Where Did the Desire to Sin Come From?

One of our own was asked this question by a skeptic on an airplane recently, and the answer was not immediately obvious. It's actually a profound question.

We know that sin, as such, does not exist as its own substance. Sin is the absence of something, the vandalization of something, but not its own something. Sin is the absence of good, the act of taking something good and twisting it, profaning it, or otherwise rendering it imperfect. Satan was created completely good, but then twisted himself by trying to make himself equal with God. Adam and Eve were created good, bearing the image of God, but violated God's express will and damaged (but not destroyed) the image of God they bore. Everything that departs from God's perfection is sin.

But this doesn't address the question that was asked. Where did the desire to sin come from?

If Satan was good before sinning, then desiring to sin would be sinful, wouldn't it? If Adam and Eve were really created good, then why would they ever desire to depart from God's express will? Jesus was tempted in every way we are, and yet was without sin - but did He desire to sin?

They were all given the freedom to make choices, and sin was inevitable for mankind, but that doesn't explain where the desire to sin came from. The mere existence of choice does not create desire.

So what I'm going to do with this post is to throw it out there and see what you think. Please feel free to add your own comments as to where you think the desire to sin came from in beings that were sinless at one time.

(All I ask is that you show respect for everyone, that you not become argumentative, that you not criticize anyone else's idea, and that you post only one time. Consider this a survey, not a debate.)

If you'd rather not post your idea publicly, then send me an email.

I'll let this run a week or two, and then summarize my thoughts on the matter.

Showing that Christianity is Authentic

I had a great time with the youth last night probing the authenticity of Christianity.

First, we made up our own religion. I asked several questions about what they wanted their religion to have - from how many gods to whether or not we'd have idols to features of our holy book and what the religion would require of its members. There were two full pages of questions, which were geared toward creating a religion that would attract as many people as possible, and to be the most palatable to us. Plus we just wanted the religion to be a humanly logical as possible.

This may sound like heresy, but first, our students are sharp enough to know what I'm getting at, and second, they were quick to note when what they said wasn't really theologically true.

Then we compared their answers to the features of Christianity, and of course, we came up with a radically different religion than Christianity. We ended up with three "gods" - but they were not complete in themselves. We rejected having any hard-to-fathom realities (like a Trinity, losing your life to save it, a leader who is fully God and fully man), and salvation was based on the whims of the gods, who had to be placated and pleased (especially the "god" who was insecure!). We allowed sin, because that would attract more members. We only had 9 authors of the holy book, and they had to collaborate together in order to get their story straight, and still they had to run their writings past the gods. We would promise potential new members an easy life, not a hard life. There were many more features especially geared toward trying to make our religion popular. (By the way, all infidels are to be burned if they don't accept this religion.)

The point of the exercise was to show that no one would ever make up Christianity. If you were to make up a religion, the chances are incredibly small that you make up something that resembles Christianity. No one would make up a Trinity (a key doctrine that we can't even fully comprehend), no one would write about the first followers of the religion as a bunch of dunderheads (like the apostles are in the Gospels), no one would say you have to die to yourself as part of membership, no one could have a completely consistent holy book written by over 40 different authors over 1500 years from different languages and cultures (and some writing without the knowledge of what the others were writing), and so on down the line. We didn't ground our religion in historical events, because they could be proven wrong. Our "gods" wanted glory because they don't already have all glory. The list goes on. (We say "no one" - theoretically someone could do one or two, but the point is that if you were going to make up a religion, you wouldn't make up all the things Christianity is.)

It was also important to note that the group couldn't agree on the features of the religion. They were all in the same room at the same time from the same culture speaking the same language, and they could not agree on the features of their religion, even when they were told to. Furthermore, not even the three "gods" could agree! Each had their own ego, and they each advocated for the features they wanted, especially those that would benefit the self most.

