As someone who shares the context into which you're intervening with this post, I fully support how you're pushing back against this "Christian OCD" which is constantly wringing its hands and examining every little thought and desire. It over-identifies us with our thoughts and desires, as though we control them or they *are* us in a straightforward way, but I think the situation is much more complex than that.
However, I want to note that I don't think reason or theological precision can avail much for the one wracked by guilt about their temptations. Psychoanalysis talks about the function of the super-ego, the condemning voice of the Law which constantly bombards us with commandments. Žižek emphasizes how the super-ego is actually designed to be a losing game, because the harder you try to do what the super-ego commands, the more guilty you feel. The more sin you start seeing everywhere, including yourself, and the more impossible it becomes to obey the Law's strictures. You sink deeper and deeper into the mire of condemnation.
So, I would add that as a next step or a supplement to what you're saying, and point out that the good news of God's salvific work to give us fullness of life through His Son and the Spirit offers a way out of the super-ego game, a path which quiets the voice of the Law, and which enables us to live from a place of excess and overflow, rather than deficit and desperation.
You’re totally right about that. I see this play out in the relationship between mine and my wife’s callings. She doesn’t deliver my theology and philosophy ideas directly to her clients, but here’s what happens. Her clients will state the bad theology idea, and Anna can see that it is reinforcing a cognitive distortion. The fact that Anna is confident through the theology and philosophy that thoughts are not sins, for example, helps her to ignore the theology and instead treat the problem as OCD. She uses the standard OCD interventions like limited exposure to treat the problem, not reason or theology.
I have been a little sympathetic to the idea that concupiscence is technically "sin", though not "a sin" (or "actual sin"), but reading the Wedgeworth chapter actually gave me more of Augustine's language to say that it can be called sin or sinful through metonymy, and, yet, at the end of the day, we should just stop talking about concupiscence and use plain language.
Borrowing from Luther's metaphor, would you agree with this? That responding to all tempting thoughts/attractions as sin (not merely as sinful, via metonymy) is an overly hard burden to bear, especially for those with weaker mental-spiritual constitutions—we would not only need to repent for the bird that builds a nest on our head, but also for every bird that briefly lands on our head, or even for the fact that we have a head that a bird may be prone to land on!**
That’s exactly what I would want to say! Sin, in common parlance, means actually sin. Original sin, our broken and bent constitution, is sin by metonymy. I hadn’t had that word on hand.
When they insist, concupiscence *really is sin,* this communicates to the average person and the sensitive conscience, “this is actual sin.” I do think there are practical uses of the doctrine of original sin, but to guilt those subject to particular temptations is not one.
I got it from reading Wedgeworth! He actually does a nice layout and dissection of various writings of Augustine on the topic. Yet, I find Wedgeworth's applications weak, the discipleship implications concerning (as you've pointed out), and his grammar on the experiences of sexuality/attraction/orientation even weaker.
I think a lot of the clarity here comes from having shoved the unclarity into the idea of "intentionally" thinking something. I mean, I can drive myself to work when I only meant to go grocery shopping. There is never a "are you sure you want to keep going?" decision point popping up.
Similarly, I think if you never had the idea that some desires are at least situationally bad, then you would never *intentionally* wallow in lustful thoughts - you would just proceed to think them, without ever encountering a decision point. Why would you develop a self-reflection interrupting the process, if there was never a reason to think it can go wrong?
Now, people dont really need specific moral instruction to learn this - once they get the idea of avoiding some behaviour, they naturally propagate this back through their mind as far as they can. You dont need to tell them to do this, but maybe you also shouldnt tell them that its totally unnecessary? Because it isnt.
Thanks for this analysis and interesting pushback! I absolutely agree that there is this much complexity. I think because of the complexity, I wanted to articulate something in a much more clear and plain way.
I’m trying to speak into a particular evangelical reformed discussion where people are being encouraged to call that entire realm of complexity “sin.” I think this has the wrong effect for people’s own self-examination and internal feelings of guilt.
I like how you said that people know that an action is bad, so they know that the desires before the action should be curtailed as well. I think the same. As a result, I think people will mostly understand by my statements that whatever precedes those sins in our actions or even our minds, whatever is an occasion of temptation, is not something we should blame ourselves for.
Basically we should cut off sin when we see it. But we shouldn’t blame ourselves for its presence.
Thanks for considering the thoughts of some guy on the internet.
>Basically we should cut off sin when we see it. But we shouldn’t blame ourselves for its presence.
Well, I think its difficult to be motivated to stop something without feeling bad about it in some way. This can take different froms (maybe what you mean by "blame" is more specific?), and you can definitely overdo it, but I think if you try to avoid it entirely, one thing or the other will break.
I understand what youre reacting to, and I agree that most people who have lived under it and remain committed will be able to take your advice in a reasonable way; Im just someone who gets very concerned about formulations developing problems when theyre taken more seriously.
As someone who shares the context into which you're intervening with this post, I fully support how you're pushing back against this "Christian OCD" which is constantly wringing its hands and examining every little thought and desire. It over-identifies us with our thoughts and desires, as though we control them or they *are* us in a straightforward way, but I think the situation is much more complex than that.
