Sermon Tone Analysis

“Now Lot went up out of Zoar and lived in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to live in Zoar.

So he lived in a cave with his two daughters.

And the firstborn said to the younger, ‘Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.’

So they made their father drink wine that night.

And the firstborn went in and lay with her father.

He did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

“The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, ‘Behold, I lay last night with my father.

Let us make him drink wine tonight also.

Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.’

So they made their father drink wine that night also.

And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.

The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab.

He is the father of the Moabites to this day.

The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi.

He is the father of the Ammonites to this day.”[1]

Psychologist Trayce L. Hensen, in a study largely ignored by major media outlets, found that “children reared by openly homosexual parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behaviour than children raised by others.”[2]

This information should be disturbing to all right-thinking people, and the more so in light of unrelenting indoctrination imposed by social engineers that seemingly have foisted on the educational process a view of culture that is radically different from that recognised by the majority of the population.

Are we really surprised by that finding?

It is well documented that children raised by alcoholic parents tend to have higher rates of alcoholism as adults.

Children raised in homes where parents smoke are more likely to smoke than children raised in the homes of non-smokers.

Children raised in the homes where parents are abusive to their spouse are more likely to be abusive to their spouses when grown.

There is a pattern in life that reminds us that behaviour that is normalised through repeated exposure will almost assuredly be adopted as normal by those raised in such an environment.

Certainly, the behaviour that is observed in the home is accepted as normal and viewed with approval by children as they enter adulthood.

There is a broader implication that should cause Christian parents pause.

When we who are Christians tacitly approve of wickedness—perhaps even participating occasionally in sinful activities—we sacrifice our integrity and our moral authority.

Consequently, we sacrifice our children.

Not surprisingly, when we act as the world acts, our children will adopt the attitudes of the world, and finally drift into a lifestyle that is indistinguishable from the world in which they live.

Similarly, when we permit ourselves to be indoctrinated by the world, adopting the worldview that is antithetical to the divine plan for life, we become facilitators of evil in driving our children into the darkness of this fallen world.

The events that are recorded of Lot and his daughters after they were delivered from Sodom provide a study in the impact of a godless environment on people.

Though God delivered these girls from Sodom, they carried Sodom in their hearts.

The accuracy of this assessment is demonstrated through their actions after being delivered from divine judgement.

*Life After Sodom* — For far too long evangelical pulpits have passed over the account of the incestuous relation of Lot’s daughters as inappropriate for a sermon text, just as they failed to speak of the wicked actions of the residents of the cities of the valley.

That is odd since the Bible includes these accounts.

Perhaps the moral cesspool confronting churches today is the result of the embarrassed silence of the pulpits of the land.

Perhaps the reason youth are forsaking the faith in record numbers as soon as they reach their teen years is because the pulpit is light-years behind the entertainment industry in the matter of speaking about moral issues.

It is a shocking truth that by the time an individual turns thirteen, he or she will have watched on average */18,000 hours of television/*!

On average, those same children will have spent */2,184/* */minutes/* (less than 37 hours) in meaningful conversation with their parents!

The average child will have invested about 487 hours in watching television for every one hour spent in meaningful conversation with their parents.

[3] If parents sit with their children in weekly church services, rather than depositing the children in a glorified baby-sitting service, those same children will have listened to about 600 sermons during that same period of time.

What should be evident from these studies is that parents are not shaping the character of children today—television moguls are.

In the broadest sense, children are not being trained in righteousness from the pulpit—they are imbibing moral instruction from polluted fountains of contemporary entertainment.

Entertainment moguls are shaping the moral character of Canada through indoctrination of our children.

Since we now have a couple of generations that have absorbed such impoverished training, it should not be surprising that, broadly speaking, society increasingly reflects godless attitudes expressing opposition to righteousness and in which everyone does what is right in his own eyes [see *Judges 17:6*].

Many rap stars and~/or television stars will not let their children watch what they create!

“Closer” star Clive Owen will not let his children watch anything he has been in.[4]

Neither does Stephen Colbert permit his children to watch the Comedy Central show.[5]

Rapper Ja Rule claims his kids cannot even watch MTV—the station that plays his music videos—in the afternoon because he says the station promotes homosexuality as normal.[6]

Michael J. Copps, US Federal Communications Commissioner, says, “Every day I hear from Americans who are fed up with the patently offensive programming coming their way so much of the time.

