island, there is no open work. Three girls offered for the work, they can be in the work but can't be on any lists.(23) They said, "What about us now? They canceled our meetings, our conventions. What about us?" We said there is no legal work, but you can work and not be on any workers' list but you can live as saints and have a worker's heart and do that little bit more to keep the unity of the spirit amongst God's people. For years they have been doing that. That is the root. (24) They hope that someday there will be workers again and there will be open work again and gospel meetings. The baptisms have to be done in secret. It is against the law and punished if they get us, but sofar they haven't gotten us yet. They hoped that this country would liberate them, but they have lost hope. Their prayer is, "Come, Lord Jesus, come." That could be when the tree will sprout again. If the tree fall there is hope.

21) This is simply another example of God’s work. I think it was picked for its uniqueness. A clown and a Dancer? ? Also I think the implication is that ‘anyone’ can be saved as these two would be considered extremely ‘worldly’ at best. But it sure gets one’s attention doesn’t it? ? It is interesting to note that they disappear from the story. I think the speaker chose to start this story where he did to get people’s attention. This is probably a part of this sermon that people will remember.

22) So what is this root?

23) This is very odd. I am not sure why workers ‘lists’ were mentioned other than perhaps the minister was providing detail to involve the listeners and put it in terms he knew they would understand. This whole paragraph would absolutely and totally confuse anyone who did not possess a detailed understanding of the speakers denomination.

24) In two places in this passage the speaker says ‘that is the root’ In the first example it is a woman who wishes to be a worker and in the second example it is the hope that some day there will be workers again. So now we know that the tree (which is God’s work on earth) is the workers. This is asserted without any reasoning/justification. This is a little frightening as this whole sermon is an allegory based on scripture taken out of context. I hope that the speaker does not believe that the justification for his assertion that his denomination is the exclusive work of God is Job 14.7 !

Going to the personal side of it, the tree is our life. We could fall and we could fail, we could lose our place, we could lose our testimony,(25) the tree falls, but if there is a stump left, if there is some root left (26), God starts there. God doesn't look at the fallen tree, but God looks at the stump that is left. God wants to restore and God is as great a restorer as he was a creator. God created the earth once, but he restores it every day. As we take water out of the well today, it is restored tomorrow. God wants to restore his people. The prodigal had to be restored to his place because he lost his place. David had to be restored in his place because he lost his joy. There may be some who have lost their places and need to be restored to their place. There may be some that haven't left their place, but have lost their joy. God would like to restore them in their place, that maybe they could be as before.(27)

25) ‘Place’ is not defined. I believe the speaker is referring to our place in heaven. If so this is a ‘works’ based message. Our ‘place’ is not something our actions gain or lose, it is a gift which we receive by the grace of God. ‘Losing our Testimony’ is not real clear to me either. My understanding of ‘testimony’ is the life we live- -good or bad and its not something we can misplace. If he is using the term testimony to refer the act of speaking in a meeting, I still don’t understand. But it sure sounds scary. As such this might cause some generalized anxiety among the listeners. It is very nebulous (and I belonged to the speaker’s denomination for almost 20 years)

26) ‘Root’ is never defined.

27) This sounds almost like ‘place’ is a position in a hierarchy?? This passage is confusing. I think that one rhetorical strategy the speaker is using is expanding his target. He holds out hope to those who have lost their place that they will be restored by God. The problem is that those people probably aren’t in the audience so he also is offering the incentive of more ‘joy’ to those who are still in their place. (which is probably most of the audience.) I don’t know where that leaves the joyful people who are still in their place.