However, I want to note that I don't think reason or theological precision can avail much for the one wracked by guilt about their temptations. Psychoanalysis talks about the function of the super-ego, the condemning voice of the Law which constantly bombards us with commandments. Žižek emphasizes how the super-ego is actually designed to be a losing game, because the harder you try to do what the super-ego commands, the more guilty you feel. The more sin you start seeing everywhere, including yourself, and the more impossible it becomes to obey the Law's strictures. You sink deeper and deeper into the mire of condemnation.
So, I would add that as a next step or a supplement to what you're saying, and point out that the good news of God's salvific work to give us fullness of life through His Son and the Spirit offers a way out of the super-ego game, a path which quiets the voice of the Law, and which enables us to live from a place of excess and overflow, rather than deficit and desperation.
You’re totally right about that. I see this play out in the relationship between mine and my wife’s callings. She doesn’t deliver my theology and philosophy ideas directly to her clients, but here’s what happens. Her clients will state the bad theology idea, and Anna can see that it is reinforcing a cognitive distortion. The fact that Anna is confident through the theology and philosophy that thoughts are not sins, for example, helps her to ignore the theology and instead treat the problem as OCD. She uses the standard OCD interventions like limited exposure to treat the problem, not reason or theology.
I think that's awesome! A killer duo, you two
hell yea this is coming in timely thanks Joel i needed this
Thanks, Doug!
A follow up question, is Satan a person?
You mean as opposed to a metaphor for evil? I assume so, but I’m curious what’s behind your question. What follows if he is? What follows if not?
I was wondering if Satan is currently or ever has been housed by human flesh like you and I.
Either way it doesn't matter I'm just going to do a Romans 3:4 mic drop lol
I have been a little sympathetic to the idea that concupiscence is technically "sin", though not "a sin" (or "actual sin"), but reading the Wedgeworth chapter actually gave me more of Augustine's language to say that it can be called sin or sinful through metonymy, and, yet, at the end of the day, we should just stop talking about concupiscence and use plain language.
Borrowing from Luther's metaphor, would you agree with this? That responding to all tempting thoughts/attractions as sin (not merely as sinful, via metonymy) is an overly hard burden to bear, especially for those with weaker mental-spiritual constitutions—we would not only need to repent for the bird that builds a nest on our head, but also for every bird that briefly lands on our head, or even for the fact that we have a head that a bird may be prone to land on!**
That’s exactly what I would want to say! Sin, in common parlance, means actually sin. Original sin, our broken and bent constitution, is sin by metonymy. I hadn’t had that word on hand.
When they insist, concupiscence *really is sin,* this communicates to the average person and the sensitive conscience, “this is actual sin.” I do think there are practical uses of the doctrine of original sin, but to guilt those subject to particular temptations is not one.
I got it from reading Wedgeworth! He actually does a nice layout and dissection of various writings of Augustine on the topic. Yet, I find Wedgeworth's applications weak, the discipleship implications concerning (as you've pointed out), and his grammar on the experiences of sexuality/attraction/orientation even weaker.
I think a lot of the clarity here comes from having shoved the unclarity into the idea of "intentionally" thinking something. I mean, I can drive myself to work when I only meant to go grocery shopping. There is never a "are you sure you want to keep going?" decision point popping up.
Similarly, I think if you never had the idea that some desires are at least situationally bad, then you would never *intentionally* wallow in lustful thoughts - you would just proceed to think them, without ever encountering a decision point. Why would you develop a self-reflection interrupting the process, if there was never a reason to think it can go wrong?
Now, people dont really need specific moral instruction to learn this - once they get the idea of avoiding some behaviour, they naturally propagate this back through their mind as far as they can. You dont need to tell them to do this, but maybe you also shouldnt tell them that its totally unnecessary? Because it isnt.
Thanks for this analysis and interesting pushback! I absolutely agree that there is this much complexity. I think because of the complexity, I wanted to articulate something in a much more clear and plain way.
I’m trying to speak into a particular evangelical reformed discussion where people are being encouraged to call that entire realm of complexity “sin.” I think this has the wrong effect for people’s own self-examination and internal feelings of guilt.
I like how you said that people know that an action is bad, so they know that the desires before the action should be curtailed as well. I think the same. As a result, I think people will mostly understand by my statements that whatever precedes those sins in our actions or even our minds, whatever is an occasion of temptation, is not something we should blame ourselves for.
Basically we should cut off sin when we see it. But we shouldn’t blame ourselves for its presence.
Thanks for considering the thoughts of some guy on the internet.
>Basically we should cut off sin when we see it. But we shouldn’t blame ourselves for its presence.
Well, I think its difficult to be motivated to stop something without feeling bad about it in some way. This can take different froms (maybe what you mean by "blame" is more specific?), and you can definitely overdo it, but I think if you try to avoid it entirely, one thing or the other will break.
I understand what youre reacting to, and I agree that most people who have lived under it and remain committed will be able to take your advice in a reasonable way; Im just someone who gets very concerned about formulations developing problems when theyre taken more seriously.