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
0.19UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.13UNLIKELY
Fear
0.54LIKELY
Joy
0.44UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.51LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.79LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.4UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.93LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.43UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.51LIKELY
Agreeableness
0.37UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.46UNLIKELY

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
*An Interpersonal*
*Communication Model*
Communication is a tricky business.
We often are  attempting to hit a moving target.
Words seem to disappear into thin air, and we wonder if they have touched the listener’s heart.
Hendrik Kraemer asks some tough questions of the Christian communicator: “Where and how do I live?
In a ghetto or in living contact with the world?
Does the world listen when I speak to it, and if not, why not?
Am I really proclaiming the gospel, or am I not?
Why has such a wall of separation risen between the world and what I must stand for?
Do I know the world in which people live, or do I not . . .
How can I find a way to speak again with relevancy and authority, transmitting ‘the words of eternal life’ entrusted to me?”
These are disturbing questions for the conscientious communicator.
How can we begin to get a handle on the skill of Communicating Christ to an ever changing audience that is often typified by spiritual misconceptions and apathy toward the issues of the gospel?
*Models Can Help*
Models can help give us insight into what is going on in the world of communication as we share the gospel.
A word of caution however: No model is perfect.
No model takes into consideration all the possible variables and their relationship to the communication process.
We must not confuse the model with the real situation.
Let us look at two models that shed helpful light on interpersonal communication and make some applications to our task of communicating Christ.
*The Shannon-Weaver Communication Model*
The Shannon-Weaver model (see Figure 1) can be applied readily to all conversations and, in our case, is very helpful in understanding the dynamics of the evangelistic encounter.
This model is especially helpful in two areas.
First, it is concerned with message fidelity – the degree to which a message is received and interpreted as it was intended.
Second, it addresses the role of “noise” or static that may interfere with the fidelity of the message.
FIGURE  1
*THE SHANNON-WEAVER MODEL*
This model was originally devised by the Bell Telephone Laboratories to help examine the accuracy (fidelity) of message transmission.
See Claude E Shannon and Warren Weaver, /The// Mathematical Theory of Communication/ (Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois Press, 1949).
p. 9. Used by permission.
It is obvious that such a model can be helpful to the evangelist who desires to communicate the gospel accurately and clearly.
He wants to avoid any barriers that might prevent the gospel from taking root in the heart of the listener.
!!! *The Basic Model of the Communication Process*
This model (figure 2) is also quite helpful in providing a simple overview of the mechanics of the communications process.
FIGURE 2
!
BASIC COMMUNICATION MODEL
From David Hesselgrave’s  Communicating Christ Cross Culturally (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Press, 1980), p.29. used by permission.
*1.
The Information Source*
The information is, of course, the gospel and we, the Christian communication, are the source.
There is a sense in which we are only a secondary source, God being the primary source/initiator of the entire process of communicating the gospel.
Thus, we communicate only because He has first communicated through Christ.
As He communicates, He continually seeks the lost through the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit.
*2.
Encoding (Transmitting) The Signal*
The source “encodes” the message, This means to put the message into some kind of coded system for the benefit of the respondent (listener).
We will limit our discussion to the encoding of the message into words, written and spoken.
The source must package and present the message in a manner that offers the best chance of reaching and influencing the listener.
That is, the communicator puts the gospel into his or her own words, or presents someone else’s words (such as by using a tract or other gospel presentation), keeping in mind the listener’s ability to understand the message.
*3.
The Message*
For us, this is the content of the gospel itself.
It is the specific information concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and His offer of love and forgiveness to sinners.
*4.
Noise Source*
Probably all of us have had the experience of answering the telephone and not being able to hear our caller over the static.
The issue here is one of “fidelity” or accurate message transmission.
Static or “noise” is present in the mechanics of phone-to-phone communication, and it is even more common in the mechanics of interpersonal communication.
It has been estimated that even in the best of situations, communication is only 80 percent effective.
Part of the reason is noise.
Noise could be defined as “unwanted signals that can disrupt message fidelity”.
In the arena of interpersonal communication, there are at least four sources of noise that hamper the transmission of the gospel from person to person.
(1) Cultural noise.
This comes in the form of cultural misconceptions and negative input that directly distort the understanding of the gospel by the listener.
As a result, he is not able to hear accurately what we are saying.
For instance, the listener may be influenced by the secular view of man as independent from and not responsible to God.
Thus, he perceives the gospel to be irrelevant and quite possibly nonsense.
The nominalist might be influenced by cultural noise that says, “Jesus is nice but not necessary”.
Thus, he could easily misinterpret the gospel as the cure for “whatever ails you” rather than as a message of forgiveness.
(2) Theological noise.
Our message of Jesus Christ as the substitute for sin may be muffled by the theological static of “I’m O.K., you’re O.K., so who needs to throw himself on the mercy of Christ?”
Or the misdirected religious person may perceive that what one believes does not really matter as long as he is sincere.
(3) Personal noise.
This static comes in the form of personal experiences and attitudes that hinder the listener from appreciating the ramifications and benefits of the gospel to himself.
For instance, he may have had a negative experience with some “Christians” or have been turned off to the gospel by past religious experiences.
He may reason, “I know some Christians and I wouldn’t want to be one”, or “I’ve tried to be religious and it didn’t work”.
(4) Spiritual noise.
The Bible is quite clear that Satan has blinded the minds of the unbelieving (2 Corinthians 4:4).
The world system is designed to tell the nonbeliever a set of lies concerning his eternal destiny and Jesus Christ.
Only the Holy Spirit can counteract the debilitating effects of this noise.
Only he can graciously enable the listener to operate on a frequency that overrides his spiritual blindness, freeing him to see the light of the gospel and its power for salvation.
The sure presence of noise is the very reason that the wise Christian communicator will do his homework so he can get in touch with his listener’s heart.
Noise levels and patterns differ greatly from person to person, but the unchanging gospel must be clearly communicated so that all can hear and have an opportunity to believe.
*5.
Decoding*
Upon hearing the message, the listener must interpret or decode it (Figure 5) so that he mentally grasps the message in terms that are meaningful to him.
Remember, listeners decode, or understand, messages only in the framework of the presuppositions and assumptions of their personal world.
The source must encode and transmit the message with this in mind.
The meanings are not so much in the words as they are in the people.
“We do not transmit meaning, we transmit words.
Words stimulate the meaning the other person has for them.”
As the Chinese proverb says, “90% of what we see lies behind our eyes.”
I became painfully aware of this truth as I attempted to share the gospel with a Mormon.
He heartily agreed with my presentation.
He said he had been “saved” by the “grace of Jesus”, was “born again” and was going to “heaven”.
While our wording was the same, however, we were using a different dictionary.
He agreed with me because he interpreted my words from his own framework, which provided the same words but with different meanings.
I am afraid that the noise and perils of decoding got the best of our conversation.
The combination of noise and decoding can take its toll on the fidelity of the message.
Therefore, the communicator must work to ensure that the message is received and understood with the highest degree of accuracy possible.
*6.
Feedback*
How does the communicator know if his message has broken through the noise, been decoded correctly and penetrated the heart?
The answer is to cultivate an atmosphere that encourages feedback.
As Figure 3 indicates, feedback is the process by which the listener becomes the source, encoding the information he has just received from you, then giving a message back to you that reflects he degree of his understanding.
Feedback is vital in evangelistic communication for at least four reasons.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9