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
0.12UNLIKELY
Fear
0.46UNLIKELY
Joy
0.55LIKELY
Sadness
0.18UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.68LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.58LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.94LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.76LIKELY
Extraversion
0.49UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.71LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.8LIKELY

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
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Witnesses for Christ, His Life, His light, His salvation – are weird.
Maybe you don’t like weird.
Maybe you would prefer words such as strange, peculiar, or bizarre.
More likely you would not prefer any of those words.
Of course, if I were to describe John the Baptist to you, you may agree with me that John the Baptist, at least to our modern-day sensibilities, seemed a bit odd.
John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and proclaimed a baptism for the forgiveness of sins ().
To the mass of people who flocked out to the wilderness to listen to him, he declared “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” ().
To the religious leaders who came out to check on him he cried out, “You brood of vipers!
Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” ().
You must at least agree with me that John the Baptist was not likely winsome.
He probably wasn’t considered to be the best at developing tolerant and comfortable relationships.
He likely came off as socially awkward.
After all, add to his brash statements the fact that he “was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey” ().
So then, you may agree with me that at least John the Baptist seemed weird – or at least whatever equivalent word you might prefer.
But, you’re probably not willing to lump your post-modern, tech-savvy, chic self with the likes of John the Baptist.
He may have been weird, but you’re not.
This type of thinking is similar to a young Christian, college student at Vanderbilt University.
Tish Warren wrote an article in Christianity Today back in 2014, by the title of “The Wrong Kind of Christian.”
She starts the article by writing, “I thought a winsome faith would win Christians a place at Vanderbilt’s table.
I was wrong.”
She goes on to describe what she believed to be a winsome, appealing, and appropriate Christian presentation.
Christianity Today.
I thought I was an acceptable kind of evangelical.
I'm not a fundamentalist.
My friends and I enjoy art, alcohol, and cultural engagement.
We avoid spiritual clichés and buzzwords.
We value authenticity, study, racial reconciliation, and social and environmental justice. . . .
despite some clear differences, I held a lot in common with unbelieving friends.
We could disagree . . .
and remain on the best of terms. . . .
Then, two years ago, the student organization I worked for at Vanderbilt University got kicked off campus for being the wrong kind of Christians.[1]
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship was put on probation in 2011.
“We had to drop the requirement that student leaders affirm our doctrinal and purpose statement.”
InterVarsity allows anyone to be a member but asks key student leaders to affirm its doctrinal statement, in which it outlines key Christian doctrine.
But, and here’s the key, while it didn’t mention sexual conduct specifically, beliefs about the authority of Scripture “could potentially constrain sexual activity or identity.”
Their lack of compliance with Vanderbilt’s expectations resulted in their removal.
This is not unique to Vanderbilt and InterVarsity.
Only this week, the Iowa City Press-Citizen published an article describing a fight "for the right [of a Christian group on campus] to ask its leaders to be Christians."
Iowa City Press-Citizen.
The university stripped Business Leaders in Christ . . . of its official recognition in 2017, because the group denied a leadership position to an openly gay student . . .
The students asked the school to cut them some slack, to allow them to do the same thing they've been doing for 25 years without any trouble, and the university said no . . .
They weren't even allowed to encourage their leaders to be Christian."[2]
We may not want to look around too much because when we do we don’t like what we see.
But, just in case you haven’t been paying attention, the last decade has brought with it a sexual revolution.
In the 1960’s, the sexual revolution “transformed a repressed, highly heteronormative culture still suffering from the entrenched, patriarchal mores of Victorianism and Freudism into a society of “free love.”
Today, the new sexual revolution, is about the “right to be free from all societal influences that compete to exploit our most cherished instincts . . .
The sexual healing movement does not seek to inhibit sexuality by reinstating prohibitive morality.”[3]
Maybe some of you feel like these battles are far from you.
Maybe you’re just resigned to the fact that they don’t dramatically impact you and you’re okay with that.
Maybe you could coast through with little impact on your life.
But let me inform you, our teens are in the midst of it.
From the youngest to the oldest of our teens, this sexual revolution and the demands of a transgendered nation are not just on the fringe of their lives but in the midst of their closest relationships.
And don’t think you can keep up.
For those of you who may like to try, let me encourage you to read through the glossary that was compiled by “Gender Nation.”
This glossary is full of terms to assist in better understanding and accurately identifying terms of the sexual revolution.
We are told to avoid identifying gay people as "homosexuals."
“Homosexual is an outdated clinical term referring to queer people that is considered derogatory and offensive.”[4]
Instead we are to use the term “queer.”
While “queer” was once used as a pejorative, it has been reclaimed and is preferred by many in the LGBT community.
How possibly could someone keep up with all of society’s cultural taboos or ideas of ethics?
If you are a believer in Jesus Christ that holds to any semblance of historical Christianity and Biblical convictions, you look just about as weird as John the Baptist.
Maybe we need to give up on our desire to be liked by our culture.
Maybe winsome shouldn’t be the first adjective that describes our cultural engagement.
After all, a light in the darkness is always going to be rather conspicuous.
Purpose Statement.
We, who are not the light, are to bear witness to the Light, so that others may believe and have life.
John’s Identity (and ours)
John’s Identity (and ours)
Before acknowledging who John the Baptist was, let us first acknowledge who he was not.
I’ll start by having us first look at .
John was in the wilderness and some of the Jews sent priests and Levites to ask John, “Who are you?”
He was not the Christ.
It is possible that there were some who had mistakenly identified John the Baptist as the Messiah.
Both John, the author of this gospel, and John the Baptist are quick to dispel any thought that John the Baptist was the Christ.
John the Apostle clearly establishes that he is not the light but came to testify about the light.
He was not the Christ.
It is possible that there were some who had mistakenly identified John the Baptist as the Messiah.
Both John, the author of this gospel, and John the Baptist are quick to dispel any thought that John the Baptist was the Christ.
John the Apostle clearly establishes that he is not the light but came to testify about the light.
He was not Elijah?
John the Baptist was the fulfillment of .
“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes” ( ESV).
Even Jesus says in Matthew, “if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come” ( ESV).
And again, later in Matthew,
ESV).
And yet, when the religious leaders asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah, he said, “I am not” ().
They very likely had in mind the passage in Malachi.
It begs the question, why did he say he wasn’t Elijah?
Wouldn’t that have been a strong witness to the coming of Christ?
The answer to that question likely further reveals an important characteristic of John the Baptist.
Either (1) he was not aware of his fulfillment of Malachi or (2) in consistent fashion, John undermined the significance of his own ministry to more fully focus on Jesus as the Christ.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9