I thought of the prodigal as a fallen tree. That boy went out and when he left home, his father gave him his liberty and gave him his portion. I'm sure it was a sad day for that father, but the man knew his son was not [coming-?] back. [?-I think this should actually read, 'WAS coming back.'-?] My son has a good heart, but he had bad habits. Those bad habits will take him far away, but that good heart will bring him back again. That's why he was watching for him. He knew that he would come back. Friends, a good heart is not a guarantee that the feet will not go astray. But a good heart is a guarantee that those feet will come back someday. There are people and there are children who know truth and are kicking against truth and are speaking against it - despising it.(28) But friends, that is only a show of independence in going out and what he would do. Down deep in his heart there was a love for his father. That love brought him back home again. We should not get discouraged, we should not take a book by its cover or take people just by face value or by what they say or by their spirit, because they may not be showing their true self. It says the prodigal came to himself. That was himself.That boy that walked out in rebellion, that was not himself. He came to himself. He came down to that good heart that his father had seen in him.(29)

28) Mid-story the speaker suddenly equates loving/despising the ‘truth’ with loving/despising the father. The implication is that to not love the "truth" is to not love God.

29) The parable of the prodigal son speaks much more about the love of the father for the son. Yes, the son repents, but he really had no choice, repent or starve. On the other hand the Father was free to do as he wished. To me this parable is much more about God’s unconditional love for sinners (all of us.)

There was a girl in Mexico that gave her testimony in October when we were there for convention. This girl stood up weeping. She said, "I'm not professing, but I mean to profess tomorrow. In years gone by, I have looked at God's people and I have despised you. I have criticized you, but in my heart I have admired you. I would like to be like you. When I criticized you, it was from the lips out, but all along when I was despising you, in my heart I was admiring you." Friends, could it be that some of the rebellious and disobedience that's amongst us... could it be that there's a stump left? There's a root there and that one day there will be hope and it will grow? I never lose hope. (30)(31)

30) Still equating despising ‘truth’ with despising the father.

31) Actually this paragraph also might be encouragement for the listeners to be more moderate in their judgments of perceived sinners. I applaud this sentiment, but I also noticed we are again talking about stumps/roots. As the speaker previously defined the root as the workers, and above talked about love being what remained, we are now equating the workers and love. Does this mean that if there is no love and acceptance of the ministry of the workers there is no work of God left in an individuals life?

In Mexico City in a college, they despised one of our professing boys, like they often do.(32) He felt different and separated. That terrible earthquake came and many buildings fell. Many people died. The teacher told those boys to go and hold on to something secure, a pillar or something and some of those boys went over to the professing boy and held onto him. They felt safe with the one they had despised. If only people could trust us and feel that they are safe beside us. (33)

32) The speaker asserts that the members of his denomination are often ‘despised.’ I question this assertion. Misunderstood, or ignored possibly, but ‘despised? ? ?’ Since leaving the speaker’s denomination, I’ve never met anyone who had ever HEARD of it, much less despised it. However, a strong ‘Us-Them’ orientation is common characteristics of cults.

33) The preceding stories were given as examples of how the ‘tree’ can flourish in a person’s life. The implication is that the speaker is relating ‘real’ events that actually happened. I seriously question this. Notice that these two tales lack the little details that the ‘clown’ or ‘Panama’ stories have. The second example is basically a pun on the word ‘pillar’ which may not even translate in the Spanish that it would have been delivered in. While I believe that I could go to Panama and meet ‘Alan Ashmore’s wife’, I STRONGLY doubt that I could find a Mexican boy holding up the ceiling while a flock of former non-believers cower at his feet! ! Incidentally I showed this sermon to two people with zero exposure to the 2x2’s. This was the one example they remembered out of the whole sermon and NOT positively. These are examples not parables and as such should be ‘real.’

The prodigal came back. The father was watching for him. He knew, "This is my true son" when he went out to meet him. He embraced him, he kissed him and brought him in and the son started to say, "I have sinned." The father could see a change in him, he accepted. The tree is fallen but perhaps there is a root there that will spring forth into a worthy son and an obedient son. The father did not punish him for his past, because sin punishes. Disobedience punishes, and people when they come to God, they don't come to be punished. They come to be forgiven. The world has punished them already. That father knew as far as that son was concerned, "It's a fallen tree. This is a fallen tree, it will never stand again, but perhaps there's a stump left. From this, there will be a better boy and a better son." That speaks of a Gentile.(34) That speaks of us - a better people, a people separated unto God.

34) This closing sentence is totally unclear.

