The Sin of Worry?
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:04 am
I recently listened to Steve's lecture on this subject. Really enjoyed it and got a lot out of it as usual, but I did have a question or concern about the general structure of Steve's argument. The predicate to Steve's discussion of worry is to observe that worry isn't merely an unpleasant and unhelpful activity, but is actually a sin to be repented. He derives this conclusion from the fact that there are biblical injunctions from our Lord specifically instructing us not to worry. If the Lord instructs us not to do something, then (a) it is a sin to do the thing, and (b) it must be possible for us not to do it, since God does not tell us to do impossible things.
I wonder, though, if this foundational point in Steve's lecture is right. Suppose I see someone crying and I say, "Hey, cheer up!" Am I giving the person a command that he would be violating if he fails to become happy? Even though this sentence has the grammatical structure of a command, I think it is really more of a statement of encouragement. None of us would ever become angry with someone for "disobeying" our instructions if they fail to cheer up following our utterance of that sentence. Of course, unlike us, the Lord has the right to tell us what to do and we must obey. But still, I'm not sure it's obvious that whenever the Lord says something like, "Don't worry!" the Lord is exercising that power and ordering us to obey rather than simply offering encouragement to us and letting us know that there's no need to worry. To return to my first hypothetical above, imagine I start by telling the sad person to cheer up, and then proceed to give them reasons why they should cheer up -- I say, "You've got a lot to be happy about. The problem you have isn't that bad. Etc., etc." Adding these reasons doesn't change the fact that I'm not giving an order but rather simply offering encouragement. By the same token, when the Lord says not to worry and gives us various reasons why worry is unwarranted and unproductive it isn't clear to me that this changes the fact that the injunction against worry may simply be an offer of encouragement rather than an edict whose violation constitutes a sin.
I raise this partly because the question has arisen in other contexts. There was a guy (Piper?) who wrote a book called "the Dangerous Duty of Delight" or something like that whose whole premise was that Christians are morally obligated to be happy because the Bible at various places instructs us to be happy. I had the same reaction to that book as I have here. If the Bible says, "Hey, be happy!" is that really giving us a command? Or is it simply offering us encouragement and letting us know that we do, in fact, have reason to be happy whether or not we are able to adopt that emotion volitionally at any particular moment?
None of this is to deny that worry often results from sinful attachment to the wrong things. Nor is it to deny in any way the merits of the Lord's explanations why worry is unwarranted, unhelpful, etc. But I do wonder about the contention that worry in and of itself is a sin because we are told not to do it.
CThomas
I wonder, though, if this foundational point in Steve's lecture is right. Suppose I see someone crying and I say, "Hey, cheer up!" Am I giving the person a command that he would be violating if he fails to become happy? Even though this sentence has the grammatical structure of a command, I think it is really more of a statement of encouragement. None of us would ever become angry with someone for "disobeying" our instructions if they fail to cheer up following our utterance of that sentence. Of course, unlike us, the Lord has the right to tell us what to do and we must obey. But still, I'm not sure it's obvious that whenever the Lord says something like, "Don't worry!" the Lord is exercising that power and ordering us to obey rather than simply offering encouragement to us and letting us know that there's no need to worry. To return to my first hypothetical above, imagine I start by telling the sad person to cheer up, and then proceed to give them reasons why they should cheer up -- I say, "You've got a lot to be happy about. The problem you have isn't that bad. Etc., etc." Adding these reasons doesn't change the fact that I'm not giving an order but rather simply offering encouragement. By the same token, when the Lord says not to worry and gives us various reasons why worry is unwarranted and unproductive it isn't clear to me that this changes the fact that the injunction against worry may simply be an offer of encouragement rather than an edict whose violation constitutes a sin.
I raise this partly because the question has arisen in other contexts. There was a guy (Piper?) who wrote a book called "the Dangerous Duty of Delight" or something like that whose whole premise was that Christians are morally obligated to be happy because the Bible at various places instructs us to be happy. I had the same reaction to that book as I have here. If the Bible says, "Hey, be happy!" is that really giving us a command? Or is it simply offering us encouragement and letting us know that we do, in fact, have reason to be happy whether or not we are able to adopt that emotion volitionally at any particular moment?
None of this is to deny that worry often results from sinful attachment to the wrong things. Nor is it to deny in any way the merits of the Lord's explanations why worry is unwarranted, unhelpful, etc. But I do wonder about the contention that worry in and of itself is a sin because we are told not to do it.
CThomas