I'd invite you to turn in your Bibles this evening to Second Kings Chapter 17. Second Kings Chapter 17. This will be one of several passages that I will refer to this evening. This portion of God's word tells us. Not only of the fact of Israel's fall, But the reason for it, the explanation for why Israel, God's own nation, his covenant people, would be carried off into exile. So I'll read from verse 6 through verse 15. 2 Kings 17, verse 6. In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria. And he carried the Israelites away to Assyria and placed them in Hala and on the Hebor, the river of Gozin, and in the cities of the Medes. And this occurred because the people of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. And it feared other gods and walked in the customs of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel and in the customs of the kings of Israel had practiced. And the people of Israel did secretly against the Lord their God things that were not right. They built for themselves high places in all their towns from watchtower to fortified city. They set up for themselves pillars and ashram on every high hill and under every green tree. And there they made offerings on all the high places, as the nations did, whom the Lord carried away before them. And they did wicked things, provoking the Lord to anger. And they served idols, of which the Lord had said to them, You shall not do this. Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes. in accordance with all the law that I commanded your fathers and that I sent to you by my servants, the prophets. But they would not listen, but were stubborn as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the Lord their God. They despised His statutes and His covenant that He made with their fathers and the warnings that He gave them. They went after false idols and became false. And they followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom the Lord had commanded them that they should not do like them. This is the Word of God. Amen. Let's pray again together. Teach us, Rabbi, our Master, our Jesus, who have been teaching your servants through the ages by your spirit. We ask that you will bless the word that's preached. We ask that you will give it entrance into the heart and lives of those who are here. Lord, especially we pray this as we live, as Israel did, surrounded by so many who have long ago turned from you and from your law. So, Lord, keep us faithful. Through this means of grace, your word. For Jesus' sake we ask it. Amen. One of the inspirations for that sermon series that I've entitled In the Wake of U.S. v. Windsor was an anecdote told to me by my children. They'd attended a conference here in the Charlotte area. of evangelical conservative churches or the youth from those churches. And there was a small group session in which the subject of same-sex marriage arose. The comment by one of these future leaders of the church in America was something to this effect by the report of my son or daughter. I don't believe in gay marriage, but They're not hurting anyone. When I heard that, it was chilling to my soul. That statement, no doubt intended as an expression of Christian kindness and compassion, but a statement that at multiple levels betrayed an ignorance at the least, even a rejection of basic Christian principles. So that was another catalyst to my wanting to preach on this subject that's so prevalent and so pressing to the church today. The issue of homosexuality in general, but same-sex marriage in particular. Another example I could give, you've perhaps had opportunity to talk to those who are professing Christians who also consider themselves to be gay. You've been confronted with this question. How can it be wrong to be gay, as it's called, if this is the way I was born? That's a very poignant question. And indeed, there's credible testimony of many people that have felt what we call same-sex attraction from very early in their lives. Are you aware of some basic assumptions that lie behind that question? How can it be wrong if this is the way that I am? There are assumptions in that question that are diametrically opposed to a Christian approach to ethics, which is going to be our subject today. This sermon is intended to ensure that we recognize what those assumptions are. Now, you know, this is part of a series, a larger series, called In the Wake of U.S. v. Windsor. That's a landmark, by every measure, landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned the 1996 Defensive Marriage Act, which was federal law until that time. The main portion of that law was overturned in June of last year. And the court's ruling was that the federal government would, for the first time, recognize, for federal government purposes, same-sex marriage. And that's proven to be what many, at the very moment it happened, prophesied it would be a turning point in our culture war. The first part of the series was to answer the question, what is wrong? What is wrong with this? Is there something wrong with it? What does the Bible say about this? Are Christians right to be disturbed about this? The second part of the series begins with this sermon, and that is, how did we get here? What is true of our culture? and has been true for a long time that has brought us to this place and to these kinds of popular ways of addressing that problem. We're stepping back a little bit now. This sermon tonight will be about the broader influences in our culture that have carried this forward. In sum, it's been a rejection of a Christian theistic foundation for morality. That is a view of morality in which God defines what is right and wrong. We've largely rejected that in favor of a secular and humanistic foundation for morality that is finding a standard for right and