Thinking of this hope, one time there was a ship we saw. In a storm it threw anchor, the anchor held in the rock, but the cable broke and it went to destruction. It was wrecked. It got disconnected from the anchor. The anchor of hope is the anchor of our soul. Friends, if we get disconnected from our hope, we will make shipwreck. What would that cable be that connects us to our anchor? It is the cable of faith.(35) It says of those in Hebrews 11 that they saw the promises afar off, but they did not obtain them (36). They believed them and they embraced them. That hope, those promises were hope, they were connected to that hope, their faith. They never saw in their day Jesus coming, as the promise of God, but they were connected to this hope. If it would ever come when we would be disconnected from our hope because faith would fail us, God would like to connect us to our hope again. I asked one brother what happened to his brother. He made such a wreck of his life. He said he lost faith, he was disconnected from his hope. There is hope. A boxer could lose points in a boxing match and still win his match. A child can lose points at school and can still pass the examination. We can lose points as the people of God and not lose our salvation. Our reward might be less but we never want to lose our salvation. The things that we might do or not do that we would lose points with God, as Moses and David did but they didn't lose everything. A tree fell but the stump was left (37).

35) See the definitions in footnote one. To me ‘faith’ is a much stronger word than ‘hope’ and hence this analogy doesn’t work for me. If the speaker had only clearly defined what the ‘hope’ was in, this might have made more sense.

36) Doesn’t this contradict the last example?

37) These are clear examples, but what is it that is being ‘hoped’ for?

I thought of Adam, his tree fell because of disobedience. He knew better and we say that Eve was deceived. She believed the devil and she thought it was all right. It says Adam was not deceived and as he looked on that fruit, he knew this very well, "This is prohibited, it is forbidden, but I'll go ahead anyway." We say, "Well, what happened to Adam?" The same thing that happened to us. Many times there is something we know is wrong and we go ahead anyway. We can't disobey and go against God and not lose. That was the fall of Adam's tree, but there was a stump left. When God came into the garden, they hid behind that tree. There was a little root of the fear of God. They hadn't lost their faith in God. They hadn't lost their hope but just in weakness they had fallen and even though God cast them out of the Garden of Eden and took blessings from them and punished them, God continued to deal with them. The tree had fallen but there was a stump left. Eve still became the mother of all living people. It was not the end for them. Disobedience could bring a fall (38).

38) This last sentence is unclear. Does the speaker mean disobedience to God? It is odd placement too. We go from a positive ‘hope’ to a negative ‘fall.’

I thought of Lot in Genesis 13:9. Lot lost because of selfishness. Abraham said, "If you go to the left, I'll go to the right and viceversa." Abraham was a peacemaker. We can't be a peacemaker if we don't have peace. If we are not peaceable, we can't be a peacemaker. Unless we have the peace of God in our hearts, my friend, we should not try to make peace with others. We must be a peaceable people if we are to be peacemakers. Abraham was a peacemaker (39). He said, "Whatever is left, I'll take it." Lot lost through his selfishness. His tree fell. He lost his land, he lost his animals and he lost his wife. Abraham had to rescue him from that place. God said to Abraham, after Lot so selfishly chose, "Abraham, lift up your eyes from the place where you are and look all around you, it's all yours." God would like to lift up our eyes from the place where we are right now. Not when we get home, right now and show to us what can be ours in Jesus (40).

39) The word/root ‘peace’ is used 9 times in 3 sentences. But the ‘peace of God’ is not clearly defined. How does one obtain it? It is interesting to note that this example is tucked between examples of ‘obedience’ and ‘submission.’ The listener might certainly draw a parallel.

40) This is not particularly clear. Is the implication that what they are literally ‘seeing’ (a meeting?) is what can be theirs in Jesus?? (provided of course that there is submission and obedience.)

