Sin: Today vs. Yesterday By Nathan White

I’ve always been intrigued by the debate concerning old-time athletes and how they would’ve supposedly performed in today’s modern era. With Barry Bonds recently breaking the baseball all-time home run record, this discussion has come up quite a bit as of late: “What would’ve Babe Ruth accomplished if he played in this decade?” And so the speculations go.
But the general tendency of historians is to glorify or ‘romanticize’ the past and its key figures as much more glorious than they were in actuality (especially in sports and other secular arenas). Sometimes this is understandable. Nobody really knew what Babe Ruth was accomplishing until well after he was dead, as baseball hadn’t been around very long when he burst onto the scene. The same argument could be given for the legacy of America’s founding fathers, some presidents down through history, etc. But keep in mind that the argument goes both ways: history, in general, is subject to who it is that writes the history books. Our perception of past events is largely subject to the accuracy of which historical reports we esteem the highest.

Shifting our focus to Christianity and its key figures down through church history, I am intrigued by the perception held by many of today’s Christians concerning certain things in church history. Close attention to history, just like close attention to doctrine, isn’t exactly encouraged in the professing church now days. Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that many erroneous perceptions and misconceptions about church history abound in our day.
From my limited observation and experience, I see a few concerns with the modern church in evaluating history, including:
A tendency to look down upon the doctrine/theology of church history, as if in all of the modern advances in other fields, we have somehow ‘arrived’ to a higher/deeper/more accurate understanding of scripture than others did before us.
A tendency to glorify certain figures of our own particular theological persuasions, while vilifying others who advocated doctrines which we disagree with. For example, John Calvin is loved in the Reformed Community, but despised and painted in a very negative light in the Arminian crowds.
An ignorance of the errors, controversies, and heresies of church history. There is certainly nothing new under the sun, only repackaged goods. Thus, new doctrines and fads come along as nothing but repackaged errors fancied up to appeal in a different manner, and the tendency is to swallow them hook-line-and-sinker without considering how the same errors probably originated in a different form, many years earlier.
A casual dismissal of ‘old truth’ –the doctrines of scripture that have been taught for hundreds and hundreds of years, in favor of new fads and viewpoints. This sort of aligns with my first point, as in their pride, many look on the old truths as outdated and insufficient, while suggesting new ways of looking at things as if the church has ‘missed it’ all along. Such arrogance is mind-boggling to me, but it continues to go on, even in my own Reformed community.
More could be said on the points above, but I have one more thought in mind that I’d like to focus on, and that is the *standard* of the Christian life then, versus now.
Remember the baseball illustration above? What if we applied the same sort of grid to the Christian life? What would a man like Jonathan Edwards look like living in today’s society? Would he have the same brilliant mind, the same hatred of sin, the same level of sanctification? Just how much does our culture influence holiness (either positively or negatively)?
A great example to help us consider this would be that of George Whitefield. Upon describing his life before salvation, Whitefield confesses that he was “a Sabbath-breaker, a theater-goer, a card-player, and a romance-reader.”
Personally, I find this statement utterly amazing. It’s like he is in a completely different world when he points to his ‘heinous’ sins with these examples!
Sabbath-breaker? The majority of Christians now days do not see this as a sin, much less as something that evidenced an unregenerate heart.
Theater-goer? Who isn’t now days, believer or unbeliever?
Card-player? Do video games, sporting events, and hobbies count the same? From his words, I believe so, for no mention is made of gambling.
Romance-reader? Secular narratives in books, T.V., movies, and magazines abound, for both believers and unbelievers alike.
First, I find it amazing that most Christians now days would have no trouble with any of the four things listed above. In fact, if we were to speak out against such things in any situation other than gross abuse, we would most certainly be labeled as legalistic and self-righteous!
Secondly, all of these have a specific reference to how Whitefield spent his free time. I know this because I am currently finishing up Dallimore’s famous 2-volume biography of Whitefield (I could not recommend it highly enough!), and Whitefield mentions again and again the Christian’s serious obligation to redeem spare time. In fact, if there is ever a re-occurring theme as I read the old stuff (Puritans, etc.), the use of our free time is always given a significant prominence in their teaching.
Thus, has the standard changed? I understand that cultures come and go. No doubt that something might have been a faux pas then that is not viewed in the same manner now. But clearly, sin as it was seen then, and as it is seen now, are sometimes completely different things.
Why has the standard changed? Should we just accept this without questioning it? Why is the use of our free time no longer a clear and precise indicator of our salvation/sanctification? Why are hobbies and entertainments only looked at as evil if they take up too much of our life, as if measuring ourselves by ourselves really gives us an accurate picture of what is acceptable?
I believe it is partly due to the changing nature of the gospel. Fear of legalism and turning people off to Christianity has led the message to be one of personal fulfillment rather than personal sacrifice. The message now days, slanted to the itching ears of sinners, consists of:
Were you a movie enthusiast as an unbeliever? Now you can go see movies to the glory of Christ! Were you a drunkard when you lived according to the world? Now you can drink as much as you want (in moderation) and give glory to Christ! Prideful before? Now you can be prideful in Christ! In a Rock and Roll band? Bring that guitar to church and do the same for Jesus!
Much more could be said, but Tozer sums it up much better than I ever could. Consider this as I bring this topic to a close right here:
“The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, “Come and assert yourself for Christ.” To the egotist it says, “Come and do your boasting in the Lord.” To the thrill- seeker it says, “Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship.” The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.”