Sermon Tone Analysis

“Woe to those who call evil good

and good evil,

who put darkness for light

and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet

and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,

and shrewd in their own sight!

Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,

and valiant men in mixing strong drink,

who acquit the guilty for a bribe,

and deprive the innocent of his right!” [2]

Simone Weil, the French philosopher, displayed uncommon clarity in exposing human evil.

Undoubtedly, the fact that she had witnessed firsthand the horrors that engulfed Europe during the rise of German National Socialism and Italian Fascism and the attendant horrors unleashed by these socialistic terrors enabled her to see clearly the consequences of mankind’s evil.

Weil was well acquainted with ordinary people’s capacity for wickedness.

She gave much thought to how such evil could be.

One of her most startling conclusions was that, “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.”

[3] Let that thought sink into your consciousness: “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.”

Hers is a simple observation; but it is a significant observation.

People engaged in terrible evil are often convinced they are doing what is right and good.

This is especially revealing in contemporary debates over such stark moral issues as abortion, for example.

Alex Sanger, Chair of the International Planned Parenthood Council is quoted as saying, “the battle for reproductive freedom won’t be won until Americans are convinced that abortion is moral.”

[4]

There is no question but that pro-abortion advocates truly believe they hold the moral high ground, or they would not persist in arguing as though they were morally superior.

In the view of this, advocates of death, pregnancy is an issue of women’s health; and her ability to terminate a pregnancy trumps all other norms.

“[P]regnancy is dangerous,” Sanger concluded.

“It is not a walk in the park for any woman.”

[5] The current occupant of the American White House and his entire political party apparently have drunk deeply from the same polluted well from which Mr. Sanger imbibes; their views are amazingly similar to those of Mr. Sanger.

As a significant aside, do you not find it strange that there are people who will defend the rights of animals to live, even while arguing that women should be free to dispose of their own young?

Imagine a world in which one-third of all great white sharks were killed for the personal comfort and convenience of those wishing to swim in waters frequented by these massive predators.

Or, imagine a world in which one-third of all sea lions were killed to ensure that people could catch more salmon or steelhead trout.

Of course, such actions would be protested vigorously.

Yet, we live in a world in which one-third of succeeding generations are slaughtered in utero!

However, the numbers of influential individuals who argue that mothers should be permitted to kill their children following live birth if they so choose is burgeoning!

In spite of the obvious incongruity of their argument, those advocating the right to kill innocent children are prepared to argue that theirs is a moral position while those opposed to the slaughter of the unborn or the neonatal population is immoral!

Talk about a topsy-turvy worldview!

Another area in which those who advocate unbiblical positions believe themselves to be morally right is witnessed in those individuals advocating for same-sex marriage.

Advocates for social transformation through redefining marriage cloak their appeal in the language of virtue.

One religious affairs writer in Great Britain hailed the Civil Partnership Act in Great Britain as “the introduction of a new morality into gay and lesbian society.”

[6] This particular individual felt the legislation would foster homosexual and lesbian relationships that “value loyalty and love above secret promiscuity,” a problem that he admits plagues homosexual society.

Despite the fact that his relationship with his partner smacks of relativism, the author believes that they are practising a higher form of morality.

Positions such as these just described should not be surprising to thoughtful Christians.

The very beginning of human sin demonstrates that the essence of being a sinner is rejection of the truth and being enslaved to a lie.

To be a sinner is, in various ways, to “call evil good and good evil.”

Wisdom’s saying that “all who hate me love death” [PROVERBS 8:36], underscores this theme and demonstrates the link between this inverted moral compass and idolatry.

To withdraw one’s affections from the Creator is to betroth oneself to evil and to turn the back upon that which one should know, by the light of nature and common grace, really to be true.

The result of this choice to rebel is, to use the Apostle’s words, being compelled to live out one’s life with a “seared conscience.”

It is not that abortion lobbyists or gay-rights activists are loveless and godless.

On the contrary, they love much and believe much; but they love and worship wrong things—even terrible things.

And this is a thought that should deeply grieve every disciple’s heart.

It is necessary for those bold souls who speak on behalf of traditional moral categories to understand this: those who oppose them do so on the basis of a perceived virtue.

It is clarifying to realize what is really going on: those who stand in opposition to biblical morality are people enslaved to the darkness.

