Is the ancient disease of Concupiscence now cured? Is there now “health” within us?

Is Concupiscence assumed or taught in the Rite II parts of the 1979 ECUSA Prayer Book? Even in Rite I?

Concupiscence, like chastity, is a word rarely used these days either in general conversation or in theological talk. However, when the Church in the West was much more focused, than it is now, on Jesus Christ as the Lord of all and the Saviour of men from their sin, the word was used often with reference to part of the total moral and spiritual disease and condition from which God in Christ saves his adopted children.

For example, Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were agreed that each and every human being experienced concupiscence as a condition of his soul. That is, he possessed a strong desire, or inclination, to embrace and do evil, that is to act contrary to God’s holy law and commandments. Thus in all provision of teaching, sacraments, means of grace and pastoral care for baptized Christians this strong desire to support self rather than God had seriously to be taken into account, if they were to be led into holiness and sanctification of life.

But is this inclination and desire towards evil sinful in and of itself; or does it become sinful when wrongful action flows from it? While some schools of Roman Catholic theology taught that concupiscence in and of itself is not sinful, most Protestant theologians taught that it is so because it is arises from the “diseased”, sinful, “fallen” nature of man.

Article IX of the Thirty-Nine Articles (England 1571; USA 1801) states:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk); but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.

This assumes the historicity of Adam and Eve, their possession of an original righteousness, their loss of it, and the passing on by procreation of a human nature that does not possess original righteousness but rather is lacking a natural communion with God. Thus each and every baby that is born into this world is born with a human nature in which because there is no communion with God, there is an inclination to evil, and therefore there is present in his soul a constant battle between this evil inclination and any opposing “pressure” from God’s providence and grace to do what is good and right in His eyes. This inclination against God and towards evil is concupiscence.

In the Confession of Sin within Morning Prayer in the classic Book of Common Prayer (1662; 1928 USA) the acknowledgement is made by repentant sinners that “there is no health in us,” meaning (in the context of the prayer) that there is no power of saving ourselves from the sins of omission and commission just referred to, or from the consequences of those sins. Most significantly, this clause is omitted from the Rite I adaptation of this Prayer in the 1979 Prayer Book.

In fact, the problem within man is so serious (for the classic Anglican Formularies and the New Testament) that it will only be totally solved when the whole man is redeemed at the final resurrection of the dead when each believer is given a body like unto Christ’s glorious body. For even after new birth, spiritual birth from above in regeneration, the diseased nature and the inclination to evil remain. However, the difference after regeneration from before is that there is now present within the soul a new principle, a new nature, to resist and mortify the old nature and to enable the believing child of God to walk with the Lord in holiness and righteousness. Article IX continues:

And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, phronema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle [Paul] doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

We may assume that those who wrote this Article were well read in Augustine’s teaching on human sinfulness and also were deeply committed to the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 – 7 & Galatians, in the context of the teaching of our Lord (see Matthew 5-7; 19:17; John 2:24-25; Mark 16:16) and of the Old Testament (see Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9).

To recognize the continuing presence of concupiscence in the soul after conversion to Christ is to be realistic in terms of what the analysis and examination of the human mind, heart and will reveals, what the exhortations of the New Testament to holiness imply, why the gift of the indwelling Spirit is given to believers, and what the experience of the saints confirms.

However, if we absorb too much of modern theories for counseling and of psychotherapy, and we accept the view that the weaknesses of man are due to the continuing evolution of the human species, than we shall find that the evaluation we make of concupiscence is different – e.g., that it is natural, strong desire, part of our self-expression and self-development, and is to be carefully encouraged and guided.

From St Paul’s perspective and the whole Biblical perspective, man is both a glorious creature – made in God’s image and predestined to glory -- and also an imperfect, sinful creature to be saved and redeemed by gracious and costly action. It may be regretted that modern Anglican liturgists tend either to downplay or to omit the recognition of the presence of concupiscence in the souls of worshippers in congregations, and thus to compose prayers of confession that are inadequate and dishonest, and to promote forms of absolution, and of prayers and intentions in general, that are also inadequate or even deceptive. Indeed, modern liturgists have often boasted of paying little intention to received doctrines of sin and at the same time have criticized the traditional forms of service in the classic BCP for their heavy doctrine of sin.

It may be noted that to find in the 1979 prayer book concupiscence as strong desire to do evil as belonging to human beings before and after Baptism is like finding a needle in a haystack. It may be there but not by the design of the Commission that produced it. It seems to be absent from their “Outline of Faith.”

With no concupiscence, then there is no need for chastity and all desires of the soul can be seen as potentially good and to be fostered and fulfilled for the self-worth and self-fulfillment of human beings – which begins to sound like the “practical theology” of the ECUSA today.

But, we ask, is it possible to become mature in Christ and sanctified in heart, mind and will without recognizing the depth of sinfulness within human nature, as it is exposed to the searching light of God arising from meditation upon God’s Word written and to the atoning blood of Christ the Saviour in penitence and absolution?

October 21, 2005 petertoon@msn.com