Promoting PErsonal Change, Centered on the PErson of Christ through the PErsonal Ministry of the Word
Biblical Counseling Coalition: Grace & Truth

Is a Sin-Predisposition a Form of Suffering?

Is a Sin-Predisposition a Form of Suffering

Most empirical research indicates that particular life struggles (including those that Scripture calls sin) have a higher incidence rate along hereditary lines. Stated in English, if your parents struggled with “x” sin, you are more likely to struggle with “x” sin than if your parents did not.

This sparks a large debate about the nature vs. nurture origin of human behavior. But at this point I am willing to concede some physiological predispositions for particular sins. If you watch multiple children within the same home, it is hard to deny (in my opinion). There are natural strengths and weaknesses that have nothing to do with the children’s choices or environment.

I have one child who is given to people-pleasing and another who revels in having the minority opinion. The more social child is extremely convincing with his words; both for encouragement and manipulation. The more determined child can withstand any resistance to attain a goal; both in the form of perseverance and defiance. Any amount of parenting (to the best of my ability anyway) has not changed these natural dispositions.

These two examples are relatively benign (at least so far, but I appreciate your prayers on the matter), but in some cases it is not. What about the person who does not grasp relationships or social cues and, therefore, is frequently self-centered and rude? What about the person who has a hair-trigger fear response and neglects significant life responsibilities because “something might go wrong?” What about the person for whom every pleasure so quickly becomes consuming that life seems to be a mine field of addictions waiting to happen?

Let’s forego the debate about whether these actions remain morally wrong. At this point I am assuming that self-centeredness, rudeness, neglect, and addiction (substance or otherwise) are wrong. They represent a failure to love God and love others. They violate the character of God whose image we are called to bear. They’re wrong.

But does the conversation stop there? In such cases, should we seek to apply a suffering paradigm to some struggles that are sinful? Should we have a separate (but still moral) category for sins that require forethought, practice, and continued intentionality to avoid?

If we say “yes,” then more questions arise. How do we differentiate sins that have become “second nature” through habituation from sins that emerge from a predisposition? How would we understand responsibility and repentance for sins rooted in large part in disposition? How, if at all, is this different from the sin nature with which every person is born? What does sanctification look like when there is more being refined than the will and heart?

These questions deserve a book more than a blog post. But I believe they are worth asking. I believe they are worth asking even if we are not able to formulate definitive answers. There is humility and compassion in entertaining difficult questions from hurting people even if the questions are misapplied (as doubtless this question will be many times).

I am simply saying some people relate and emote in broken ways without intentionality. There are cases that few people dispute will fit into this category; for example, autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Both of these struggles exist across a spectrum of experiences and severities. In their more severe expressions, most counselors (rightfully, in my opinion) would work these struggles almost exclusively out of a suffering paradigm.

But again, we are forced to ask questions. Is there a chasm between these experiences and “normal” human experience? Or, do these experiences manifest themselves along a spectrum where some struggles are more mildly predisposed with less daily life disruption?

The difficulty is that, if we are going to entertain these kinds of questions, they can only be answered in specific cases. We can (and should) do a systematic study to determine if a sin-predisposition is a legitimate category of thought and whether it could be distinct from the general effects of the Fall experienced by every human being. We can (and should) do a systematic study to determine if there are practical and effectual benefits to counseling such struggles (if they exist) with at least a partial suffering paradigm.

But such answers will never replace conversations with real people. I have found that a willingness to have these types of conversations with people who were disgusted and confused by their own sin has aided the counseling relationship. The vast majority of the time we have agreed to side with responsibility and work within a sin paradigm; rather than assessing a predispositional struggle and working within a suffering paradigm.

The conversation, however, helped people put nagging questions into words. It gave the peace of mind that they were being cared for, not just fixed. The counselee gained a clearer picture of the distinction between sin and suffering, so that suffering began to truly mean “negative experience totally out of my control” rather than just “negative experience I didn’t like.”

As we talk, the fairness of God becomes clearer. God can be seen as someone who seeks to restore people more than just eliminate sin. This fuller picture of God makes it easier to come to Him in repentance for sin and comfort for suffering.

Admittedly, in this post I have asked far more questions than I have answered. My goal, however, was not to answer these questions as much as it was to display the value of asking them.

Join the Conversation

How comfortable are you in speaking of counseling as having a “suffering paradigm” that is distinct from a “sin paradigm”? When you hear these two phrases what methodological differences come to mind?

Assuming you agree with the two counseling paradigms, what benefits and dangers come with approaching biologically predisposed sin within a suffering paradigm?

This entry was posted in Biblical Counseling, People Who Train Caregivers, Psychology and Christianity, Sin, Suffering and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
 
  • JP

    Interesting. But I think children, as young as they are, ALWAYS DO make their own choices. Now the degree to how much those choices can be influenced depends on the openness of the child. i.e. Openness to suggestions, to ideas of others, to negativity, to positivity. I dont buy the whole “oh. he/she cant make decisions for him/herself yet because he/she’s still a child.” It’s true that children can be “easily” influenced but it would be naive to think that they dont have choices of their own no matter how young they may be. The truth is it takes time to come to one’s own (to be reacquainted with God.) We are spirit first before body. Proof is the creation of Adam. But after the Fall, other spiritual forces went into play. Children as helpless and unprepared (in terms of maturity of body and soul and spirit) as they may be are not excluded from these spiritual forces. I think some spiritual forces trespass one-sidedly, some we invite into our lives out of ignorance for the most part, and still yet, some are sometimes ordered by the Lord to be the proverbial thorn on one’s side. So that when the time comes, this same thorn can be the catalyst to get reacquainted with his/her Creator. I think the “suffering paradigm” would fit into this. Example is Job, whom God “ordered’ to be afflicted. The good thing is that God had one condition: to spare Job’s life. And Job was restored and blessed afterward. Now I may never understand why some children die young (and never [and Im not completely certain of this because maybe they do in the short time they have] get to fully reacquaint themselves with God) but what I do know is that God has a unique purpose for each life. We may have our own purpose for “our” lives (thus, the numerous curses inflicted upon God due to the difficulty of understanding the death of one’s child, etc.) but God’s given purpose for our lives is irrevocable. He is in control. All in all, I think your suffering paradigm vs sin paradigm issue should be more of choice vs forcible entry/invitation. That is, did God order the affliction? or did the enemy trespass one-sidedly/ invited in? But in all of these, one truth remains and is irrevocable: God’s purpose for each life. I think for those who gets ample time, the choice is whether or not to respond to the purpose. And I think for those who die young (stillborn, children, etc.), the purpose is already fulfilled in their lives – if not in the natural realm then in the spiritual or both (only God knows.) One who may have lived a relatively long life say that he/she never had a choice in life because of environment, born into it, etc. -I have a very hard time accepting this statement in general. True, a stillborn baby may “seemingly” (because again, we are spirit first before body) never have had a choice in life but still, God’s purpose for that stillborn baby cannot be denied – in the spiritual and natural realms. Surely, we all admit that both questions and answers lead to more questions and answers. We may never, ever, ever understand and accept it and it’s fine, as far as Im concerned, because when God said His thoughts are above our thoughts, it is what it is. It will be whatever God said it will be.

About the BCC

The BCC exists to strengthen churches, para-church organizations, and educational institutions by promoting excellence and unity in biblical counseling as a means to accomplish compassionate outreach and effective discipleship.