Sometimes we hear about on a mountain cliff two goats met. They met head to head, they couldn't pass, they couldn't turn around as it was just a little trail and they say one will lie down. It's usually the smaller one that lies down and the bigger one will go over him. Then they go on. That's not common sense, it's goat sense. When the big goat walks over the little one and goes on it says, "I won, I came out on top." The little goat gets up and shakes himself and says, "I came out alive." It doesn't matter who comes out on top, the thing is to come out alive, not to lose our salvation (41). Abraham lost with his brother, but he won with God. That's not the end of the story. He won with God and God gave him everything. Lot failed because of selfishness. But Lot is referred to in the New Testament as "just Lot." I don't know what you think of Lot, if he was saved or not. But there is hope if a tree is cut down that it will sprout again. I would give Lot the benefit of the doubt and will say he was saved, and if in doubt, give people the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't like to condemn people just because I don't know the whole thing about them.(42)

41) This is an unusual example. It seems to be a strong ‘submission’ message but just what exactly are the ‘big’ and ‘little’ goats? Bottom line of the message is ‘Submit or Die’ though. Because of the vagueness, this could be a fear inducing message. If the last 3 consecutive ideas expressed in the sermon are put together the formula becomes: Obedience = Peace and Failure to Submit = Death. But. . .the whole thing is pretty nebulous.

42) Well said! ! The speaker does mention the them of not judging others a couple times in this sermon, which in my experience is fairly unusual. I wonder how much of this message was retained by his listeners.

I thought then of Samson. His tree fell because he trifled with his gift, trifled with his strength and they put out his eyes and put him in prison. He lost his strength, he lost his liberty, he lost his sight and was in prison. He was grinding in the prison. Is there any clearer picture of a fallen tree, a fallen man? He failed completely but there was a stump left in the prison and faith was there and hope was there and his hair was growing again. He lost but he didn't lose everything. There was a root there in that darkness that was growing. He said to the boy, take me out and he took him out. It says they played with him. He played with his privileges and they played with him. He became a toy in the hand of the enemy. Friends, if we trifle with our testimony we can become a toy in the hand of the world - a plaything (43). He went over to those pillars and he embraced those pillars with all his strength. He prayed, "Lord, remember just one more. There was the root, there was a stump and give me back my strength just once." God heard and God answered. The house fell and he died. But he died in touch with God, after all he had lost. If there is any doubt in our minds, we can go to Hebrews 11:32... and it would fail me to speak of Gideon, Barak, and Samson. It does my heart good to see Samson mentioned in Hebrews 11 amongst those that lived by faith and died in faith, of whom the world is not worthy (44). A man that failed so utterly but there was something left that sprouted and came forth and Samson was saved.

43) It is not clear to me how Samson ‘played’ with his privileges. Again we see an ‘us-them’ orientation. The world is out to ‘get’ members of the speakers denomination.

44) Interestingly, the speaker stops short of Heb. 11:40 which implies that Samson was not saved by faith, hope, or works, but by Christ’s redemption. The implication the speaker gives is that Samson ‘earned’ his salvation, but that doesn’t seem to be the intent of the text, which seems to say that all (including Old testament folk) are saved through Christ.

I thought too of David in Psalms 51. His tree fell because of the flesh, a common enemy in every country - one of the greatest enemies. Many have failed to the flesh rightfully or wrongfully (45). When David fell he said, "My sin is ever before me. Take not thy holy spirit from me, cast me not out of thy sight, renew a right spirit within me, restore unto me the joy of thy salvation." He felt he had fallen, he had gone down. The tree had fallen but in David there was still that faith, that love and God forgave him. David started to sprout again and was true.

45) This is unclear. How does one ‘rightfully’ or ‘wrongfully’ fail to the flesh?

I thought of Moses. It mentions in Psalms 106:33 that they angered him and he spake unadvisedly with his lips and God told him, "You didn't sanctify me, you rebelled in your spirit. You didn't sanctify me at the waters of Marah." Moses fell and God said because of that,"You are not going over into the promised land." And you think and I think, was there any person more worthy than Moses? We should not question God. We don't know the whole story, there's always a story behind the story. If God did that, God knew what he was doing and we shouldn't challenge God in these things. God told him, you did not sanctify me, you spoke unadvisedly with your lips, you rebelled in your spirit. The meekest man in all the earth lost the battle and we could say the tree fell. He said unto God, "Let me go over and see that good land." God told him, "Don't mention that anymore. That's a closed subject." And Moses accepted that. He told the people, "I'm not going over but you are going over." He did everything in his power to help them to go over and to encourage Joshua. You might say Moses lost the wonderful privilege and he lost points with God. But Moses appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus. The Song of Moses is sung in Revelations. It was not the end, you might say the tree fell but there was so much left to Moses. He lost the wonderful blessing and privilege, but he did not lose his faith in God. He didn't lose his love for God.