Christianity is not something that man would make up for himself. It demands too much of the self, it defies our ability to comprehend, it does not allow us to earn anything, it has a holy book that could never be created by a committee but simultaneously bears the marks being written both by God and by men. Christianity is not geared to become as large as possible, but as pure as possible, which automatically means that most people will reject it. It paints its first leaders not as saints but as societal nobodies who get it wrong more than they get it right. You don't make this stuff up.

I found it particularly fascinating that the main leader of this new religion had to be attractive, charismatic, and have a good voice. Scripture is clear that Jesus was plain in appearance. Scripture is also clear that the Antichrist will be particularly good looking and charismatic.

What we did end up with was a religion that resembles every other religion in the world except Christianity. That's no accident.

Prof

I'm mid-week through my class at Dallas Theological Seminary (thanks again for letting me go!). And it's yet another great experience.

The saga of getting here is a very long, complicated, frustrating story that involves very bad weather, some measure of incompetence, some every helpful people, and extra expenses. I won't bore you with the details, but I got to Dallas 24 hours later than scheduled, missing the first full day of class, and the process at times became so frustrating that I was very tempted to just give up and come back to Dublin. However, I'm grateful that the Lord carried me through to enduring.

I've been most excited about taking this class because it is co-taught by one of the most beloved professors at DTS, Dr. Howard Hendricks. Everyone calls him "Prof." All the professors here are "profs," but only Hendricks is universally called "Prof." If you say, "I learned that in Prof's class," everyone knows you're talking about Hendricks' class.

The impact from Prof's ministry over the last several decades is impossible to calculate - he is quoted by hundreds (or thousands) of former students, he's traveled the world many times over teaching, and most likely, he has indirectly impacted your life through one of your pastors who has been directly or indirectly impacted by Prof. He has a building named after him because some generous families wanted to honor his contribution.

Prof is the first to admit that age is starting to overtake him. Well into his 80s, one eye has gone completely bad, his body is slowing down, and even his brilliant mind doesn't have the same razor sharpness it once had - although he still remains sharper than most people you'll ever meet.

I had never met Prof before. We had a reception Tuesday night, and we took turns sitting next to Prof to talk with him one-on-one. One fellow student suddenly turned to me and said, "It's your turn!" I had no idea what to say - I didn't want to treat him like a rock star, I did want to say something meaningful, and I didn't want the conversation to be about me. He immediately asked me to share my story and then I spent the rest of our time finding out about his family.

Today in class, Prof shared an interesting story. When he was a senior at Moody Bible Institute, he was paired with a freshman to mentor (our class this week is on mentoring). This freshman was Jim Eliot, the missionary that became a household name when he was killed at age 28 in 1956 while trying to reach an unreached people group in Ecuador. Prof said that in this pairing of mentor and mentoree, it was the mentoree who mentored the mentor. Even as a college freshman, Eliot was a deeply spiritual, amazingly mature believer - the more senior man, who eventually became one of the most influential seminary professors in our age, was awed by this younger man.

Prof's humility in this way is inspiring. Another one of our students (who also is a professor at my alma mater, Talbot School of Theology) mentioned to Prof that they both teach the same courses. Prof genuinely said, "I wish I could take your class." What a memorable moment for my fellow student.

But it was a simple comment to me in the short time I sat next to him at the reception that was my memorable moment. This man, who has taught and mentored so many fantastic pastors and theologians, looked me in the eye and said, "If there's any way at all that I can help you, just ask." He clearly sees himself as a servant-leader. That is was ministry is all about. With all of his influence, impact, and accomplishments, after helping hundreds of the truly impactful Christian leaders, he hurries to offer his help to a student barely qualified to be in the program.

I'm beginning to learn why so many people love Prof.

A Review of the Circus

The following post is not a critique on Michael Jackson, his music, or his life. Let me make that clear from the start. I am not concerned here about evaluating anything about him. My comments are strictly related to the circus that has surrounded his death. For example, I just read that the memorial service that the city of Los Angeles put on was so expensive that they've set up a website to receive donations to help pay for it.

