Men of Their Time

By what standard should we judge historical figures? 

More and more often, it seems, the argument has been made that we should judge historical figures “according to their time.” Whether we are considering the legacy of Christopher Columbus, Jonathan Edwards, or George Whitefield, “we can’t judge them by today’s standards” is an argument made from random Twitter accounts to the halls of theological academia. This defense has been employed to defend those who owned slaves, espoused racist views, had extreme views on sexuality, and others who held controversial ideas.

We know that many influential historical figures came from periods with less-than-modern tendencies and values. We know that to speak against the prevailing ethics of the day would have been socially tricky. Not only would speaking out be difficult, but also even coming to hold modern ethical positions would sometimes have been unlikely. Surely we cannot expect historical men to adopt and champion modern virtues? Right? 

But this isn’t about modernity or history. 

When we consider historical figures, especially those who claimed Christ, the ethical question doesn’t hinge on modern or pre-modern virtues, but rather the revealed Law Word of God. Yes, it is true that if we were considering subjective and shifting cultural standards, then we should judge lightly and according to the norms of a time, but that is not how Christians should think about ethics. 

In short, an appeal to “we need to judge this man according to his time” is an appeal to subjective, situational, autonomous ethics. It’s a rejection of the transcendence of the Law Word of God. This fallacious argument makes the historical moment authoritative as opposed to the revealed will of God. 

“All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.” – ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:16-17‬ ‭

Just as there is no excuse for murder, theft, sexual immorality, and so on, there’s likewise no excuse for dehumanizing our fellow image-bearers of God. Slavers and the defenders of slavers will not be judged by my standard, your standard, or the standards of a sinful society benefitting from the practice. Rather, slavers and those who wish to wink at God’s Law regarding dehumanization will be judged by the objective, authoritative, and righteous standard of God. The same is true of rapists, thieves, liars, adulterers, and so on. 

Brothers and sisters, ethics do not change according to a popularity vote. Nazi butchers shouldn’t be judged as just “men of their time” because their government and society supported and tolerated mass murder. Likewise, a society fully supportive of the legalized murder of preborn image-bearers of God will not be given a pass because their mass murder was just “a part of the times.” Further, the human sacrifice of some American indigenous peoples was also morally repugnant, even though they also were just “men of their time.” Why aren’t Mayan death priests ever given a pass by those who employ situational ethics in defense of mass chattel slavery? Or, perhaps, we should consider how the abolitionists of slavery were also “men of their time” who loudly spoke the truth to the other “men of their time.” 

History and historical ethics are complicated. Not every slaver is to be judged the same way, just as every sinner isn't to be judged the same way. Yes, there is nuance and there's grace. Yes, let's discuss the historicity of events and famous historical people. Yes, let's have a conversation about ethics. However, when we begin these historical and ethical conversations, our standard must always be the firm and the objective truth of God's Word. And, if I can be frank, I think we already know this, but we also very conveniently forget our standards when they come into conflict with our own cultural moments and movements.

We have a partiality problem. Thinkers who know full and well that ethics aren’t determined by culture are quick to use culture as their standard when it seemingly helps in their culture war. Teachers who preach sermons on “Christ For All of Life” point to historical norms regarding select sins. Professors who condemn slavery and misogyny in historical European practices turn a blind eye to the brutality of many non-European historical traditions. Theologians who believe in theonomy and publicly condemn autonomy quickly point to autonomous popular ethics when it suits them. 

We are not the standard, and neither is history. Scripture speaks clearly on all manner of ethics, and these ethics do not magically change when historical norms disagree with God’s Word. That’s not theonomy, nor is it Christian ethics. Though many ask, “By whose standard?” I’m disappointed to say that the answer is often “not God’s.”