In 1973 psychiatrist Karl Menninger wrote a landmark book titled Whatever Became of Sin?

Menninger, who is no evangelical, nevertheless saw clearly the folly of treating social and behavioral problems as if their causes were all utterly non-moral. He pointed out that modern psychology’s approach, making guilt an aberration and treating self-blame as a fallacy, in effect absolves people from any moral responsibility for their behavior.

In all of the laments and reproaches made by our seers and prophets today, one misses any mention of “sin,” a word which used to be a main watchword of prophets. It was a word once in everyone’s mind, but now rarely if ever heard. Does that mean that no sin is involved in all our troubles, sin with an “I” in the middle? Is no one any longer guilty of anything?

Anxiety and depression we all acknowledge, and even vague guilt feelings; but it seems no one has committed any sins.

Where, indeed, did sin go? What became of it?

We need to reflect on how often the church has moved away from her moorings. The Great Awakening was a powerful movement of the Spirit of God, yet a century later many of the churches that had been filled with fresh converts, robust theology, and godly living had degenerated into Unitarianism.

Who would have guessed that the land of Luther and the Reformation would have given us Hitler and the Holocaust? Why is it that twentieth-century evangelicalism, as it mushroomed between, say, 1930 and 1960, soon bred varieties of self-designated evangelicals whom no evangelical leader of the earlier period would have recognized as such?

The sad reality is that human memory is short, selective, and self-serving. Moreover, each new generation begins with a slightly different baseline. Since all its members need conversion, the church is never more than a generation or two from extinction. If we forget this simple point, it becomes all too easy to rest on our laurels when we are comfortable, and somehow lose sight of our mission, not to say of our Maker and Redeemer.

The setup on Mount Carmel in 1 Kings was spectacular: one prophet against 850, Yahweh against Baal—and Baal was often thought of as the god of fire. It is as if Elijah has set up the contest on Baal’s turf. His mocking words whip up the false prophets into an orgy of self-flagellation (1 Kings 18:28). By God’s instruction (1 Kings 18:36), Elijah increases the odds by soaking the sacrifice he is preparing.

Then, in the evening, his own brief prayer brings down explosive fire from heaven, and the people cry, “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!” (1 Kings 18:39). And in response to Elijah’s intercessory prayer, the rain comes again to the parched land.

But did this really change Israel? Why or why not?

The blind man can see no difference between a masterpiece of Titian or Raphael and the queen’s head on a village signboard. The deaf man cannot distinguish between a penny whistle and a cathedral organ. The very animals whose smell is most offensive to us have no idea that they are offensive and are not offensive to one another. And man, fallen man, I believe, can have no just idea what a vile thing sin is in the sight of that God whose handiwork is absolutely perfect.   J. C. Ryle

Since the Enlightenment, there has been a sustained history of minimizing and even dismissing sin, or at least sin as described in Scripture.

Do we see things going on today, even in our short lives, that is no longer seen as sin?

Are we allowing things and our lives that we used to see as sin, that we don’t classify as sin any more?

Can we name some of those?

Why has either one of the above happened?

Where along the line did the sin described in the Bible, cease to be sin?

In 1679, John Locke argued that before civilization, human beings lived in a perfect “State of Nature,” completely free and utterly without guilt, simply because the rules and restrictions imposed by complex civilized societies did not exist.

There are parallels between this view and the Bible’s depiction of Eden, but there are substantial differences.

People make a “profession of faith,” but because they haven’t understood the message, they are not really saved. They feel a psychological need and they want psychological relief, but they don’t understand that the Christian message is not talking only about psychological relief (though it includes that), but is talking about true moral guilt in the presence of a holy God who exists.

The non-Christian, in today’s world, has no legal and moral base. Everything floats in space: a 51 percent vote of some type of right-wing or left-wing authoritarianism must decide what is acceptable, or some form of hedonism must be adopted, because, as Plato understood so well, an absolute is necessary

for real morality. Plato never found such an absolute, but he understood the problem, and so did the men of the Renaissance.

With sin gone, why do we need a Savior?

Why do we need theology or the church?

Sweet, a theologian comments, “With everything gone, there was little reason for people to stay.” Of course, it took a while for the churches to empty out; indeed, it is still happening. But the result should have surprised no one.

The Bible is clear: there is a moral law of the universe. And that basic law is the character of God Himself. There is no law behind God that binds God.  God Himself is the law because He is not a contentless God, but a God with a character. His character is the law of the universe.

When He reveals this character to us in verbalized, propositional form, we have the commands of God for men. Therefore, there are absolutes and categories; the law which the God who exists has revealed and which is based upon His character is final. This is the biblical position.

Therefore, when people break these commands, they are guilty, guilty in the same way a man is guilty when he breaks the law of the state. When a man sins, he sins against the character of God, and he has moral guilt in the presence of the Great Judge.

In an age where the word sin has become quaint, reserved for such offenses against hygiene as smoking and drinking, surrendering to the authorities for armed robbery and manslaughter is not an act of repentance but of personal growth.  Jane Alpert, a 60 radical who served time (for her part in a series of bombings that injured 21 people): said, “Ultimately, I spent many years in therapy, learning to understand, to tolerate and forgive both others and myself.”

Learning to forgive oneself, it seems that is very important nowadays for revolutionaries with a criminal bent.

It is not at all uncommon these days to hear all kinds of people talking about learning to forgive themselves. But the terminology is misleading. “Forgiveness” presupposes an acknowledgement of guilt. Most people nowadays who speak of forgiving themselves explicitly repudiate the notion of personal guilt.

An admission of guilt today clearly is considered incompatible with the popular notion of “wholeness” and the need to protect the fantasy of a good self.