I thought too of Peter. He followed afar off and there are times when we are near and times when we are farther away. But friends, if we get far away, we are asking for trouble. Because one wrong step leads to another wrong step. Peter followed afar off but he never lost sight of Jesus. There may be times we get behind, but we should not lose contact with God's people. We should not lose contact with God's servants (46). He kept him in view and that day when they were accusing Jesus, someone spoke to him and said, "You belong to him." He denied that he knew him three times. He was standing where he could see Jesus and their eyes met and that echoed in Peter's heart. Jesus never said a thing. He was not accusing him. It was just a disappointed look. God is often disappointed with his people, but God is never discouraged in them and wants to help them. Jesus died and Peter went away and wept bitterly. He denied him before them all. Could this be a picture of a fallen tree? His testimony saying, "I don't know him." He was one of the apostles and was a servant of God. Three days and three nights passed and Jesus rose again. Peter suffered through agony for those days and then they met again. Jesus did not accuse him or reproach him for his past. He didn't say, "I told you, I warned you." Jesus accepted the tree had fallen but if there is a stump left, if there is a root of love in the heart of Peter, he will stand again. Jesus said to Peter, "Do you love me?" That was Jesus looking for the root. Peter said, "You know I love you." Three times he asked him that. Peter from that root, that stump, a fallen Peter, there sprouted up a new hope. New hope springs up and so we onward go. From that stump and from that failure there grew a better Peter, a wiser Peter and 30 years afterwards he was feeding the flock of God. He had grown into a tree where others could shelter under his advice and his experience. Peter rose again.

46) ‘God’s Servants’ are equated with Christ! ! ! It also is not clear how one loses contact with God’s servant’s but this is a very strong fear message. Also notice that ‘root’ is again introduced as the root of ‘love’ immediately after the workers have been equated with Christ. The conclusion: lose contact with the workers and ‘make shipwreck!’ Incidentally it is also the ONLY time in the entire sermon that Christ is spoken of.

I'll just mention briefly Jonah. The workers' list came out. It said, Jonah - Nineveh (46). Jonah said, "I'm not going to Nineveh." He took off in the other direction. I one time said Jonah rebelled and one of the saint ladies whom I knew well in Ireland said afterwards, "I don't think Jonah rebelled, he just disagreed with God." So we'll put it that way, a revised version. If we disagree with God we are inviting failure because we have come to the place where we cannot bow and say, "not my will but thine be done,"--we are in disagreement with the will of God. He took off that day. He went down to the sea going in the opposite direction. That was his fall. Disagreement with God brought about a fallen tree in his life. He went down and bought a ticket. Do you think he bought a round trip ticket? No, he bought a one-way ticket. He didn't intend to come back; he was finished and he went down in the ship and fell asleep. You think he prayed before he went to sleep? He was a servant of God and a servant of God shouldn't go to sleep without praying should they? He couldn't pray. Jonah put himself in a place where he couldn't pray and didn't want God to know where he was either.

47) This equates the workers with the prophets without explaining what the similarities are. Equating the workers to this particular prophet might not be the best rhetorical choice though! ! ! It is also probably the 'lightest’ moment in the whole sermon, and it’s probably the one that listeners will retain best.

