Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
We welcome you to our second season of the Florida School of Preaching Harvester podcast.
This will be episode two and I'm Brian Kenyon, one of your hosts along with...
Steven Ford.
and Forest Antemesaris
and we're glad to be with you this season and we're addressing cultural issues that face
us in the church and in our second episode today we're going to talk about cultures
influence on ethics cultures influence on ethics now we think about ethics you know often
a lot of things come to people's minds but just a basic good working definition of ethics
is prescribed values prescribed values
I mean, when I say something is versus something ought, then there, the ought is a
prescribed value that is being given.
ethics does fall under the study of philosophy, and so it sometimes is defined as moral
philosophy.
And ethics addresses questions about virtue, vice, good and bad, right and wrong.
and when we think about a culture's influence on what we think is good, bad, right or
wrong, or what's a virtue, what's a vice, it can be different when we think about it from
a cultural perspective, because cultures are different.
But we do know that the Bible standard of ethics is the only true objective system of
ethics that works in every culture, and that's just one of the Christian evidences, I
think, that would
strong christened says in the bible or to to defend the bible but it also when you think
about biblical ethics is also this standard to which all people are accountable now
whether they believe in god or don't believe in god everyone is going to be accountable
and answerable to god's system of ethics which of course we can summarize in the great
commission all the stories given to me said jesus in heaven and earth matthew twenty eight
eighteen and then mark sixteen fifteen and sixteen
going all the world and preach the gospel to every creature or to all creation he that
believes is a baptize shall be saved and so that's you know all people are going to be
answerable or amenable to that standard if you will now sometimes we think of christian
ethics will hear that term christian ethics and that can be misleading as if christian
ethics only applies to christians but again what
what is objectively morally right and wrong is morally right wrong for all people not just
christians and so sometimes i think that term christian ethics can be a little bit
misleading
Yeah, if you have, sorry, I was just gonna say, if you have one standard for Christians
and one standard for everybody else, you really do people a disservice by evangelizing,
you know what I mean?
Because it's like, hey, just stay a heathen and you'll be judged with more mercy, you
know, which is kind of the opposite of the Great Commission, which you just read, which
is, hey, go tell everybody, because if they don't hear about this and obey it, they will
be lost.
And I think it comes across then that it's worse to be a Christian.
Why would I be a Christian?
If it's harder, more rules, it's more straining on you as a person, why would I do that?
So we're doing a moral disservice if that were the case.
But it's more like, I guess you would just say biblical ethics, or just ethics.
Well Christianity's true religion, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, then is for
everybody.
For everybody.
And yeah, I was just at lectureship not too long ago and I ran into a old friend of mine
that I was with at Fried-Hardeman and I thought I had debated him but he said it wasn't
him so I don't know who it is now but we took a class where we had to debate each other
and I was a pacifist.
I leaned toward pacifism when I first became a Christian, you know, and so that's the
topic I picked, you know.
So another guy and I were debating on pacifism and I was going to be the pacifist and I
really believe it and he was going to be the non-fascist.
I don't know what you'd call the opposite of a But as a semester went on and I studied
that, I mean it just totally changed my mind because if it's true that, if pacifism is
true, but all these passages talk about serving civil government and all that, there can't
be two systems of ethics.
There can't be two gospels.
have to be a pacifist unless you're police officer or an army.
And that just made it two, two, two, two gospels, which there isn't.
And so I studied myself out of that, but I still had to go through the debate.
so I had a big smirk on my face the whole time because I knew I didn't believe what I was
defending, even though at first I did.
But I bring up that illustration just to show that there cannot be two gospels.
There cannot be two systems of ethics.
There cannot be two of those.
There's only one that's binding upon all people.
Of course, what the Bible teaches about it is
binding and of course we have to rightly divide or handle or write the word of truth to
come to ascertain those those things.
So it's the biblical standard of ethics.
Jesus said he had all authority.
Matthew 28.
So that excludes, or that involves, includes everybody.
There's nobody that's accepted from that.
I love the way his phrase, in heaven and in earth.
So if you're on the earth or you're above the earth, it's covering you.
But there are different variations or different definitions of ethics that we want to look
at today as it relates to how culture influences those.
when we go through these, we'll have like a good handful of them.
And when we talk about these, you may not have heard these in the language that I'll give,
but once we start explaining it, you'll know exactly what we're talking about.
we would need to compare those to what the Bible says about those.
