A common assumption is that temptation isn't real unless you are free either to withstand or succumb to temptation. Many Christians find that persuasive, even self-evident. I don't.
To me, the key dynamic in moral temptation is the psychological tension between duty and desire. You want to do one thing but you'e morally compelled to refrain.
A classic example is missionary Eric Liddell. Both before and after the initial Japanese invasion of China, he has a chance escape. Instead, he sent his wife and daughter out of the country while he stayed behind. As a result, he became a captive in a civilian war camp, where he died. He undoubtedly felt an overwhelming urge to be with his wife and kids, not to mention putting the Japanese invasion at a comfortable distance.
But as a devout Christian, it was unthinkable to abandon his students in their dire hour. A betray of trust. Imagine the message that would send if him left them behind to elude suffering while leaving them to face the Japanese army. They'd conclude that he didn't take seriously the faith he taught them. His sense of Christian honor and Christian witness made that prospect inconceivable. The precise point of tension lay in the unresolvable emotional conflict.
“To me, the key dynamic in moral temptation is the psychological tension between duty and desire. You want to do one thing but you'e morally compelled to refrain.”
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to will that which is contrary to one’s desire, or does desire dictate the will?
Some things are more important to us than others, so those can override even powerful desires. What's compelling may vary depending on the comparison. What's compelling given one alternative (all things being equal) may not be compelling given a different alternative (all things considered) .
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo, since the tension exists because the individual feels trapped by his overriding sense of duty.
ReplyDeleteTo me, desire dictates the will.
ReplyDeleteI can’t see how it’s possible to will against what we desire most.
Our “sense of duty” IS our desire.
So it’s not duty “vs” desire, but desire vs desire.
The most intense desire wins.
Duty is often a case of doing what you're supposed to when you'd rather to something else. The opposite of following your desires.
DeleteBut when you perform a duty, you surely must have a desire to do so. There needs to be an impetus to carry out the duty. This desire outweighs the desire to do the alternative. This is why I don’t see it as desire “vs” duty since duty itself inevitably carries with it a desire.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the value of watering down the distinction between doing something because you enjoy doing it in contrast to doing it despite the fact that you resent having to do it.
DeleteSorry. Please pray for me.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't say anything out of turn. Always appreciate you and your comments.
DeleteAnd I appreciate your blog Steve.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I dissect the issue of desire is because I’ve struggled with this issue the last couple years. Desire and the will. If God is sovereign over the desires of man-as I perceive to be true from scripture (He hardens and softens hearts, He gives ears and doesn’t give ears to hear, withholds and sheds light, etc) it makes me consider the implications: what am I if not my desires? If I can’t will contrary to my desire (as I believe to be the case) it all seems to enter the realm of fate. Being aware that my level of desire is affected by influences beyond control (via inherited sin nature) and God withholding or dispensing grace so as to change this level of desire drives me to introspection. I can’t even desire to change my desire for the better without outside influence. What a wretched state to be born into. My ONLY help comes from the Lord. Also, this is the main reason I see monergism as the only possible explanation of the way things come to pass.