wrong in someplace other than God. So let's look at these three things. today, the contemporary clash of ethical systems. And then we'll look at the two primary approaches to ethics in America. And lastly, we'll look at the Christian answer to man-centered ethics. I'm using a word that let me define under this first heading, the contemporary clash of ethical systems. Ethics, what is that? Well, it's the study of right and wrong. teach a class on ethics at Gray Friars Classical Academy. And we are concerned that whole year to discern what is the principle, what are the principles that determine the difference between right and wrong. And it's not just Christians that are interested in this question. It's not just religious people that are interested in this question. Everybody at some level is very interested in this question because there's a moral consciousness. There's a conscience. There's an interest. in right versus wrong in everyone. You've never met anyone that didn't have an opinion about what was right and what was wrong. The Bible's explanation for that is that the works of the law are written in the heart. God has made us with this incurable inclination to make judgments, moral judgments, right or wrong. So even a sophisticated pagan can see that ethics has its place. Societies should Study the difference between right and wrong and it would even irreligious people which can agree many cases that Societies do well to distinguish between right and wrong the most important thing to know about an ethical system or an ethical approach is What is the standard? by which human conduct is measured in answering the question, is that wrong? Children in your home, very often, when you say, why can't I do that? Your mom or dad may simply say, because I said so. They say that, they're showing you that the standard in that case is their will. what they said and that's a biblical way for them to speak because in your home what they require is for you what is right and what they forbid is for you what is wrong. That's what they do as parents is supposed to be patterned after supposed to be look a lot like what God does and that's the ultimate issue in in religious ethical systems. There is a God that is sought and his mind his standard is discerned. In a humanistic ethical system it's always something other than God. Now here's the interesting thing about America right about now. In America we have competing ethical systems. It's a mess. We as a nation are all over the map. when it comes to discerning what's right and wrong, and the standard that we're using. And here's the problem. Not just the nation as a whole, but even individuals therein, and even some Christians, are unwittingly borrowing from more than one system of ethics, more than one standard, actually, for determining what's right and wrong. There are many in America still, praise be to God, that have some concern to know, what does God think about this? We should be thankful for that. There's not a few that still say, well, that's wrong. Why? Because God says so. Praise God. That is still so in America. But mixed in with that are very bold, unabashed ethics that seek to justify what is right and wrong purely in terms of what seems good to me, or at best to us as a society. This is interesting. On the issue that I'm speaking of to you now, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, everybody, both sides of this raging debate, wants to frame it in moral terms. They want to talk about this issue in terms of right and wrong, both sides. Everybody does. It's, for example, you'll hear, wrong to deny loving and committed homosexuals the societal benefits of marriage. That is wrong. That's an injustice. We had some Supreme Court justices recently say that. On the other hand, You perhaps said something like this. It's wrong. It is very wrong to provide the support and protection of basic societal institutions to the sin of homosexuality. Everybody agrees it's a moral issue. That's the reason for the heatedness of the debate. We're all invested in issues of morality. Now, as we continue, I want to look with you, not only at the clash of ethical systems, but the two primary approaches to ethics in America. I got a couple of big words, but I think I will be able to explain them in a way that you will recognize. Hopefully, this is part of my ambition. You'll recognize them tomorrow when you hear them in the office. You will hear that, big word, not necessary, but you'll hear that particular approach to ethics, and you'll be able to sniff it out in a moment. Two primary approaches to ethics in America. Number one, what's called the existentialist. Sorry, that's what it's called. The existentialist approach to ethics. That's a big name that's been given to what is really the most radical of all humanistic systems of ethics. If you want to think of somebody's name when you think of existentialism, you should think of a Frenchman named Jean-Paul Sartre. philosopher of the 20th century. Here's what he taught, and it's caught on very nicely. According to existentialism, the most important factor in deciding how to act is your own existence. Okay, follow me. Stay with me. According to existentialism, God doesn't exist. If he does, we can't know anything about him. So there's no place to go to find out what God thinks about what is right or wrong. We don't consult that. We alone as preachers, we're alone in the world of living things with the ability to choose. And so an ethical decision, a moral decision is simply doing what I want. That's what's right. Kids, that would be very convenient, wouldn't it? Do you want to do it? Well, then it's right. But actually, some very smart people have have embraced this idea. To say that is wrong to an existentialist is no different from saying I don't