How Can I Change?/The Battle Against Sin

From Gospel Translations

Notice: This template is no longer in use. Please use {{Info}} instead.

In his book titled A Nation Of Victims: The Decay Of

The American Character, author Charles Sykes makes the following observation: “Over the last half century, the triumph of therapeutic thinking has been so complete that it is frequently taken for granted; what began with Dr. Freud is now the staple of daytime television talk shows, routine in politics, almost reflexive in matters of criminal justice and ethics.”^[1]

Whether or not you’ve heard the phrase, you’ve no doubt encountered therapeutic thinking. It shows up in the courtroom when a serial killer’s attorney asks for leniency on the grounds that his client was routinely abused by an alcoholic father. It claims most of us grew up in “dysfunctional” families, thus offering a ready-made explanation and excuse for our behavior. Rather than emphasizing personal responsibility, it stresses the way we’ve been psychologically affected by others or by our environment. As social scientist Dr. James Deese notes, therapeutic thinking “is so ingrained in modern American attitudes as hardly to be challenged.”^[2]

Surprisingly, the one institution best equipped to challenge the therapeutic trend has actually contributed to its popularity. I’m speaking of the Church. Rather than expose the errors of psychotherapy, the American Church in most cases has given uncritical acceptance...though there are some outspoken exceptions. In his book Biblical Medical Ethics, Dr. Franklin Payne comments, “Psychotherapy, as psychology and psychiatry, needs the most critical and detailed examination by evangelical Christians...Many Christians are influenced more by the concepts of secular psychotherapists than by the Word of God.”^[3]

I’ve met many of the Christians Dr. Payne is describing. Not long ago I was asked to speak at a men’s retreat in another church. At the end of one session I was approached by a man who introduced himself and then began telling me about his difficult situation. He had grown up in a dysfunctional family. He was a codependent. He suffered from low self-esteem. In the space of the first two minutes he must have used almost every psychological buzz word in existence.

It was an awkward encounter. I wasn’t eager to dis- agree with him or correct him. I had never met the man before, and I wanted him to experience my care and concern. But as he went on and on it seemed obvious he assumed I agreed with him. And I didn’t. Why? Though he spoke psychobabble fluently, his diagnosis omitted any reference to the “S” word....

Sin.

Such omissions regrettably are the norm today in popular Christian literature and radio talk shows. We are pursuing a deeper understanding of ourselves (as defined by the recovery movement) rather than a deeper conviction of sin (as defined in Scripture). We have become more concerned about our own needs and feelings than about the character and commands of God. No wonder we aren’t maturing as he intends.

Our Most Serious Problem

Writing a century ago, J.C. Ryle offered a sharp but simple explanation for the deficiencies he observed in the Church: “Dim or indistinct views of sin are the origin of most of the errors, heresies and false doctrines of the pre- sent day...I believe that one of the chief wants of the church in the nineteenth century has been, and is, clear- er, fuller teaching about sin.”^[5]If this was accurate during his generation, how much more so today.

But we’ve gone a step further. Contemporary teaching about self-esteem has replaced the doctrine of sin. Consider this remark from one well-known author:

I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality, and hence counterproductive to the evangelistic enterprise, than the unchristian, uncouth strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.^[6]

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found