A brief synopsis of the monologue I gave my students after one of them made a declaration which indicated an expectation that people who lived 200 years ago should live as though they were in the world in which we live today:
By contemporary standards, if something is hard, it’s branded bad, and if something is bad, it must be immoral. However, that is a complete departure from centuries of human understanding. It is only in very recent times that hard situations, hard relationships, or even hard work were considered so bad as to be branded immoral, something to be avoided completely, or done away with at all costs. After all, we are called to shun what is evil, right? Makes sense. However, not so long ago, I was taught that hard things build character. Hard wasn’t bad. Sin was bad.
Before 200 years ago, few people of any nation viewed the conquering of lands as immoral. If you claimed land, you needed to be able to defend it. If you couldn’t, a stronger clan, tribe, or nation might take it. That was the way of the world. Was it hard? Yes. Was it bad? Often, especially if you were the one being conquered. But was it immoral? Well, do we see any indication in the Bible that God saw the rise and fall of kingdoms based on conquest uniquely sinful? Nations were judged for truly sinful, idolatrous, immoral behavior, but never for being conquerors. There is room for looking at individual moments in history, holding them up to Biblical standards of morality, and judging them accordingly. Taking these same moments however, and holding up to the rules of modern moral sensibilities is not the proper way to study history. It only serves to make us wise in our own estimation, and makes us miss the opportunity to learn from those who went before us, on whose shoulders we stood as we settled into our lofty perches.