like that. To say right or wrong is merely expressing your personal intonations. It's like chocolate versus vanilla. Existentialism affirms that something is right if you So what should guide us in making our choices? Well, only ourselves. Only who we are and what we want. Something is right if it's true to who you are. Something is right if it's true to who you are. Some would say it in a fancier way, if it actualizes your true self. Something is wrong if it runs contrary to who you are. are. So one of the implications of this is, of course, it's wrong to ever say to somebody else that what they're doing is wrong. Because that may be very consistent with who they are. Who are you to say that that's wrong for them? They're a different person than you. And they can't say it about you either. Ha ha. This is an extreme form of relativism. Something may be right for that person, not right for you, and so on. Now, Jean-Paul Sartre was not the inventor of this. This way of thinking comes actually very natural for all of us. You're existentialists just about every day of your life. You just know there's a word for it or a big word at least. Existentialism is basic to any turning away from God. Remember in the book of Judges the refrain that The word that the expression that appears again and again. It's actually the last verse in the book of Judges. Judges 21 verse 25. In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Right was what everyone did. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes. This is as old as dirt. You've heard it. You've heard existentialism. When you hear someone say, you've just got to be true to yourself. You may not have heard that. I've heard that way of speaking before. How can it be wrong when it feels so very right? Or when someone says it may be right, wrong for you, but it's not wrong for me. Or when somebody acts like for you to even suggest that their behavior is wrong, who are you to tell me what's right and wrong? That is at core an existentialist approach to ethics. All right. Can I show you how that particular system of ethics is manifesting itself in this particular culture war that we're having as a nation right now with regard to homosexuality and same-sex marriage? If we're existentialists, who you are is the ultimate issue in determining whether something is right or wrong. Can you see why in the homosexual community it is so important for them to say, this is who I am. This is how I was born. You can't argue with who I am. You can't tell me that if I am consistently living out my true identity, that that's wrong. Now that is so compelling to so many people. You need to know where that way of thinking comes from. Let me give you a little history on this cultural war being fought. Early on in our society's debate about homosexuality, strenuous efforts were made to define homosexuality not as a deed, but as an identity. We began to hear a change in the terminology. Whereas one time we spoke of sexual preference, now the terminology is sexual orientation. A preference reflects some voluntary choice that you make. An orientation, well that's something you can't help. People began to identify themselves with this term gay. gay, that's who I am. We even began to see, and it continues, studies by scientists to try to show there's a genetic explanation for homosexuality. Now, that scientific data is far from compelling, but folks, some of you know this as well or better than I do, it's undeniable that there are people that experience something that other people have no comprehension, no experiential awareness of. Same-sex attraction. And I'm convinced that homosexuality is something deeper than mere decisions. That comes up later in this series. So my question here, do you see why this is so decisive for so many Americans? We're in the grip of existentialist ethic. My existence and being who I am is the ultimate issue in determining right or wrong. That's why in our society increasingly, increasingly those who come out as gay, come out of the closet, declare themselves are applauded. That's seen as something very brave and very right because it's true to who they are. You could call existentialism the, be true to who you are ethic. That's the first of the two major approaches to ethics. We'll come back to a Christian response to that in just a moment. Let's look secondly, another big word, the utilitarian approach to ethics. By the end of this, you'll have a good introductory course on ethics to take a test. Utilitarian ethics by thinking people, has gained broader acceptance than existentialism. And the reason for that is that existentialism denies any possibility of any moral standards for a whole society. It's every man to his tent. Every individual has his own. And that is fairly chaotic. And even unbelieving pagan minds have been able to see that. One of the primary purposes of ethics is to be a guide for societies and existentialism is radically individualistic. So utilitarianism is an equally humanistic system but it has a little bit more respectability in our society. You can associate the name John Stuart Mill, this is a Brit now in the 19th century with this way of thinking. Utilitarianism is looking for some standard for right and wrong that's outside of myself. Existentialists just look in to find the difference between right and wrong. And a utilitarian says, that's not very helpful. No, we want to look outside of ourselves. We want some kind of standard by which to judge our behavior. And here's the standard that utilitarians have come up with. It's the outcome of the deed. Just see what doing this would result in. And more specifically, what would it have by way of effect on society as a whole? That's where it gets its name. Does it have utility or usefulness to a society? In