The S Word (2)

"Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." -Revelation 5: 9;10

"'Safe,' said Mr. Beaver; '...who said anything about safe? Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.'" -CS Lewis

Why is the way we look at our own sin important? It obviously affects the way we look at our own need, and an understanding of it has eternal consequences. But there is another result of the way we consider our own sin that is seldom realized: it conditions the way we think about Jesus, and the way we think about Jesus conditions the way we live. Let me illustrate:

During the First Great Awakening (1730's and 40's), evangelists and pastors preached sin with the intention that their hearers would be desperate for a Savior. Their meetings were often protracted for weeks, and they did not rush people into a decision at the "altar." Their goal was for their hearers to see their own depravity to such an extent that they cried out to God/Christ to come to them, regenerate them, and lift the burden of guilt off their shoulders. The important thing to note is that they believed in an ACTIVE Christ who came to the repentant sinner with love and release.

The preachers of the day, in fact, taught the impossibility of salvation through any human effort--that salvation was totally a work of God, and that man had to assume the position of a humble supplicant, begging for help. In fact, I read that Whitefield once preached a sermon in a field, telling people it was impossible for them to be converted, but that God could do the impossible! People began to cry out, and some fainted, and God moved in power on individuals, as if He had taken Whitefield's dare.

The fruit of this strong emphasis on human depravity and the power of God to save ACTIVELY brought forth Christians who were strong in faith, more centered on the ability of Christ than on their own. They weathered adversity because they believed that God was sovereignly in control of their lives, and because of their initial experience, clung to Christ as their only hope. So many people were converted during that Awakening that American culture was changed for decades.

The Second Great Awakening (@1790 through 1840) began with a similar approach, but went through a radical shift about half way through. The total inability to come to God was downplayed, and conversion became more a matter of choice or rational decision. Instead of being active, Christ became increasingly PASSIVE. Christ had done all He do to save men, and now He waited helplessly for man to decide to receive Him. In a subtle way He became a pitiful figure, knocking at the door of the human heart and hoping that His sacrifice would be accepted--out in the cold and unappreciated (is that the King of Glory?!). Sermons became weepy instead of terrifying. Because conversion was a matter of choice, immediate decisions were demanded, and people assured that because they had made such a choice, they were truly converted. The time that earlier preachers allowed for the Holy Spirit to work conviction in individuals was telescoped into a few minutes.

This does not mean that true conversions did not take place. But the method led to a new set of consequences. The greatest was the question, "If my conversion depended on my action, and my faith, and my decision, how do I know I believed enough, acted enough, chose strongly enough?" That question did not trouble earlier converts who believed in an active Christ, because the work was all His, not the convert's.

Another consequence was one's attitude to suffering, temptation, and struggle. The believers of the First Awakening knew that the victorious Christ was working through them to change them, and that His plan for change was perfect. They also knew that He was ruthless. They were not as tempted to let faith waiver. The tendency in the second case was to view those things as proofs of God's displeasure--or as I heard one Christian quoted lately, "I know God loves me, but I don't think He likes me a whole lot." That is so contrary to the all-sufficiency of God's love that is revealed in the ACTIVE gospel!

And that's why taking sin seriously conditions how we view Christ. An extreme view of sin creates an extreme view of Christ! Next time: some objections to the doctrine of sin...