I hear from parents frustrated with the lack of choices available for their children.

I even hear from broadcast station owners that something needs to be done about the quality of some of the programming they are running.

I had a high-powered TV executive in my office a few months ago who told me he doesn't let his children watch television unless he's there to man the remote.”[7]

Mr. Copps went ahead to state, “I've referred to a ‘race to the bottom,’ but recently I'm beginning to wonder if there even is a bottom to it.

I’m reminded of Charles Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities.

It is the best of times; it is the worst of times.

On our TV screens today we have some of the best television ever.

And we have undoubtedly the worst.”

While many famed movie directors and producers reportedly will not permit their children to watch what they produce, these same individuals apparently expect you to permit your children or grandchildren to watch all that they produce, screaming “Censorship!” at the top of their lungs if you attempt to shield your children from watching the filth they peddle.

Though arguing that they are only presenting what people want, it seems obvious that they are foisting on society training that must, of necessity, transform each succeeding generation into one which is more degenerate and more decadent than the last.

In previous sermons we saw that Lot is recognised as a righteous man.

Lot was saved from destruction by God’s mercy.

However, the personal cost for his deliverance was high.

All his valued possessions were buried in the rain of sulphur and now lie at the bottom of the Dead Sea.

Lot went from being a man who was as wealthy as his uncle, Abraham, to living in a cave.

Though he had been blessed through his association with his godly uncle, he squandered what God had entrusted to him through using it to advance his personal ambitions rather than blessing others.

No would survive God’s judgement on the wicked cities.

All his relationships were lost because of his decision to compromise with evil—his wife longed for Sodom even more than he did, and as a consequence lost her own life even as God rained down judgement on the city.

His daughters lives were preserved, but they had adopted the pragmatic view of the world that says they must make their own way rather than relying on God to direct them in the Way.

They seem to have decided that they were the last people on earth, so they could violate God’s rules for righteousness with impunity.

Lot’s lack of integrity is exposed by his daughters’ incestuous plan after they had forsaken the valley.

What did Lot gain by compromising his convictions?

No more than any man gains through compromise with evil.

Sober assessment of their actions will reveal that Lot’s daughters were only implementing lessons they had learned during their formative years—that their personal estimate of right and wrong was valid for every situation.

They had been situated at the centre of their universe, and so they continued living as though the world revolved around them.

They appear to have received little parental guidance in righteousness.

Their mother’s disobedience as she was leaving Sodom would indicate that she had modelled before them a self-centred life.

Lot’s mad pursuit of position at all costs within the city had taught them that personal satisfaction and self-aggrandisement were to be more highly esteemed than was righteousness.

Perhaps it will be valuable to recall the Proverb that teaches us:

“Train up a child in the way he should go;

even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

[*Proverbs 22:6*]

The expression “the way” in Hebrew can be rendered “according to his way.”

“His way” refers to “the way he should go,” as it is rendered in this version of the Word.

The construction reflects the point repeatedly stressed throughout Proverbs that there is a standard of life which a child must attain.

Throughout the Book, there are only two ways that an individual can go—the way of the wise (righteousness), or the way of the fool.

One takes training; the other does not.[8]

Living in Sodom, and especially living in Sodom without taking care to instruct his family in righteousness, had lasting consequences for Lot and for his family.

In a similar fashion, modern families living as though morality was of no vital importance, or living as though one must tolerate every form of wickedness without speaking against it, or living as though moral turpitude is inconsequential, will experience lasting—and detrimental—consequences.

It is certain that parental lifestyles and attitudes will be magnified in the lives of their children.

Life after Sodom may not be as pleasant as people imagine!

*The Basis for the Daughters’ Decision* — “The firstborn said to the younger, ‘Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.’”

I suspect that the divine text presents a synopsis rather than a detailed account of the conversation between these two sisters.

What is apparent is that they were both in agreement with the plan proposed by the elder sister.

It is not likely that the elder sister was compelled to resort to persuasion; her argument appeared well thought out and unimpeachable to her younger sister by her ready response to the proposal.

However, the plan they hatched was gravely flawed, being defective both in the premise and in the execution.

The premise for her proposal was that they would not be able to have children.

The premise was in error on several grounds if she had thought the situation through.

First, it was only the cities of the valley that were destroyed.