I've (unsuccessfully) tried to avoid the whole mess, but you can't turn anywhere without hearing about it. (In fact, you're reading about it right now! Ugh - I'm a carrier!) You sit in a restaurant with a TV on, and there it is. You listen to sports radio (sports radio!!!), and there it is. You overhear someone at work, and there it is. You buy anything from the grocery store, and there it is all over.

I'm amazed that anyone's death would generate so much attention (but I'm not surprised). No offense, but the man sang songs and danced. He sang songs, and he danced. But there something inside a whole lot of people (perhaps some of you reading this) that has been deeply affected by his singing and dancing. For some, that resonance is so strong that they are highly motivated to be a part of the funeral event. Somehow, Jackson was that important to them.

Some have expressed anger that a man accused (but acquitted) of heinous acts would receive such adulation. Like the recent death of former NFL star Steve McNair, I've also read those who advocate that we completely ignore any moral indiscretions because the performance on stage (or on the football field) was so good. Apparently, talent is of higher value than ethics.

But, there's a certain logic to all of this circus, at least in a non-Christian environment. In a society that rejects Christ, or God in any way, must venerate societal icons. If all we have is what people accomplish during their short lifetimes, then those who achieve in even one particular area logically must be celebrated, regardless of other aspects of their lives. That's all we have to lift up, if there is no Christ to lift up.

So, my anger (I'll admit it) gives way to pity. Rather than seeing the circus and getting mad, my emotional response is becoming pity more and more. How sad it is that instead of venerating Christ, people worldwide are lifting up a mere man. Not that we shouldn't properly grieve the passing of individuals, but the iconic adulation is misplaced. We should grieve the Cross more than we grieve the loss of an entertainer. We should celebrate the resurrected Christ more than we should give our devotion to a quarterback or a singer or a politician.

We are witnessing misplaced devotion. And it is profoundly sad - more sad than the loss of a mere man.

What a Week

In one week's time, we saw the passing of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, and Billy Mays: the "King of Pop," the queen of pin-up girls, the longtime sidekick to the king of late night television, and the king of informercials. They had world-wide fame, had millions of dollars, and were the most achieved in their fields during their day. And what I'm about to say is in no way intended to say anything negative about any of them.

My point is simply this - are any of the things that we know them for (fame, wealth, success) providing them with any satisfaction now? I don't know their spiritual states, I have no idea of their relationship with God, and I won't speculate on what each of their eternal destinies are. Whether their present states are good or bad, the question is the same: Are of the things we know them by giving them any satisfaction now? If any of them are satisfied now, it's not because of those things. If any of them are not satisfied now, these things are obviously not fulfilling them. (I sincerely hope that each of them are fully satisfied now.)

What do people know you for? By what means do people know of your name, know you exist, even interact with you? By what means do you want people to know you? If I were to ask people around you to describe you, what attributes would they focus on?

We have every temptation possible to want to be known by things that will not bring us one bit of satisfaction after we shed these mortal coils. We want to be known as having X or doing Y or being Z, and the temptations are to pursue the XYZ's that will not benefit our eternal satisfaction one bit. If the kings and queens of XYZ are not satisfied by them, how can mere citizens of those kingdoms be satisfied?

Satisfaction can be had - satisfaction now as well as satisfaction after we pass on. The Christian life is not only about delayed satisfaction, but true satisfaction now (otherwise, the Gospel would say, "Grab fleshly satisfaction now while you can"). In fact, it only stands to reason that the same things that will satisfy us after death are the same things that can most satisfy us before death.

Let the ridiculously overblown coverage of these deaths prompt you to ask yourself where you are really seeking to find satisfaction. Ask if your pursuit is something that will be satisfying you 2 seconds after you die ... or 500 million years after you die.

Our deepest satisfaction now and forever is found in a person - The Person. Pursue Him. Chase after Him with the same fervor as the world pursues satisfaction in XYZ. Make knowing God through Christ your life's career goal. Do not be satisfied with only being saved - be satisfied by walking with Him closely on a daily basis.

Only what will satisfy you after death can truly satisfy you before death.