Nevertheless, they believe, deep down, that they are the sons of light.

Understanding this bizarre and deeply twisted view of life affects the Christian’s attitude to the so-called “culture wars.”

Our “opponents” are not merely wrong; they are tragic people trapped in the zeitgeist of the age from which they desperately need to be freed.

The challenge for God’s messengers today is to replace these idols of the heart with something better to believe and Someone better to worship

GOD DETERMINES GOOD AND EVIL — Religious leaders who are prepared to warn against violating biblical morality are marginalised and dismissed by those shaping social thought.

Were it not sufficiently wicked that society in general ignores these valiant spokesmen, the wickedness is made more horrendous still by the fact that often it is religious spokesmen leading the charge to deny sin as offensive to Holy God.

Too many of those who profess themselves champions for the Lord God are more concerned with receiving public approval than they are with whether God approves of them.

However, this truth must prevail—good and evil are defined by a perfect standard and not by the shifting opinion of a feckless society.

The standard by which morality and ethics are determined is through comparison to that which God has established.

When initiating services for a congregation in the Lower Mainland, I advertised the sermon titles each week in a local paper.

On one particular occasion, Sunday fell on April first.

I placed an ad encouraging observance of National Atheist Day, citing the opening words of the Fourteenth Psalm: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” [PSALM 14:1].

The ad generated considerable interest in the community, and a number of people phoned to complain about my lack of tolerance.

Surprisingly, many of those complaining professed themselves Christian.

One caller in particular, though not claiming to be a Follower of the Way, took umbrage at the ad.

She informed me that she was an atheist and that she was a good person.

“Who told you that you were a ‘good person,’” I asked?

“Well,” she offered, obviously taken aback by my query “my parents.”

“And who told your parents what is good,” I again inquired?

“I suppose their parents told them,” she responded.

Almost immediately she interjected, “I know what you’re trying to do; but ‘good’ is determined by society.

What society says is ‘good’ is good, and what society says is ‘bad’ is bad.”

She spoke with an air of finality as though her argument was so superior no response could be given.

“Then you believe it was a good thing for Germany to actively seek out and kill Jews in 1939,” I queried?

“Well, no,” she stammered, clearly taken aback by this unexpected response.

“That’s not a good thing.

I’m Jewish.”

I pointed out to her that German society in the late thirties was in general agreement with ridding Europe of Jews.

The general agreement to extirpate Jews spread throughout much of Europe until there was throughout much of European society a general intolerance against Jewish people.

In fact, the prejudice was so great that not even Great Britain or the United States were eager to provide a refuge for the persecuted Jewish populations.

There were plenty of reasons advanced why the English speaking peoples could not accept them, but the bottom line was dictated by a prejudice that had insinuated itself throughout society.

My interlocutor had failed to consider the possibility that society could be wrong because she was ignorant of the only perfect standard for determining right and wrong.

I continued by pointing that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Who gave mankind the perfect standard for what is moral.

Moreover, I pointed out that when mankind rejects God’s moral and ethical standard, society will construct its own standard, and that standard which is constructed will be not only inferior to that which God gave, but it will prove detrimental to that society.

Establish in your mind that God who gives us our being has set the standard for good.

God is Creator; and He who gives life is uniquely qualified to determine what is good.

If man evolved, then the moral/ethical code has also evolved and is still evolving.

If man was not created, then we are incapable of defining good and evil, because there can be no fixed standard—what we declare to be good today may well be evil tomorrow.

Because God is Creator, defining what is good and thus defining evil, He, alone is able to condemn what is wrong.

We define sin by referring to what is written in the Word of God.

James, the brother of our Lord, writes, “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” [JAMES 4:17].

Again, John has written that “All wrongdoing is sin” [1 JOHN 5:17].

John also cautions mankind, “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness” [1 JOHN 3:4].

The spokesman of God can only speak that which God has commanded—he cannot define sin; he can only warn against that which God has condemned.

Whenever someone argues that they have no idea what God expects, the Christian can answer very simply through appeal to that which God spoke through the Prophet Micah.

“With what should I enter the LORD’s presence?

With what should I bow before the sovereign God?

Should I enter his presence with burnt offerings,

with year-old calves?