There are times when we could get ourselves into such a condition that we cannot pray. He had strayed from the secret place. Then the ship went off and God was thinking. God's thoughts may have been like this, "Jonah is a good man, but he's a little bit stubborn. If we can get this stubbornness out of him, he'd be better. I'll not kill him, but I'll give him a good fright." They say a man learns more by a good fright than from good advice. God sent the storm and you know the story. They threw him overboard and into the fish' mouth and down to the bottom on the sea. There he was. You remember what Jesus said, "You go into your room and close the door and pray in secret. God sees in secret, he will reward you openly." (48)

48) Interesting analogy. Notice that the speaker is essentially ‘putting words in God’s mouth.’ This message about the power of prayer seems to be ‘tacked’ into the sermon. Also notice the link between obedience and prayer. Is the implication that one should pray for Obedience? Because it stands slightly out of context with the rest of the sermon, this is the kind of ‘gem’ that many listeners might retain. The analogy is clear, succinct and fascinating.

Do you see the picture? Jonah strayed from the secret place and God put him back in the secret place. There was a little room inside the fish in the bottom of the sea. The door was closed. What was the door? The fish' mouth. There he was in the place of prayer. God put him back in the secret place. What did he do? The only thing he could do was pray to God. His disagreement or rebellion had passed and he said, "They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercies. I have been working against myself." God spoke to the fish. The fish vomited him on dry land. Jonah was the first man to go down in a submarine! He went out by boat and paid his fare, but they brought him back free! Then God said to Jonah, "Go to Ninevah." He said, "Yes, Sir!" and he went on. It took away his stubbornness, but he fell. (49)

49) This is an odd ending for an example (the final example too!) of hope. The words ‘he fell.’ To me combined with the frequent ‘fear’ messages, this kind of seems to undermine the whole point of the message; ‘hope.’

The thought on my mind that I'd like to leave with you is, "If a tree falls, there is hope." There will be something left, there will be a root. God would never like his people to become hopeless, even if we feel helpless at times. And to realize that God is not counting iniquities, that God is not holding our past against us. He wants to forgive us for the past and give us a clean future. May God help to keep us connected to our hope. It is our salvation (50).

50) Our hope is not our salvation. CHRIST IS OUR SALVATION! ! ! !

The most extraordinary thing about this sermon to me is the fact that in a sermon about hope, Christ is only discussed in ONE paragraph and then he is essentially a character in the story who gives the ‘disappointed look.’ How can one preach hope and hardly mention Christ? Statistically ‘workers/servants/overseers’ are mentioned at least 18 times, in 6 different paragraphs. Christ is mentioned 6 times in 2 paragraphs. Most of those references are in the paragraph about Peter and are more about Peter than about Christ. So does this mean that hope is more about workers than about Christ?

Some of the examples used are rather mixed. When we think of Godly people it is probably not Jonah, Lot, and Samson that we think about. On one hand this could be positive if the hearer interprets the use of these particular examples to mean that even people who are sinful can be saved. On the other hand, given the overall vagueness of the sermon, this might leave the hearer feeling rather disquieted. The listener can ‘hope’ for salvation but really have faith in it? ? ? Even the speaker isn’t ‘sure’ about Lot. Two of the speakers examples end with a fall. The listeners could be left feeling just a trifle doubtful about their salvation. Is this vague sense of vigilance what the speaker wanted to impart? As a reader I was definitely left wanting more than this. Maybe including a message about Christ and God’s Grace might have helped.

Many parts of this sermon are not particularly clear and I had the advantage of a written copy to study intently. The listeners got one chance to hear it. (a much poorer media for retaining and analyzing information) I wonder how much of this message was really retained and actually analyzed. When presented with unclear information listeners usually do one of two things; they ignore it or they simply apply their existing knowledge or values. So in this case what are the themes listeners might have heard? How about HOPE, WORKERS, OBEDIENCE, PRAY FOR OBEDIENCE, THE WORLD DESPISES GOD’S PEOPLE. Read the sermon quickly once, and those might be the only things that stick out. The listener might tend to equate hope with workers and obedience as those are very dominant themes in this sermon. Taken as such this sermon is a powerful control message. The listener’s hope is dependent upon obedience. Since obedience is not clearly defined it might be interpreted to be God’s tree---the workers.

This sermon also has a curiously pessimistic tone. Note that several examples end with ‘falls’ and that Samson, Jonah, and Lot are not exactly the bible’s happiest people. I would wonder what Mr. Pollock’s state of mind about his own salvation was at the time this sermon was delivered.