particular, John Stuart Mill said, does it make people happy? If it makes a lot of people happy, It's right. End of discussion. Conversely, if it makes people sad, if it hurts people, it's wrong. And we're thinking of society as a whole. So John Stuart Mill would say, greatest pleasure for the greatest number. That's what's right. Now this view recognizes there's no objective standard, but There is a standard outside of ourselves, they would say, because it's what society finds most satisfying. Is this ringing any bells as you think about the way the debate is being conducted in our day? Here too, John Stuart Mill was not the inventor of this. This is the view that is reflected in the passage I read from Second Kings, chapter 17. Israel wants to be like the other nations. Their sense of what is good and right is being informed by what the majority around them are doing and thinking. So we read in verse 15, they despised his statutes and his covenant that he made with their fathers and the warnings that he gave them. They went after false idols and became false They followed the nations that were around them concerning whom the Lord had commanded and they should not do like them. You see Israel in that passage being referred to as at a point not in a point in a process in their lives exchanging the standard of God's law for the standard of contemporary culture and society. You see that John Stuart Mill didn't invent this. By the way, utilitarianism goes great with democracy. Why would it go great with democracy? Well, in democracies, especially modern democracies, polls are continually being conducted in order to tell us and politicians what everybody else is thinking, right? And, you know, the approval rating of the president, approval rating of gay marriage, That information is constantly being brought to us. Elected officials see it as their calling to bring happiness to their constituents, pleasure to the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism seems like such a powerful, appropriate basis for morality. Hey, if all of society, or 69%, or if 82%, or if 99% of Americans believe that such and such is right, then you ought to do that. And if they believe that something is wrong, you shouldn't do that. This is the thinking that you often hear, it can't be wrong if it's not hurting anyone. Okay? There's a word for that. Utilitarianism. The measure of whether something's right or wrong is if it makes people happy, it's right. If it hurts people, it's wrong. that teenager making the comment, I don't believe in gay marriage, but they're not hurting anyone. He or she was letting this way of thinking about right and wrong into their own assessment. So do you see, to go now to look at this particular issue of homosexuality and gay marriage so-called, do you see why it's so important for some to argue that As long as it's to consenting adults and makes them happy, it can't be wrong. Same-sex marriage must have moral integrity because it's increasingly satisfying to the Western nations of our world to acknowledge it in the laws of our land. No one's getting hurt. Majority approves. Done. We're done with talking about it. That settles it. I read an article by former chairman of the Republican National Committee. His name is Ken Melman. And he makes a case for Republicans embracing same-sex marriage. And he says a number of things like, what could be more conservative than support for more freedom and less government? But Mr. Melman gets down to the real reason for his argument that Republicans need to embrace same-sex marriage. His argument comes down to this. Polls. He started an organization called Project Right Side. And he polls among Republicans and swing voters on this issue. And he lays out his reasons in this article for supporting same-sex marriage. And number one, a majority of Americans favor civil marriage for same-sex couples. Number two, these trends are growing quickly. across all demographics. Number three, the marriage equality issue is more important to supporters than opponents. You follow? Number four, a majority of independents favor marriage equality. Number five, Republicans are increasingly supportive of legal protection for gay Americans. Number six, voters under 45 strongly favor marriage equality. What does all that amount to? Rank utilitarianism. Republicans need to get With the program, they need to get on the right side of history. The standard for how we judge whether this is right or wrong is the popular vote. By the way, if you combine utilitarianism with an evolutionary way of thinking, that societies are becoming more and more advanced as they go through time, then you have especially powerful argument, because in certain societies in certain ages past, people ate each other. And then these societies enslaved each other. And we know both of those things are bad. And so now we've had this stigma as a society against gay marriage, but a little bit of evolution mixed with a little bit of utilitarianism. And folks, we need to get with the process here. That was for an earlier stage of our development. Society is changing. There's no doubt about that. Utilitarians then say morals should change with society because societies determine what is right or wrong. That's what I have called in the sermon title, the democratization of morality. Is it wrong? Let's vote and figure it out. So let's look thirdly and lastly at the Christian answer to man-centered ethics. You may have never heard of existentialism or utilitarianism, but you have sure encountered them. What's the Christian answer to these man-centered ethical systems? Well, you know, I simply remind you, This evening, Christian ethics is founded upon universal moral principles that are outside of ourselves and they're found in God himself. He is the standard