As noted previously, David and Jonathan Gibson have beef with John Stevens over his book “The fight of your life.” Some of their critique is rather peculiar. They acknowledge that it is a short, pastoral work (in fact it was based on a series of talks” and then complain that rather than engaging at length with positions he distinguishes himself from, John simply offers the Biblical exegesis for the position he is arguing for.[1]
This is a peculiar critique because, first of all, they themselves in their critique of John fail to engage with his exegesis. In fact, they complain that he is out of line with certain historical figures, they insinuate danger in his position but they do not engage and show how his theology is wrong. Of course, they might argue that this wasn’t the job of an introductory chapter to an edited work. I would though expect them to signpost at this point which of their authors is going to engage in detail with Stevens. Indeed I would be interested to know whether other contributing authors were aware that the work was being set up to confront Stevens and whether they would want their names to be linked to such an approach? The point remains though, they are asking something of John’s book that simply was not within its scope. I am reminded of the time on Britain’s Got Talent when Piers Morgan complained that a group of Irish dancers hadn’t tap danced.
John has suggested in his book that Wesleyan Perfection and the neo-puritan response of people like Packer amount to the extremes on the discussion of desire, temptation and sin in the normal Christian life. The Gibsons complain:
“The impression unwittingly or not is that simply biblical exegesis is an adequate antidote to either extreme.”
Well, may I gently suggest that “yes it is!”. Careful Biblical exegesis should be the antidote, at least from an Evangelical perspective. What else are you looking for? They go on to suggest that the problem is that:
“By not laying out the Biblical exegesis of the positions he is challenging, Stevens presents his own interpretations as self-evidently true when in fact there are significant and weighty challenges to his thesis in the great tradition that precedes this book.”[2]
Yet, in fact, that it is not how Biblical exegesis and challenge works. Your challenge to my biblical exegesis should not be “but it is different to these weighty and respected figures.” The question should be, objectively, has Stevens got his exegesis right?
Indeed, if this is their concern about Stevens, then why was the memo not given to their own authors. The chapter by Wedgeworth on Concupiscence for example relies on one assumed interpretation of Romans 7.
However, their complaint here begins to highlight one of the challenges in theological debate, especially where the approach is to try and engage with others through the lens of your interpretation of historical figures. I’ve mentioned before that we need to double check that we’ve interpreted three things correctly, the words of our contemporary interlocuter, the words of our historical sources and the words of Scripture.
So, in the example that follows, they say:
“At the foundation of Steven’s argument is a reading of James 1:13-15 which he believes “draws a definitive contrast between temptation and sin.”
They go on to suggest that:
“Stevens appears to have a category of evil human desires that are not yet sinful in themselves.”
They then accuse him of teaching a Roman Catholic view of sin and claim that he has stumbled ignorantly into the doctrine of concupiscence. Notice here the unevidenced presumption of another’s ignorance.
Note that for John to propogate such a view he would need not merely to use similar sounding language (assuming he does) but operate from the same metaphysics or worldview. I will go into this in more detail at another point but it is worth noting that The Tridentine view of sin and desire is rooted in an understanding of the human person being divided into their lower and higher self with will and reason operating as part of the higher self (grace is something that can be superadded or lost from there). From the Catholic perspective base desires can function at that lower level and so because they do not touch on will and reason are not matters of guilt. This is very different to what John is saying in his book.
More importantly, as soon as we see the word “appears”, when judging what others are saying, this should encourage that note of caution and should remind us of our fallibility when interpreting others. Have they interpreted Stevens rightly? Notice that Stevens himself refers to the desires in James 1:13-15 as “evil.” He is not suggesting that they don’t matter. Rather he is simply noting that the text distinguishes out the act of sinning from desire and from temptation. His point is that the desires are to be resisted. I’m not at all convinced that they have interpreted him correctly when attributing Roman Catholic doctrine to him. Though of course we are not helped because they simply assert this rather than demonstrating it.
In terms of people who might disagree with Stevens on this, they offer Calvin’s interpretation of James 1:13-15:
“It seems , however, improper, and not according to the usage of Scripture to restrict the word sin to outward works, as though indeed lust itself were not a sin, and as though corrupt desires, remaining closed up within and suppressed, were not so many sins …For he [James] proceeds gradually and shows that the consummation of sin is eternal death, and that these depraved desires or affections have their root in lust.”[3]
Notice first, that the selected quote helps us to see how Stevens is being interpreted. The suggestion is that he would disagree with Calvin at this point but would he? I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that he would on the basis of his book. First, because to assume that Stevens does not see inner thoughts such as lust as sin is to do so without and in fact contrary to evidence.
One would also have to read his reference to “resisting” sin as the same as Calvin’s description of “suppressing sin” which seems to be quite the bold interpretative leap. In fact, again this is to miss the nature of the reformed disagreement with Roman Catholic theology. It seems most likely that Calvin is rejecting the idea that sin can be excused if suppressed down into the lower self. It is not just about the idea that if might break out from the inner thoughts life of a person into words and actions but they it might break out and up from the lower self in order to contaminate the higher self.
Secondly, they presume that Calvin would disagree with Stevens. Yet is there evidence here that he wouldd? For Calvin to disagree with Stevens, he would have to disagree about there being a distinction between temptation and sin and to not see the kind of process that John argues that James describes. Yet, those are not things that Calvin says here. He may appear to make such arguments in other places (though I think we need to check back carefully that he means what we think he means) but that is not his point in the quote.
I observed above about the question of whether we interpret three things well with the third being Scripture. The Gibsons are concerned that John Stevens treats his exegesis of James 1:13-15 as self-evidently true. Yet, I would suggest that it is more the case that he treats the meaning of James 1:!3-15 as itself being self-evident, trusting in the clarity of Scripture. John hasn’t done any fancy leg work on the text, he has pretty much stuck with saying what it says.
James 1:13-15 says:
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
I am intrigued by the idea that this text is open to multiple interpretations that might substantially differ from what John says where he notes a distinction between sin and temptation and highlights the analogy of giving birth.
I am not at all convinced that the Gibsons interpret Stevens, Calvin or Scripture correctly here.
[1] Gibson & Gibson, 5.
[2] Gibson & Gibson, 6.
[3] Cited Gibson & Gibson, 6.
Faithroots 