Alright, and the first one we want to look at is what's often called might is right.
Might is right.
And so this would say that justice is in the interest of the strongest party.
And you see this all over the world even today and some of these, you know, governments or
these totalitarian type governments.
see this in past history quite a bit even in some of the biblical history.
I think you see this sometimes in people's households, you know, hey do this why because I
said so and I'm bigger and stronger than you right which sometimes you know makes sense
when you're dealing with children because you can't explain the reason but as a system
binding on everybody it's horrible because just whoever's the strongest or the mightiest
or the most influential or the most powerful gets to gets to be the standard of morality
rather than God
Yeah, and one of the things wrong with that is it shows no difference between power and
goodness.
Because someone has power, does not mean it's good.
And it will change because whoever's in power will change.
So whenever somebody's in power and they cease to be in power for whatever reason, well
then does that mean that morality changes or was that thing that he said good because if
you change it, well now which one is good?
And then that makes people think that there is no such thing as an objective standard
because it'll constantly change by whoever's in power.
yeah
yeah i've thought of this a lot that you talk about the attributes of god you know what
about the moral attributes of god and the non moral attributes of god which of course with
god at all ties in together see you can't really can't really separate with god but we do
just a rumor whatever but you know but the reason like the non moral attributes you know
all knowing all powerful and omnipresence all present everywhere i mean it's called non
moral because
you know those don't really indicate morality you person be all powerful but you know when
we think in terms of men will have is he use that power and then that's how you determine
the morality of it but with god you know he always uses it in good i mean so with him it's
it's always good but also you know evil tyrants so the weakness of this theory because
again as as steven was just saying you know that the head honcho changes in the power
changes to my changes and so and ethics would with it and
And along with this, versus right, and usually in history it's shown by political power or
military power, but I think in our culture we have to look at celebrity might,
celebrities.
They come on the scene and they have a huge sway in determining ethics among our culture
because of their influence.
Yeah, popularity seems to always, well in the last maybe 50 years, popularity carries with
it this certain cache that whatever you say is authoritative.
And it can be in a completely different field.
As I was joking before we kind of started the episode, you you can have a celebrity chef
who weighs in on a global economic policy.
And because he's an expert in the field of cooking we see his expertise kind of spill over
into another field which it has zero relevance but for whatever reason people will take
that person's opinion as though it's authoritative and they'll start to live by that
standard even though they have zero you know to do with that particular topic.
Yeah, I can't believe you get your morality from the Bible.
I get my morality from people on TikTok with millions of followers.
You know what mean?
It's like, well, OK, so whatever they say about the topic du jour is binding truth because
they are famous or pretty or whatever.
And it's just like another perversion of this where because you have this quote unquote
power, you get to set the morality.
But again, that's not how it works.
And then they'll kind of appeal to you, well, you don't have any followers.
Nobody follows your little 200 follower page.
It's like, well, that's right, but we're talking about God here.
It made me think about the book of Daniel, because you see these individuals who have
great military, social, political power imposing things that are antithetical to what God
wanted people to do.
And God's people are still saying, we're going to obey what God says.
might make for fear here, but might doesn't equal right.
And in particular, just think about Daniel chapter three, with bowing down and, when you
hear the sounds of this, you know, the music playing, you gotta bow down and worship this,
you know, false image, this golden image.
And they're like, hey, listen, we're not gonna do it because God doesn't want to do it.
And even if something happens to us, we're not gonna do it.
They demonstrated their ethics was not based upon might and power.
And I think even then might is right is always wrong on earth because nobody's more
powerful than God anyway.
So even if you wanted to say might makes right, there's still somebody stronger than you
and his name is God and this is what he has said.
You know what I mean?
So even if you were to take that, you could go all the way to the top and say, all right,
maybe Kinez, there's somebody with more power than you.
And he said not to do it.
So that's what I'm going to do.
And that particular God showed Nebuchadnezzar that there were some more powerful than him.
Again, back to Daniel chapter four.
Yeah.
Well, that's happened all through.
I'm sorry to just catch you over there.
just thought of.
see who's gonna preach.
I just thought about Egypt, know, made right there, but then God's like, well, I'm kind of
stronger, and I'm more powerful.
And I'll defeat you, your armies, and your false gods.
And so that was a great point that, know, go, there's always, at least in our perspective,
there's always one higher.