for right living. So whatever is God like is right. Whatever is not like God is wrong and he's revealed what he's like in his word the scriptures and particularly that portion of his word we tend we've typically historically called the law. That's a reference to anything in the Bible that tells us how we're to live. So second Timothy three verse 16 you know this well all scriptures breathed out by God and profitable for teaching for reproof for correction for training righteousness that the man of God may be competent. equipped for every good work. So in a Christian ethics class, for example, the whole pursuit of this particular subject is to ask and answer the question that the old prophet Micah asked, what does the Lord require of me? That's the question. The Lord's provided the answer. Micah 6.8, He's told you, man, what's good and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God. You may not have ever called yourself this, but you are an ethicist if you're a Christian. You're very concerned to construct for yourself and for your family a system of principles that can be applied to everyday life to determine what is wrong and what is right. And you do that on the basis of the Word of God. These things are simply by way of reminder. So how does a Christian answer the existentialist? How does he answer the utilitarian? Well, let's look at that in the next few minutes. The Christian answer to existentialism is specifically this. Remember what? Still got that? Existentialism is whatever's true to me, whatever's true to who I am, that's what's right. Our answer is it's not your identity that's the basis of morality. It is God's. whatever is, you've got something right and most everything else wrong. Morality is defined by a person. You've just got the wrong person. God is His identity. His personhood is the basis of morality. Christians, you know that your identity is often at odds with God's. Right? He's holy, and we are sinful. This is actually our problem. It is a problem that goes very deep within all of us. It's our identity. We're fallen creatures. And there are things about our faith and the way that the scripture speaks to us about true religion that makes this clear. We're to die to ourselves. We're to put to death certain things that are basic to who we are. Christianity. It doesn't just speak about those negative things, the difficult things. It also holds out the hope of our becoming new creatures in Christ, being renewed. And that goes down to the very core of who we are. It's becoming what we're not. So existentialism is on the road to anarchy. Every person saying, I'm just here to be true to who I am. would make, if that were the true standard for ethics, that would mean that I can set fire to your house if I'm a pyromaniac, because that's just being true to who I am. I want to steal your car. That's OK, because I'm a kleptomaniac. That's being consistent with who I am. I want to abuse your children. I'm a pedophiliac. I'm sorry. That's just who I am. This is perverse, of course. This would be anarchy. Christians, this is the gear you need to shift into when you hear someone saying, this is just who I am. Christianity is a religion that says the most basic problem with all of us is who we are apart from Christ. Who we are apart from Christ is our problem. What's our answer to utilitarianism? Remember that? You still got that? Utilitarians? If it makes people happy, it's OK. It's good. That's a good outcome. And so that means it's a good deed. If it makes people happy, no. No. It's God's pleasure, not ours as the standard for morality. Never mind all this talk about the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. That's actually gotten societies into very bad places in history. It was the pleasure of a society long ago to crucify the Lord of Glory. That was the most satisfying thing in that particular day. Societies together can actually become more wicked than individuals. That's a perverse reality that we observe in history. Societies together can come to have greater evil than any of the individual members themselves. And so if existentialism leads to anarchy, utilitarianism leads to tyranny. The majority is always right. That's tyranny. What if in America, the majority came to the place of believing that exterminating a minority would be most satisfying. That's happened, you know, in other nations. Utilitarianism, it only sounds better than existentialism. It looks for some criteria outside of the individual, but it only moves the relativism to a larger scale. So if something was wrong back in the 20s, the 1920s, It may not necessarily be wrong in the 2020s. That's just, that's the same beast. That's moral relativism. Christianity calls upon us to stand against the society's notion of what's good. It actually recognizes that Christians will need to expect to be persecuted for doing that. Why am I so concerned to lay out these ways of thinking to you in this sermon? It's already intimated. It's because I want you to have a nose for ethical nonsense. It will manifest itself in many different forms in our society. Appeals to personal identity, to settle a question of morality. You know What that is appeals to societal acceptance to settle an issue of morality. You know what that is, and you need to confront it for what it is. It's more or less sophisticated rebellion against God. That's what it is. Because in both cases, it's a rejection of his standard for what is right. Let me tell you what a nose for this looks like in this particular subject. homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Sometimes Christians try to engage existentialists on their own terms. They almost adopt that way of thinking in order to argue the point. So an existentialist says homosexuality is basic to who we are, and our