Today, Guilt is seen as a very bad thing, to a lost world, and to many so called churches.

Our culture has declared war on guilt, the very concept is considered medieval, obsolete, unproductive. People who trouble themselves with feelings of personal guilt are usually referred to therapists, whose task it is to boost their self-image. No one, after all, is supposed to feel guilty. Guilt is not conducive to dignity and self-esteem. Society encourages sin, but it will not tolerate the guilt sin produces.

Isn’t it ironic, Society encourages sin, but it will not tolerate the guilt sin produces.

For many commenting on the issue, they say, the first step you must take to overcome guilt, is to stop blaming yourself. Your compulsive behavior is not your fault; refuse to accept blame, and above all, do not blame yourself for what you cannot control.

Nearly every kind of guilt can now be off-loaded. We live in a no-fault society.

That kind of thinking has all but driven words like sin, repentance, contrition, atonement, restitution, and redemption out of public discourse. If no one is supposed to feel guilty, how could anyone be a sinner?

Today, We are not guilty, we are all victims.

1979 A San Francisco city supervisor Dan White claimed he murdered a fellow supervisor and Mayor George Moscone because too much junk food, especially Hostess Twinkies, made him act irrationally. Thus the famous “Twinkie” defense was born. “A lenient jury bought the line and produced a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.” They ruled that the junk food resulted in “diminished mental capacity,” which mitigated the killer’s guilt. He was out of prison before the mayor’s next term would have been complete.

Modern culture has the answer: people are victims. Victims are not responsible for what they do; they are casualties of what happens to them.

Victimism has gained so much influence that as far as society is concerned, there is practically no such thing as sin anymore. Anyone can escape responsibility for his or her wrongdoing simply by claiming the status of a victim. It has radically changed the way our society looks at human behavior.

1979 A San Francisco city supervisor claimed he murdered a fellow supervisor and Mayor George Moscone because too much junk food, especially Hostess Twinkies, made him act irrationally. Thus the famous “Twinkie” defense was born. “A lenient jury bought the line and produced a verdict of voluntary

manslaughter rather than murder.” They ruled that the junk food resulted in “diminished mental capacity,” which mitigated the killer’s guilt. He was out of prison before the mayor’s next term would have been complete.

It is theoretically possible today in America to commit the most monstrous crimes and get off scot-free, simply by blaming some imaginative mental or emotional disorder, or by inventing some  affliction to explain why you are not responsible for what you have done.

We are now in a Victimization of Society

Victimism has so infected our culture that one might even say the victim has become the very symbol, the mascot, of modern society.

Sin is now a Disease not rebellion.

Perhaps the most prevalent means of escaping blame is by classifying every human failing as some kind of disease. Drunkards and drug addicts can check into clinics for treatment of their “chemical dependencies.” Children who habitually defy authority can escape condemnation by being labeled “hyperactive” or having ADD (attention deficiency disorder). Gluttons are no longer blameworthy; they suffer from an “eating disorder.”

These days everything wrong with humanity is likely to be explained as an illness. What we used to call sin is more easily diagnosed as a whole array of disabilities.

Worse yet, the number of people who suffer from such newly identified “sicknesses” is increasing even faster.

Recovery, the code-word for programs modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous, is explicitly marketed as a lifelong program. Those who dare to think of themselves as delivered from their affliction are told they are living in denial.

The National Anthem has become The Whine.

Increasingly, Americans act as if they had received a lifelong deliverance from misfortune and a contractual release from personal responsibility. The British Economist, years ago, noted with bemusement that in the United States, “If you lose your job you can sue for the mental distress of being fired. If your bank goes broke, the government has insured your deposits.… If you drive drunk and crash you can sue somebody for failing to warn you to stop drinking. There is always somebody else to blame.”

A community of interdependent citizens has been displaced by a society of resentful, competing, and self-interested individuals who have dressed their private annoyances in the garb of victimism.

Those who define themselves as victims claim entitlements and shun responsibility. They thus jettison any obligation they might have toward others or toward society as a whole.

Moreover, if everyone is a victim, no one needs to accept personal responsibility for wrong behavior or toxic attitudes. After all, victims are entitled to self-pity; they shouldn’t be saddled with guilt feelings.

Victimism has become almost as influential within the evangelical church as it is in the unbelieving world, thanks to self-esteem theology and the church’s fascination with worldly psychology.

These days, when sinners seek help from churches and other Christian agencies, they are likely to be told that their problem is some emotional disorder or psychological syndrome.

This is a serious matter. Whether you deny sin overtly and openly and totally, or covertly and by implication, any tampering with the biblical concept of sin makes chaos of the Christian faith.

To deny personal guilt is to sacrifice the soul for the sake of the ego. Besides, disavowal doesn’t really deal with guilt, as we all know intuitively. Far from having beneficial results, it destroys the conscience, and thereby weakens a person’s ability to avoid destructive sin.

When guilt feelings are derided as useless and unproductive, when shame is thought to be unwholesome, and when professional counselors encourage people to forgive themselves without repenting, what do we expect to become of the conscience?

What is evident is that people in our culture are becoming very good at blame-shifting, making scapegoats of parents, childhood disappointments, and other dysfunctions beyond their control.

No matter what problem you suffer from, whether you are a cannibalizing serial murderer or just someone struggling with emotional distress. you can easily find someone who will explain to you why your failing is not your fault, and teach you how to silence a troubled conscience.

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy” (Prov. 28:13,). “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [But] if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John. 1:8–9).

Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners! Jesus specifically said He had not come to save those who want to exonerate themselves (Mk. 2:17). Where there is no recognition of sin and guilt, when the conscience has been abused into silence, there can be no salvation, no sanctification, and therefore no real emancipation from sin’s ruthless power.