And so when we look up, well, God's always gonna be able to flex the biggest muscle.
I think you see the revelation too.
you the beast and the false prophet and everything and God's like, all right lake of fire
Yep, seemingly insurmountable, but God took care of it.
And his and it's gonna be the final.
And so there's no, know, like standing eight count, you know, that's it.
Three no All right, so my verse is right or might is right does not does not work a second
one when we is often called morals are mores and More is a deeply ingrained unwritten
social norm Maybe community is right type of thing because we've always done it.
This is this this makes it right and that's what this addresses
I think you see that a lot in our country because our country used to be more biblically
saturated, if you will.
There's things that were rightfully taboo and people think that they were just taboo
because that was the moray of the day, not because it's the Bible.
For example, like homosexuality and stuff like that where they say, well, that was just
taboo because that was the social climate of the day.
But now we've progressed.
And now the more is there's nothing wrong with it.
In fact, if you think there's something wrong with it, there's something wrong with you,
you know?
And I think, but really what it is, is this idea that morals just are reduced down to the
community and what the community says and that's it.
Yeah, I was thinking as we were kind of fleshing through this idea, the morals or mores,
this kind of sexual revolution that started several decades ago, this kind of really,
really going way into left field today, where you just find rampant, rampant fornication
and adultery in this.
people are like proud of it now and it made me think about Leviticus 18 where God is like,
listen, you're going to go into a culture where if we were using some of the same
terminology where there is a moray, this system of thinking, these unwritten rules where
just every kind of illicit sexual activity is on the table and God is like, that's not the
standard.
You are to go in and be holy because I'm holy.
So no matter what that culture was doing, that was the land God was giving them.
They were gonna go into that place.
That was a way of the day, you might say, but God was like, no, you're still to abide by
my standard.
And that is a very awesome point, going into, and I haven't really heard it expressed that
way in a long time, if ever, at least in memory, about you're going into a different
culture.
And that's so true, because here they are to be God's holy people, but the culture they
were going into in Canaan and Egypt and all that stuff was not God's culture.
And it's very interesting because, you know, if look at the life of Abraham, I just looked
at this the other day in a sermon, but, you know, Abimelech, when he lied about Sarah's
wife to Abimelech, know, Abimelech knew that it was wrong to have another man's wife.
How do you know that?
That was way before the law of Moses, goes back to Genesis, I would say.
But over time, those cultures are much different than what God's people are to be, and
that's even true today.
I mean, we're in a different culture, and this goes back to what
Forest said in episode one of this season about, you know, we are not to be like the
world, not like culture.
And that puts us Christians as more aware of culture because we're aware of what we should
not be like.
And then of course the Bible tells us how we are to be like.
And so I really appreciate that statement that just kind of struck out at me there.
But anyway, so, but right cannot be determined by community.
And of course there's the difference between
the is and ought and this is because somebody is or a community is doing something doesn't
not mean that they ought to do something right and i think forrest mentioned you know the
canine religion some of them were to sacrifice their their children well just cuz they did
that didn't make it right and even in colorant you know if you study the background of
corinthians you know the cult prostitutes and all that i mean
know, fornication is mentioned in almost every chapter of 1 Corinthians, and that just
seemed to be a way of life for the Corinthians, but that can't be for Christians.
Right.
Well, imagine I kind of imagine like when I was reading this, I imagined, know, imagine
how many times that I just say imagine.
But imagine you're in Sodom, you know, in Genesis 19, 18, 19.
And all those guys are banging on the door to know the angels.
And a lot just opens the door and looks into the house and says to the angels, sorry,
guys, this is just what they do here.
Man, you know, like that's what you're saying when you're saying morality is based as just
social more.
You would say that Lot could have done that.
Just, sorry guys, this is just what we do here, sorry.
And you say, that's ridiculous, you can't do that, that's wrong.
And thankfully Lot, least, though he wasn't perfect, he at least understood that that
wasn't an option, even though the whole town, young and old, had that expectation, it was
still wrong.
I was just thinking about, you know, I had mentioned going into Canaan, one might say,
well, they were going in there as the conquerors, and so they were going to impose their
social mores.
But even when God's people were in captivity, they were still not to accept the cultural
mores of those places.
So whether you're going in to conquer or you're going in in subjugation, either way, God's
moral standard didn't change.
