I’ve been spending a bit of time looking at the debate about concupiscence. It’s probably about time to engage with the contemporary debate a bit more. So, let’s go back to where we started. In a new book, “Ruined Sinners to Reclaim”, last year, David and Jonathan Gibson accused John Stevens, National Director of the FIEC of stumbling into error. They noted that Stevens sees James 1:12-15 as drawing “a definitive contrast between temptation and sin.”[1] As a result, they argue that he
“presents a Roman Catholic position on unbidden and unwarranted desires.”[2]
Now, as I’ve shown in my previous articles, this misreads John who doesn’t come close to arguing a Roman Catholic position, he does engage with the plain meaning of the text of James 1:12-15 and his argument is clearly not shaped by the Roman Catholic metaphysics which the Reformers persistently countered. They misinterpret the historical reformed figures who are dealing with the question of indwelling sin and the relationship of our desires to original sin but do not suggest that resisted temptation is sin. Their struggle with interpreting contemporary and historical figures well leaves big questions about their exegesis of Scripture on the same points.
Matthew Mason of London Seminary has been one of the primary contributors to the current debate. In a seminar for the Keswick Convention he articulates the argument here. What is of note is his response to that question “Is it Biblical?” Note two things. First, he offers Bible references that support the wider doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity but not so narrowly the question of Concupiscence. Secondly, the references all point to life before conversion. I would suggest that this highlights two of the biggest problems with the current debate. First there is a conflation of categories so that it isn’t clear as to whether we are describing Total Depravity generally, or specific desire. Second, the question of how the believers’ experience of Total Depravity differs from the unbeliever isn’t given the attention it needs.
The more detailed working on concupiscence in “Ruined Sinners to Reclaim” is Steven Wedgeworth’s chapter. There, as I’ve noted, he puts his focus on issues around sex and sexuality and specifically two examples, contraception and same sex attraction. When talking about same sex attraction, he offers a helpful summing up of concupiscence’s application.
“The challenge for the Christian struggling with an orientation of same sex attraction would be for the individual so affected to mortify such sin, to make sure that it remains ‘reigned-over sin” to use Luther’s and Ursinus’ categories. If not acted upon, such an orientation would still be understood to be sin, but sin forgiven in Christ. If it were acted upon (even mentally), however, it would become a new actual sin, in need of new repentance.”[3]
They then offer this as a basis on which to evaluate others and offer a quote from Sam Allberry as an example. Allberry says:
“Same sex attractions (along with any other kind of temptation to sin) reflect our own fallenness. But this is not the same as saying the presence of temptation is itself a sin to be repented of. Scripture makes a distinction between temptation and sin … But we do need to be careful not to imply that a Christian who is faithfully resisting temptation is in sin, merely for experiencing the temptation …the sincere Christian who is deeply distressed at the temptations he or she is facing may be crushed at the idea that merely having the capacity to be tempted in this way, they are thereby sinning.”[4]
Now look at the two quotes carefully. Are they saying much different? If we were to do what Wedgeworth says and use his conclusions to assess contemporary positions, would we find Allberry wanting.
There are perhaps some differences in choice of language. Allberry talks about “fallenness” and “the capacity to be tempted” where Wedgeworth and the protestant reformers he draws upon talk about “indwelling” or “abiding sin”. In that both are seeking to provide their own labels for something that Scripture talks about, there may be a debate to have about which is the better label. However, I cannot identify much, if any at all, of a difference between Allberry arguing that a Christian should be “deeply distressed at temptations” and should be “faithfully resisting” them as opposed to Wedgeworth’s talk of mortifying sin so that it is “reigned over-sin.”
However, Wedgeworth argues that Allberry’s position “stands in contradiction to the historical Protestant case presented.”[5] His basis for doing so is that he doesn’t think that Allberry has distinguished enough between external and internal temptation with internal temptation originating from our sinful desires.[6] This seems to be the crux of the matter, as with Gibson and Gibson it boils down to how we understand desire and even more so, how we understand temptation.
Wedgeworth wishes to emphasise a distinction between internal and external temptation which he believes that Allberry misses. I am not convinced that his assumption here is correct. Moreover, it might be argued that he is over distinguishing external and internal temptation. It is true that Jesus experiences an external, audible and up close encounter with the devil, something which few of us will experience. However, the devil’s tactic is to work on Jesus’ desires, in this case to attempt to distort the legitimate desires associated with identity, comfort and security. We should not downplay the relationship of external influence and internal desires in the normal life of the believer either.
It is therefore important to recognise that Allberry and Stevens are not really in disagreement with Scripture, nor with the historical reformed position. I’m not even convinced that they are fully in disagreement with Wedgeworth’s interpretation of the historical reformed position. Rather, there seems to be a disagreement over our understanding of how desire’s and temptation function and what resisting or acting on temptation and desire look like.
Let’s take a practical example and let’s move away from the terrain of sex and sexuality. Think about how we relate to each other, including, getting close to the bone, our social media interactions. Consider the situation where a person says something derogatory and slanderous to another brother online, maybe it is racist, maybe it even sounds threatening. I hope we would all recognise that this is actual sin. We do not need to say things out loud in the person’s presence nor do we need to physically assault someone to sin in this way.
However, those words started somewhere. Before they were said, they were thought. There was a point where the person entertained those ideas in their head. Again, it should be clear that this is sin. Yet, where did those thoughts come from. At some point, they have been tempted to think better of themselves and worse of another, to believe lies about their brother and about themselves.
At the root of that is surely our fallenness or to stick with Wedgeworth, our “abiding sin.” Yet it is worth noting that things are a little more complex than that somewhere there is an unbidden but innate, internal desire to think, say and do horrible things either to a specific person class of person or people in general.
Rather, as I’ve mentioned previously, we all have bundles of desires.[7] At the root of these are the desires for security, comfort and identity. Alongside this, we have the problem of pride, the belief that I am better than others and this comes accompanied by things like jealously, envy and contempt. Temptation in effect interacts with these things. Indeed, that probably helps us to see how the purely external temptation of Jesus is distinguished from the temptation we experienced. Jesus did not have pride, envy or contempt within him. The temptation had nowhere to take root.
Returning to our example, you can see how a person’s desire for identity, security and comfort may become distorted as they seek to protect themselves by damaging those seen as a threat and as they seek to exalt their own status by putting others down.
We should also be able to see the distinctions in the process as desires are confused, conflated and distorted. Hopefully, we should also be able to see the distinctions between desires, temptation and sin.
It is perhaps a weakness of certain theological approaches that they don’t seem to engage much with how people and the world function. What we need to do is to move away from a situation where rather than recognising those weaknesses, people are quick to find differences and error where there aren’t any serious differences of theology.
[1] Gibson and Gibson, 6.
[2] Gibson and Gibson, 6.
[3] Wedgeworth, 662,
[4] Wedgeworth, 663.
[5] Wedgeworth, 664.
[6] Wedgeworth, 664.
[7] I got this concept from Stefan Cantore in correspondence.
Faithroots 