Sermon Tone Analysis

Overall tone of the sermon

This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.1UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.07UNLIKELY
Fear
0.12UNLIKELY
Joy
0.15UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.52LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.46UNLIKELY
Confident
0.18UNLIKELY
Tentative
0UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.98LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.88LIKELY
Extraversion
0.44UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.14UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.81LIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
I. THE LOSS OF INFLUENCE
Francis Schaeffer writing in 1984: “Christianity is no longer providing the consensus for our society.
And Christianity is no longer providing the consensus upon which our law is based.
That is not to say that the United States ever was a “Christian nation” in the sense that all or most of our citizens were Christians, nor in the sense that the nation, its laws, and social life were ever a full and complete expression of Christian truth.
There is no golden age in the past which we can idealize—whether it is early America, the Reformation, or the early church.
But until recent decades something did exist which can rightly be called a Christian consensus or ethos which gave a distinctive shape to Western society and to the United States in a definite way.
Now that consensus is all but gone, and the freedoms that it brought are being destroyed before our eyes.
We are at a time when humanism is coming to its natural conclusion in morals, in values, and in law.
All that society has today are relativistic values based upon statistical averages, or the arbitrary decisions of those who hold legal and political power.”
II.
DO WE HAVE A KING?
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9