And so even if
you are completely subject to this other group of people and they have the power, God is
saying, I still have the same expectations for you morally.
So you have to do the same thing.
Yeah, great points, great points.
And of course, there's no way to judge which community is right if standard is the
community.
And so two opposite ethical principles cannot be right at the same time.
And so that system will not work.
All right, a third one we want to look at is sometimes called man is the measure.
And that is each person's own will is a standard of right and wrong.
Protagoras stated man is the measure of all things.
And sometimes we might say this would be humanism type of thing and so.
There's a way that seems right onto a man.
that where you were going?
That's exactly what I was going
There you go.
That's it.
But no, that's true.
That's the way it does seem right to a man.
Is the way of
it.
Well, I'll look at them.
Oh, man.
That was a proverb 1412.
I'll just I'll just quote from Proverb 16 then 25.
There is a way that seemed right to a man for the in there are the ways of day.
I was thinking of the
okay i said that is true i mean just because you know you and i think you get a poor on
here not to jump ahead but when you say would render society in operative it's kinda like
judges right in that there was no king every man did was right in his own eyes and what's
going on chaos pure chaos is what's going on you know so that's the result of that if if
we're all just doing whatever we think we should do not good
Judges is a great case study on this topic.
We studied through this a few years back and one of the ladies in our Bible class, she
really had an issue with the book of Judges.
said, you know, the stuff that's happening here is just horrible.
Why would this be preserved for us and why would we be studying this kind of stuff?
And it's like, well, hey, this is written so that we can know what a society will do when
God is absent.
When we say no more God and we're going to do what we want to do, all of those
horrible, terrible, unspeakable things that you wouldn't want to talk about in mixed
company, they take place because depravity has no limits without God.
yeah that's a good point and of course as a force mention that passage in judges everyone
do it right in his own eyes and there's however many people you have that's so many
different ways you ran and says chaos
It's all fun and games until you get a chunk of concubine in the mail.
You know what I mean?
Like if we're talking like hey, let's just take that out of the picture What do you think
is gonna happen?
Yep, and we see the degradation of society when that happens.
Alright, next one we want look at.
Ethnicity is always right.
And this one would say that the whole determines what is right for the part.
instead of man, this would say mankind is the measure of all things.
Mankind is the measure of all things, not the individual man.
And we see this throughout history as well.
ethnicity, genocide and that kind of thing is taking out different ethnic groups, which
ethnic group is right.
Well, this one can't, you know, all of these kind of fall in on the weight of themselves.
And this one can't be right because there is no agreement within any one ethnic group on
how we should do things.
You you think about just the one that just popped in my mind during World War II, you have
the Germans imposing their will on, you know, on the world.
But yet there were Germans who were trying to usurp Hitler's power.
And so which
which part of that ethnic group or that group of people would you say is right?
it just falls under itself.
It can't stand because there's no group of people, a superficial group of people like
ethnic groups and this, because we're all of one mankind, all one blood.
You can't have this sort of a thing be the rule because nobody's gonna agree with
everybody all the time.
Right.
And think especially today, this is one that you see a lot of kind of with the idea of
like, you know, minority cultures cannot be judged.
The things that minority cultures might do cannot be judged as wrong because to do so
would be racist, et cetera.
You know, for example, if you took like the Native Americans and said, hey, the way the
Native Americans, you know, worshipped
mother earth or whatever might be in you say hey that was wrong they should have done that
somebody will say well you can't say that that's just your like and i've heard this before
like that's like your colonialism that's your you know whatever but there is a standard by
which every ethnicities judge every ethnic cultures judge white black native american
hispanic whatever
and that is the word of God and there cannot be well you know our race has got this all
right or I know God's word says this but my ethnicity this is just how we do it you know
it's like well that's that's not how it works and it reminds me of two passages one in
Titus where you know Paul quotes that poem about about Cretans being what is it?
liars evil beasts lazy gluttons
this testimony is true, therefore rebuke them.
Right?
wasn't like Titus was going to be like, hey, you guys are Cretans, you can't help it.
I'm not going to preach on that kind of stuff.
You know what mean?
That's just your ethnicity.
That's your culture, whatever.
And he could have done that, but he didn't.
And then I think about Acts 15 too, where you did have instructions for these Gentiles,
hey, don't eat the things strangled, don't eat the things, don't eat the blood, don't, you
know, and that was part of their culture.
