I’ve been starting to dip my toe into a little theological debate about something called “concupiscence”. I’ve so far focused on highlighting what Scripture has to say about desire and temptation. It’s probably worth saying a little bit more about what the debate seems to be all about.
In the new volume, Ruined Sinners to Reclaim, Stephen Wedgeworth has provided a chapter focusing on “The Doctrine of Concupiscence.” He writes:
“One of the more unexpected side effects of recent debates over human sexuality in evangelical churches has been the reemergence of a somewhat archaic word, concupiscence. Writing in Public Discourse, Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield emphasize the doctrine of concupiscence as a dividing line between {protestant and Roman Catholic understandings of illicit desire.”[1]
It is worth making two observations here. First, the way in which this matter has been linked so closely into debates and concerns around sexuality and particularly same sex attraction is a matter of interest. In his own chapter, Wedgeworth’s application is primarily focused on responding to Sam Alberry and Wesley Hill on the issue of same sex attraction whilst he also includes a short section with some unsupported, pastorally careless throwaway comments on contraception.[2]
This narrow focus on sex and sexuality is both intriguing from a sociological perspective and concerning from a theological and pastoral perspective. It is intriguing because it raises questions about how social context shapes discourse and thinking.
It is concerning for three reasons. First, this narrowing down raises questions about how we see and understand sex, sexuality and sexual desire themselves. There has at times in history been a tendency to treat these subjects with a level of fear and suspicion. Secondly, it places the attention on certain people and groups of people and even if it is claimed that the application is wider, the fact that the debate focuses on those issues does mean that certain struggles are singled out. Thirdly, it means that we are left with a whole host of questions about temptation, desire and indeed other inner emotions and inclinations that don’t easily come under the title of desire on which there is silence. What for example do we make of a person’s struggle with addiction or with their temper? What about mental illness, depression, anxiety etc, what are we to make of these?
The second point of note is that a protestant or reformed position is being set up in contrast to a Roman Catholic one. You may remember, first that in the book’s introduction, the FIEC National Director, John Stevens is accused of articulating a Roman Catholic view. Additionally, it is helpful to observe how, when commenting on sin, desire and temptation, reformers like John Calvin are often doing so in response to the Catholic viewpoint. Before accusing others of holding a Catholic view, we may do well to identify exactly what that view is. This will help us to be certain as to whether others share that view before we accuse them. It may also help us better understand the arguments that the Reformers were making.
In short, the Roman Catholic understanding of temptation and desire is rooted in a metaphysics where the higher-self is separated from the lower-self. It is the higher self that is the seat of the will and reason. It is also here that righteousness is believed to have been lost from and where grace is super added to. The lower-self is where our baser material instincts come from and are seek as disconnected from our will and reason. The result is that concupiscence is understood as follows:
In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished. If, in fact, the will resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuous appetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control. “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.”[3]
At this point, you can see why Calvin and other reformers would strongly oppose the idea that such suppressed desires are not sinful.
The third thing of note in the wider chapter by Wedgeworth is talk of a Doctrine of Concupisicence. The full chapter heading is “The heart wants what it wants: A Protestant assessment of the doctrine of concupiscence.[4] I wonder how helpful or accurate it is to think of the term as a doctrine in and of itself. Historically, it is perhaps more the case that a latin term was being used, naturally by Latin speakers to talk about desire. Bavinck includes a section in his Dogmatics on Original Sin and Concupiscence but this falls short of a fully fledged stand alone doctrine.
I guess that in a sense, we can talk about any teaching as “ a doctrine of” but the risk is that we start to group and categorise these doctrines and that may mean that we don’t properly tease out such issues.
The problem is that desire, or concupiscence is something that affects us both before and after conversion. Therefore to treat it as a distinct category of doctrine and a subcategory of Original Sin or Total Depravity means that we may not think through carefully how conversion changes us. What is our relationship to original sin after conversion? I note that Wedgeworth presumes that Romans 7 is describing the normal Christian life after conversion but even if this is the case (which I have argued against), it still doesn’t consider how our new identity in Christ affects our relationship to sin.
In previous articles I’ve suggested that whether or not we call desire itself “sin” depends on how we are using the word “sin” itself. Yes, it can be described as “sin” or “sinful” if we are using the word “sin” to identify fallen human nature. We may also consider how we use the word “repentance” and what is meant by those saying that we don’t need to repent from our desires.
First, if repentance interprets metanoia and we are thinking in terms of a word that has a root idea of “changed mind”, then the resistance that John Stevens describes in his book “The Fight of your life” may be described as “repentance.” If we are thinking in terms of original sin and its corrupting affect on all human nature, if this is another way of talking about Total Depravity, then there is also guilt and shame so that our response should include remorse. However, if we are talking about our identity as sinners, rebels against God outside of Christ, then surely the repentance in terms of confessing our identity as sinners, being remorseful and turning away from that sin has already happened when we trusted in Christ. Though if I’m feeling a little bit cheeky, I might suggest that this relies on a strong view of conversion and we might equally be concerned about Presbyterian paedobaptist approaches where a person is objectively included in the covenant at baptism and where then we might wonder about the place of repentance and conversion.
We might though also want to consider the possibility that people talking about the need to resist, not repent evil desires are reflecting colloquial understandings of repentance and so are simply saying that the believer should not beat themselves up because they are tempted. Indeed, if we were to do that then we might be succumbing to the exacerbating temptation that Charity Bancroft speaks of, “when Satan tempts me to despair….”[5]
There are some fascinating and helpful things to draw out when discussing the issues of desire and temptation but a healthy conversation where we don’t talk past each other pr rush to accuse is needed and this means taking time to clarify questions about language and metaphysics.
[1] Wedgeworth, 633.
[2] Wedgeworth, 661-662.
[3] See CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Concupiscence
[4] Wedgworth, 633..
[5] Charity Bancroft, “Before the Throne of God above.”
Faithroots 