[Are these responses supposed to be formal, essay-like or more semi-casual, discussionlike?

] What, specifically, does Winthrop mean by a "city on a hill"? What directions does he give about the way he hopes that the colonist will conduct themselves in this new venture? Basically, Winthrop is urging the congregation to treat thy neighbor as thyself; let go of any individual, secular aspirations, and concern themselves only with the progression of the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a utopian Protestant theocracy (I think itd be fair to call it that). We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities. The colony should be A Model of Christian Charity, the standard to which other Christians will look to and hope to emulate. How would listening to this sermon be different than reading it? Does our shortened attention span change the way we experience this and other texts, do you think? Does your knowledge of the bible specifically affect the way you interpret this sermon?
Yes, attention span definitely affects the way listeners receive and understand words. When I was reading the sermon, I lost my place a couple of times and had to go back to re-read certain sections. Flow and continuity add a great deal to the drama of reading. Without it, a reader can lose the urgency or tone of a text. That, along with the circumstances in which we experience something, play a central role in our mental processes. Im sure that if I had been there, listening to someone that I respected (Im guessing everyone there respected Winthrop), the sermon would have meant a lot more to me than it does now. At the moment, I just dont find it immediately relevant to how I should live my life. Plus, probably most of the travelers there had a well-established, common understanding/knowledge of the Bible. I dont doubt that all of the numerous biblical allusions added another level of importance that inspired them to model themselves after the teachings of Jesus and the behavior of Scriptural figures. Should we as a nation, still be a "city on a hill" to the rest of the world? Can we do that without being officallly Christian? Does the United States still act as if we are somehow God's chosen people? Should we? I dont think we should always look back to historical texts and try to uncover some universal truth that can still be applied today as it was then. Sure, it can sometimes be useful (learning from historical atrocities), but looking at the products of the past as somehow purer is backwards and unprogressive (old example: Ptolemaic astronomical model vs. Copernican model). Assuming that by city on a hill you mean a religious paragon, then no, I wouldnt want the United States to try to fulfill any supposed role as Christianitys spiritual leader. There already is Vatican City. That being said, I really dont feel as though Americans view themselves as Gods chosen people. Maybe in previous centuries they did, but not so much now. Every day, we are becoming more aware of the increased global competition that we have to contend with, ranging from technology to sports. The way I view things, American pride stems from the recognition of our fortunate personal freedoms and the comfort of our private lives, not from any sense of spiritual exceptionalism.