Christian response is, no, it's not. No, no, it's not. It's not basic to who we are. We're not defined by our sexuality, and besides, that science is all wet. It's not really good science. There's no genetic. issue here. Well, there may be merit to those points, but that is not the main issue. Do you see that? It's not the main issue. Listen carefully. Even if there were scientific evidence, it becomes very conclusive that certain individuals are predisposed towards this particular sin that would change nothing of the Christian position on the basis of scripture. would not change our response because Christianity teaches God doesn't want you to be, quote, who you are, but who he designed you to be. Every one of us is broken badly by sin. It does not affect merely our decisions. It affects who we are. Scientists, you may know, are looking for predisposing genetic elements towards things like anger, things like abuse, even things like TV watching. They may find it. Who knows? Doesn't matter. Anger, abuse, immoderate television watching, sin. No matter whether you report genetically predisposed or not. And the gospel is that God's going to change you. He's going to radically, fundamentally change who you are. In a similar way, Christians will encounter this utilitarian and sometimes deal with it on its own terms. They're not hurting anyone and will bite. Okay, that's the level at which we discuss this. Yes, they are hurting. They're hurting people. Have you ever heard of AIDS? It does hurt people. It hurts children. Children mean a mommy and a daddy. Where would our society be if everybody adopted this lifestyle? We would be extinct. So they're arguing, and those points have merit. To be sure, they're not the main point. The main point. is that even if there were no evidence of any unhappy or hurt people as a result of homosexuality and gay marriage, that's not the standard for right or wrong. God's not happy with homosexuality. That's the ultimate issue. There's something perverse about sin. It makes us happy, at least in the short run. A lot of sin. makes us happy, but it also makes God very unhappy, provokes His wrath. So the gospel gives us new delights, the same things that please God. I'm seeing, brothers and sisters, confusion in the church on these things. That's what's made me want to address that. Christians are mixing up their ethical systems. And good Christians recognize that in most issues, most issues, the ultimate question is, what saith the Lord? But there are some issues where maybe being true to yourself is relevant. And other issues in which the question, is it hurting anybody, is relevant. You need to have a nose. for sniffing that out, even when those comments sound very broad-minded, compassionate, and kind. Here's how I want to conclude. As I anticipate you engaging with men and women who are confused on this subject, even within the Church, adopting humanistic systems and expressing in their ways of speaking their buy-in to those particular standards for morality. I want you to recognize that these things I've sought to outline, existentialism, fancy word, doing what's true to myself, utilitarianism, doing whatever makes people happy, these systems that are very intelligent, But unbelieving men have devised, they actually reveal longings that only the gospel can satisfy. Utilitarianism wants for what is right to be connected with happiness. No, as Christians we realize oftentimes what's right actually is very painful, like taking up your cross or plucking out your eye or leaving your father and mother. Does that ring a bell? Jesus said things like that. Sometimes, at least immediately, doing what is right brings a lot of pain. Christians have been taught this, and many wrong things bring pleasure. We know that right and wrong, happiness, sorrow, don't go together the same way that utilitarians want them to, but in the gospel, in the big picture, and in the long run, they do. Holiness leads to happiness. You know that as a Christian, don't you? The nation that serves the Lord will be blessed. God is a rewarder of those who do good. And He judges those who do evil. It takes some faith to keep that in mind, doesn't it? Because He doesn't do it like that. But He will in the long run. And even in the short run, He provides pleasure for those who do what is right. Holiness in Christ does go with happiness. The utilitarians are wanting that and they can only find it in the Gospel. Likewise, existentialism. They want somehow for what is right to be connected with who I am, who I am at the very core of my being. Christians know, as I've already said, that who we are is a problem. It's actually a big problem. In sin, we need to become new creatures. But when that happens, God doesn't work of grace and makes new creations of us, then the Bible begins to talk differently to us. The Bible actually begins to say things like, you need to remember that you died with Christ and you're a new creation, so live consistent with who you are in Christ. Isn't that beautiful? utilitarians, you only get what you want in Christianity. The Gospel, likewise, existentialists. Our society is aching for those profound realities, connection between morality and who they are, between morality and true happiness. We need to say to them, that has nothing to do with it, in your sin. It's God's standard that is our standard. But come to Jesus. Become one with Him. Come to have a new identity with Him. And a new source of joy from Him. And you'll get what you're wanting to put together. Morality will become an expression of who you are. And it will bring about the greatest possible happiness. Jesus puts it this way, Matthew 16 verse 25, whoever would save his life will lose it. Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Amen. Let's pray together.