That's part of, you could say their ethnicity.
But they said, hey, there's no place for that because of its associations with pagan
worship and all that different stuff.
That even highlights the beauty of the gospel because it does transcend ethnicity and
cultures.
Every person can be a part of it.
One of the passages I was just going to reference is Matthew 28, where in verse number 18,
excuse me, verse number 19, go you therefore and teach all nations, and that word nations
is where we might get our word ethnic, it's ethnos.
And so every ethnic group needs to get the gospel's message.
because the gospel of message transcends the ethnic groups.
And I love when you can read in the passage of regulations chapter three where there is no
Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female, we're all one in Jesus Christ.
And I'm grateful for that because all three of us in this room can have a different traced
back ethnicity.
But not one person can say, because I'm this, y'all are that.
You know, it's like, hey, we all get to be top.
in Christ because there is no lower in Christ.
We're all just one in Christ.
And it exalts everyone to the same standard.
It doesn't reduce everyone to a standard, but it exalts everybody to the same standard of
being one within Jesus.
a great point.
There's no second-class citizens in the kingdom of God.
I'm only first class in Craig.
right.
Now, of course, in the Old Testament, where they had the Jews, you know, were the special
called out people.
But even then, you know, there were the prophecies about the Gentiles coming in.
And there was also, you know, proselytes could come of any nation.
And they often did.
All right.
So ethnicity is right.
Does not work.
Then there's another one number.
Well, the next one here that there is no right.
There is no right.
This claims that all ought statements are actually I don't like statements.
Thus, ethics are not prescriptive, but simply emotive.
Yeah.
And that really is just subjectivity through and through.
know, I've heard people say this before, like when you are saying, especially, you know,
people up in academia and stuff, when you're saying something's wrong, really, all you're
saying is, I don't like that thing.
And I think this even says it's a matter of taste, not a matter of objectivity.
So it's like saying you shouldn't murder carries the same weight as saying I don't like
anchovies on my pizza.
Like those are equal.
Like that's just a taste thing.
And if you really applied that, imagine if everybody lived that way.
It'd be horrible.
It'd be absolutely horrible.
I mean, it would be, you couldn't function at all.
You couldn't have a system of law.
You couldn't prosecute it.
You couldn't say, hey, you ran the light, that's wrong.
Well, you just don't like me running the light.
There's nothing that you can prosecute.
Could you imagine that?
What would happen to a society that turns everything into it's just a matter of taste?
And Christianity becomes completely right because the Bible teaches us Jesus died to pay a
ransom for sin.
And this says there's no such thing as sin.
It's just taste.
You know, it's like, wait a second.
There is real right and wrong and there's a penalty for it and that penalty is death.
And that's why we need Christ.
And that's why this is such a good topic, an overarching topic about ethics, because
generally speaking, when you find people that make these arguments of subjectivity,
there's no right.
Usually it is the case that they are promoting, supporting something that's immoral.
It's never a person that says, you know what, I wanna do none of those things, but I still
think.
that is relative.
It's usually individuals who are promoting, supporting, or engaging in some sort of sin
that's described explicit within the Scriptures.
Yeah, that's a point.
Yeah, and they don't want to look at it as sin, but just a personal choice, personal
taste.
All right, and so the next one then, right, is what brings pleasure.
And this would be more in line with what the Epicureans teach.
Good is what brings the most pleasure and the least pain to the greatest number of people.
And of course, there's a difference between Epicureanism and Hedonism.
Hedonism is no matter what, if it feels good, do it.
But epicureanism and it's interesting.
I've recently studied this in act 17 You know they're mentioned with the stoics in act 17
that Paul that heard Paul in the marketplace and wanted him to come Speak to them on Mars
Hill But epicureanism and stoicism they were considered the moral philosophies of the
first century and you think well How could a moral philosophy that you know that's after
pleasure?
How could that be moral?
well
Contrary to popular belief sometimes as epicureans like for example if I go out and get
drunk and have a hangover the next day That's not pleasurable.
And so they would refrain from over drinking.
They wouldn't get get drunk drunk If fornication is gonna get me some disease That disease
is not pleasurable So I'm gonna curb my appetite on that and so that would be kind of how
that would work into a what would be considered a moral philosophy
But we know that that system will not work for number of reasons, one of which is, you
know, not all pleasure is good and not all pain is good.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I think too, know, you...
