Abstinence and Temperance

Abstinence is the virtue of the weak, temperance is the virtue of the strong. - A.B. Bruce - The Training of the Twelve

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pmand is filed under Matt's External Brain, Open Source Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “Abstinence and Temperance”

Megan said on: August 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Explanation? The definitions seem indistinguishable.
Matt Heerema said on: August 5th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Well then, I’ll just paste the whole section here :) It’s a good (if wordy) read.

The Training of the Twelve, Section 1, paragraph 14-15

The ascetic theory of Christian virtue, which so soon began to prevail in the church, has been fully tested by time, and proved to be a huge and mischievous mistake. The verdict of history is conclusive, and to return to an exploded error, as some seem disposed to do, is utter folly. At this time of day, the views of those who would find the beau-ideal of Christian life in a monk’s cell appear hardly worthy of serious refutation. It may, however, be useful briefly to indicate the leading errors of the monkish theory of morals; all the more that, in doing this, we shall at the same time be explaining the true meaning of our Lord’s words to His disciples.

This theory, then, is in the first place based on an erroneous assumption–viz., that abstinence from things lawful is intrinsically a higher sort of virtue than temperance in the use of them. This is not true. Abstinence is the virtue of the weak, temperance is the virtue of the strong. Abstinence is certainly the safer way for those who are prone to inordinate affection, but it purchases safety at the expense of moral culture; for it removes us from those temptations connected with family relationships and earthly possessions, through which character, while it may be imperilled, is at the same time developed and strengthened. Abstinence is also inferior to temperance in healthiness of tone. It tends inevitably to morbidity, distortion, exaggeration. The ascetic virtues were wont to be called by their admirers angelic. They are certainly angelic in the negative sense of being unnatural and inhuman. Ascetic abstinence is the ghost or disembodied spirit of morality, while temperance is its soul, embodied in a genuine human life transacted amid earthly relations, occupations, and enjoyments. Abstinence is even inferior to temperance in respect to what seems its strong point–self-sacrifice. There is something morally sublime, doubtless, in the spectacle of a man of wealth, birth, high office, and happy domestic condition, leaving rank, riches, office, wife, children, behind, and going away to the deserts of Sinai and Egypt to spend his days as a monk or anchoret.[16.12 The stern resolution, the absolute mastery of the will over the natural affections, exhibited in such conduct, is very imposing. Yet how poor, after all, is such a character compared with Abraham, the father of the faithful, and model of temperance and singleness of mind; who could use the world, of which he had a large portion, without abusing it; who kept his wealth and state, and yet never became their slave, and was ready at God’s command to part with his friends and his native land, and even with an only son! So to live, serving ourselves heir to all things, yet maintaining unimpaired our spiritual freedom; enjoying life, yet ready at the call of duty to sacrifice life’s dearest enjoyments: this is true Christian virtue, the higher Christian life for those who would be perfect. Let us have many Abrahams so living among our men of wealth, and there is no fear of the church going back to the Middle Ages. Only when the rich, as a class, are luxurious, vain, selfish, and proud, is there a danger of the tenet gaining credence among the serious, that there is no possibility of living a truly Christian life except by parting with property altogether.
Megan said on: August 6th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Okay, so by “temperance,” the author means “moderation,” and we’re not referring to sin here. Interesting arguement, though hard for me to believe that living with moderate wealth is more challenging than living with nothing at all. I’d argue that most of us have chosen “temperance” not because we are or strive to be strong, but because it’s comfortable. Otherwise, wouldn’t middle class living be a rarity? Maybe I’m misunderstanding.
Wendy said on: August 6th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Megan, I think you have noted the extreme challenge of temperance, and the author would challenge us against our comfortable living with this comment:

“So to live, serving ourselves heir to all things, yet maintaining unimpaired our spiritual freedom; enjoying life, yet ready at the call of duty to sacrifice life’s dearest enjoyments: this is true Christian virtue, the higher Christian life for those who would be perfect.”

To have wealth and family and be willing to give it up as Abraham did would be very strong. I feel the temptation daily to get caught up in pursuing comforts and possessions, but must regularly turn myself over to the protection of the Lord.

The biblical character that I would then contrast to Abraham is Solomon, who was given wisdom and wealth from the Lord, but eventually in his later life allowed the worldly comforts to lead him astray. I think his life is tragic…as are the lives of many middle class Americans.
Matt Heerema said on: August 6th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Wendy - very well put.

Temperance here isn’t simple moderation. It is self-control, discipline. Some translations use “temperance” in Galatians 5:22. Especially self-control and disciplined moderation in pleasureful activity (eating, drinking, sleeping, etc…). It is put forward as the antidote to gluttony.

It should also be noted that temperance (in this sense) is impossible for a human naturally and is a work of the Holy Spirit.

The author is arguing against the tendency for some Christians (Judiazers, really…) to insist that abstinence (legalistic avoidance) is a more righteous way. It is not. In fact, it shows your spiritual weakness.

Abstinence is necessary in some cases, such as for an addict.

I would say that God may also ask for abstinence from time to time for various reasons. See Wendy’s citation above.
Kristen Borseth said on: August 9th, 2008 at 7:56 am
To say that those who abstain are weak- is that a bad thing? God says he has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the wise. (I Cor. 1:27) Paul says he became all things to all men, he even became weak to win the weak. All that he did he did for the sake of the gospel. (I Cor. 9:22-23) My point is that being weak is not always bad. Ultimately, like Matt said, we need the Lord and the power of the Holy Spirit to do any of this- whether it be to abstain or to be temperate because whatever is not done by faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)
Matt Heerema said on: August 9th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Spiritual weakness needs to be addressed. We are to be growing (building each other up in Love through Christ), moving toward maturity, eating solid food, etc, no?

Matt and Nancy Heerema

Abstinence and Temperance

7 Responses to “Abstinence and Temperance”

Leave a Reply

Our Photos

Elsewhere...

Other Links