More thoughts on addiction

Chapter 2 of Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave

This chapter covers a very difficult subject. The title says it all: "Sin, Sickness, or Both?". My knee-jerk reaction when reading that question is "Both, of course!". But Welch makes a pretty persuasive case that addiction is a sin, albeit a complex one. The biblical teaching on drunkenness ("the prototype of all addictions") is that "it is always called sin, never sickness...Scripture is unwavering in this teaching and relentless in its illustrations...it is a lordship problem. Who is your master, God or your desires?"

OK, OK - but what about the loss of control the addict experiences? The familiar substance may even be physically required. Welch writes that if we do something and feel we have no control over it, or if we do something even though we do not want to do it, it seems like it shouldn't be a sin any more but rather a disease. He comes to a dilemma: "how do we reconcile the out-of-control nature of addictions and the apparently self-conscious, intentional nature of sin?" Ultimately, though, heavy drinking, or food addiction, or drug addiction, or whatever, is giving us something in return. Even the addict knows this - at a Weight Watchers meeting I attended recently, the leader asked us to think about what we were getting from food. We were then to think of how to get that same thing from something less damaging (her example was that she wanted to feel warmth and emotional comfort, so she curled up on the couch with a book, an afghan, and a hot cup of tea). For me, food definitely is giving me something, even when I hate it and don't want to overindulge, I may still do it because of the temporary reward I'm getting. It is comforting, it is pleasurable, it is an escape. It is lots of things, temporarily. For the alcoholic, there are temporary payoffs to drunkenness. Let's face it: there are pleasurable benefits to be obtained from any sin, even one that has a stranglehold on us. Welch explains, "for the addict, slavery with the object of desire is sometimes preferable to freedom without it", and "addicts make choices to pursue their addiction". I can't really speak for alcoholics or drug addicts, but for food addiction this is absolutely true. I made choices that got me into my almost 100 lb of overweight, and they were real choices. Even when the food had a compelling hold on me, it was still ultimately my choice to continue in it. Sometimes I wouldn't overindulge, proving that it was possible to make different choices. It seems to me that the disease model is not useless here (I still think it can be helpful), but that the sin model probably has a much greater utility.

Fine, that makes some sense. But what about genetics? I mean, fat runs in my family. I have a genetic predisposition to putting on weight. This argument has never been as powerful to me as the previous argument. Genetics might predispose you to something, argues Welch, but it does not determine it. "Possible physiological tendencies do not mean that self-control is impossible or that personal responsibility is diminished. They simply mean that some people must be more vigilant in situations where that sin can be easily provoked." This has always seemed to me to be right on the money.

What about cravings, though? How do you explain those? You might have the best of intentions, and then walk by Mrs. Fields and buy and consume a dozen hot chocolate chip cookies. We actually spent a whole lesson at WW recently on cravings and how to manage them. They do exist, but the reality is that our body cannot force us to do anything. Cravings can be dealt with in other ways. We may be vulnerable, Welch says, but we are not helpless in the face of them.

Why all the arguing about sin and sickness anyway? Does it really matter so much? Welch thinks it does - he says that the disease model implies that the cause is our body, while the sin model postulates a heart problem. If the weakness is merely physical, we are not motivated to change spiritually. If our problem is in our hearts, and we do not address it, then we will never get well. What are we really seeking to satisfy with our addiction? We must satisfy the longings of our hearts with something true, something permanent, and something real.

All right, but my food problem still does feel like a disease. What does Scripture say about that? Welch answers, "Sin is more than conscious choices. Like a cruel taskmaster, sin victimizes and controls us (John 8:34)...as the apostle Paul said, 'I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do (Rom 7:15)'...sin feels exactly like a disease." It feels like a disease, but it is not, because "the slavery of sin is one for which we are responsible, and we can be empowered by God's grace to turn from it."

Refresingly, Welch does not believe that addictions are simply subject to mere willpower. He writes, "If you deny the out-of-control nature of all addictions, as some Christians have done, then you assume that everyone would have the power to change himself...there would never be a sense of helplessness or a desperate need for both redemption and power through Jesus...at the same time, there will be other problems if you ignore the in-control, purposeful nature of addictions." I think he finds a great balance between them as follows, "since sin is a broad category that includes both self-conscious disobedience and victmizing slavery, find addiction on the side that emphasizes slavery." In other words, it is a sin, but it is a sin which enslaves and entangles more readily than most. The addict feels out of control, but is making sinful choices at the same time.

Finally, he adds a welcome section entitled "Back to the Dark Ages?" where he addresses the very real problem that this doctrine "has been used to bludgeon addicts". Maybe calling it sin will keep people from getting help. People are often judgmental of addicts using this theology. But that doesn't mean the theology is wrong - it means that the people who are judgmental are in the wrong. Welch explains, "The answer is not to avoid the truths of Scripture for fear that they will be misused." Rather, we must use them properly. What does this look like? "A good friend shows an addict where to find life and hope...Doctrine...must also naturally point us to Jesus Christ."

He concludes with some pointers for the addict, one of which I found very useful. When I first read this, I did feel that physical aspects of addiction were perhaps underemphasized. In response, he comments that "the goal of this chapter is not to minimize the effect of the body on addictions. Rather, it is to emphasize the role of the heart." This was extremely helpful to me, because frankly, I have come to be convicted recently through various Scriptures, life experiences, and WW meetings, that the real problem lies very deep. The center of my being needs to have a new focus, or I will exchange my food addiction for something worse, perhaps. I am renewing my desire to be changed by God's grace and to know him more. In knowing him more, may I see that only he will satisfy my longings.