Hedonism, I think, falls into this today.
There's a difference between hedonism and epicureanism.
But I think today a lot of people just say, kind of like you said, if it feels good, do
it.
And I think you really see that, like, in the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s.
And now we're seeing the fruit of it, where, you know, unlimited sexual encounters with
unlimited sexual partners.
And a lot of things are used to justify that, whether it's abortion or shack-n-up or
whatever.
And the result, societally, is horrible.
You have society to break down.
But also, obviously, that's not God's plan at all.
Ever since the Garden, you know, you had that it wasn't just about pleasure.
And I think sometimes we forget that.
Like, the Garden of Eden was paradise, but there was responsibility and there was work and
there was...
It wasn't just all like Adam just sitting there and, you know, it wasn't like, like
Islamic view of heaven.
Shout out to Chad Tacto's lecture at the lectureship.
there were responsibilities and there was some, you know, there was some difficulty there.
And I think that that's a good point.
Not all pleasure is good, not all pain is bad.
And nobody teaches that more us more than Jesus, I think, where you see how the good that
his pain brought and how we can have faith that our suffering has a purpose when we do it
for him.
Also the book of Ecclesiastes, you know, the writer's like, hey look, I tried it all.
And it demonstrates what people are really finding out now.
And there is some psychology that's trying to support this, but it's not funded as well.
But it demonstrates that when you seek pleasure only, especially now within the context
we're talking about.
at in the last few moments here, about sexual pleasure, it leaves a tremendous brokenness
in its wake.
When people are out just finding pleasure, pleasure, pleasure, or what they call pleasure
physically, it leaves a horrible emotional, mental, spiritual scar in its wake.
And people can't come back from that.
So you have these people who have become adult stars, film stars, and that sort of thing,
and then afterward they're like, wow.
you know, made all this money but now I'm broken, I'm scarred emotionally and have all
this baggage that I just can't get rid of because you tried to pursue what you thought was
going to be happiness but in the end it has tremendous ruin.
That's why God allows those things but with parameters.
He allows physical intimate pleasure but within the parameters of a marriage.
And so we have to make sure that those things are governed by God's law so it's not just
seek pleasure, just for the sake of seeking pleasure.
Alright, and so we've considered that and now let's look at this last one here.
Well, we'll make it the last one.
Yes, you're the quarterback.
But some would say that right is indefinable.
is indefinable.
They just say good is good and so attempting to define good in terms of something else
makes that something the intrinsic good or the inherent good.
That kind of sounds like it's just going back into just another name for the relativism.
Well, what is good?
Well, you just can't know it.
It's kind of like that whole, what is a woman question?
What is good?
Well, you can't really define it.
Or you can just maybe define an action.
Like, well, helping a baby is good.
Well, why is it good?
They can't name the...
the standard for what is good is only maybe defining an action.
Very good.
We do have time for this other one here.
So that last one we'll look at then is right is what is desirable for its own sake.
And this would say that moral value is an end, but not a means.
Yeah, I've heard people with this one almost with like an air of superiority where I don't
need a God I don't need a heavenly reward to do the right thing I just do the right thing
because it's the right thing and almost like kind of looking down at the Christian because
We say that we have a standard and we say there's a reward and all those different kinds
of things I was like well just do the right thing because it's the right thing.
Okay, but who says it's the right thing How do you know that's the right thing and that's
that's what you miss out on?
I think also that can be maybe drawn when you mention like some people say, well, heaven.
I think that sometimes we may be responsible for that and that sometimes heaven is viewed
as our goal when it should be.
glorifying God.
And heaven is a place where those that glorify God will go, but it shouldn't, it seems
like it can be kind of selfish if it's like, well my goal is I get to go to the place
where there's no sorrow and no tears about me, when really the gospel's message is about
the exaltation of Jesus and his kingdom and his rule and his reign, never ending and those
sorts of things, so it shouldn't just only be heaven, but it should be to honor, glorify,
and exalt the name of Jesus.
Love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.
And if you do those things...
Absolutely, there it is.
That's in the book.
And so we appreciate that and we're just out of time for this episode but we do want to
follow up the next episode on the only system of ethics that does work regardless of the
cultural influence and that is the biblical system that we've alluded to throughout this
podcast.
So we hope we'll join us for our third episode in this second season of the Florida School
of Preaching podcast.