Thursday Notes
10/2/25
Welch, Edward T. (2001). "Chapter 2: Sin, Sickness, or Both?" (pp. 17-43). In Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing (Personal Library)
Welch sees a biblical concept of sin as central to understanding addictions (Welch 2001, p. 17). He admits this is an unpopular view, but primarily due to a failure to understand sin biblically. Welch understands sin to be an inescapable reality in life (Welch 2001, p. 19). Humans eventually enter into sin, and we need to recognize that. Though it is uncomfortable, we admit that all people make "moral judgments about our own or other's behavior" (Welch 2001, p. 19). Decisions, and actions based on decisions, have consequences. However, the Bible does not allow us to set ourselves up as the lawgiver, judge, jury, and executioner. It is essential that we all examine ourselves and our sin before others and, ultimately, against God (Welch 2001, p. 20).
Welch holds that our sin is the greatest problem we have (Welch 2001, p. 20). He further clarifies that sin is normally hidden and quiet. All is rooted in a failure to love God perfectly (Welch 2001, p. 21). Since the gospel proclaims that Jesus gives forgiveness of sin, a failure to confess sin also rejects the gospel.
While sin is easily seen as something problematic from a moral point of view, addictions are often interpreted as being medical in nature (Welch 2001, p. 21). Yet Welch finds that the Bible discusses addictions in different terms than diseases. The classic example is drunkenness (Welch 2001, p. 22). It is portrayed consistently in moral terms, as people allow themselves to be overcome by alcohol. This is a problem of misplaced desires, not of medical illness. A difficulty which Welch acknowledges in this interpretation is that while sin is understood as directed against God, drunkenness may seem only to hurt oneself (Welch 2001, p. 23). Yet the question of lordship or mastery remains. Welch asks, "Who is your master, God or your desires?" (Welch 2001, p. 23). Addictive thoughts and behaviors ultimately rule us. They also have a negative influence on all our relationships.
In general, Welch considers that the element of volition governs our understanding of sin versus sickness. "If we do something wrong and we do it purposefully, self-consciously, and in control, then it is sin. If we do something that might be considered wrong, but we do it without apparent intent or even in spite of our intent, then it is a disease" (Welch 2001, p. 25). This concept leads to a view that something begun in a willing manner but which then becomes out of control may be considered a disease. It ultimately is without intent or in spite of intent. However, Welch observes that the person engaged in addictive behavior generally, at least at some point, thinks there are payoffs, so chooses to continue down that path (Welch 2001, p. 26). This is not the pattern we find in diseases. While biological factors may predispose people to certain patterns, studies consistently fail to demonstrate an inescapable pattern of determined behavior (Welch 2001, p. 27).
The issue of cravings is an important element in an analysis of addictions. Cravings to engage in addictive behavior fall into three essential categories. Some come while the person is "clean and sober" (Welch 2001, p. 28). Those seem to suggest a biological root, at least a disposition. Welch suggests that these cravings can be triggered by a wide variety of situations, many of which are relational in nature, either based on a relationship with a person, a setting, or a substance (Welch 2001, p. 29).
A second category of craving is that which we experience after beginning an addictive behavior. The heavy drinker is likely to continue to drink after a first drink (Welch 2001, p. 30). However, this is a tendency, not a foregone conclusion. Welch rejects a deterministic view that the addicted person is completely helpless.
A third area of carving is that experienced by someone physically dependent on a substance (Welch 2001, p. 31). Withdrawal from a physical addiction is difficult, in large part because it creates medical instability. Spiritual care during the symptoms of withdrawal is unlikely to be fruitful.
Welch strongly advocates understanding addiction as rooted in a self-serving internal attitude, played out in behaviors which tend to take control over our will (Welch 2001, p. 32). He defines this in terms of sin which leads to slavery. The slave cannot escape without dealing both with the sinful attitudes and the behavioral consequences of those attitudes (Welch 2001, pp. 33-34). Dealing only with the actions fails to break the bondage. Likewise, dealing only with the attitude fails to stop the destructive behavior apart from conscious effort.
Welch asks a critical question. "Does sin turn into a disease?" (Welch 2001, p. 370. While this approach makes sense on the surface, the Scripture urges a view in which sin is the fundamental problem and by which sin leads to more sin, with consequences also multiplying. The longer a pattern continues, the more complicated its troubles become.
Welch admits freely that the view of sin governing addictions seems like a step backwards, one which could be used to condemn others (Welch 2001, p. 39). However, Welch advocates a philosophy that all people sin and that sin is meant to be dealt with through repentance and life change. This does not lead to condemnation.
From the standpoint of applied theology, Welch suggests we cultivate an acceptance of God's work to confront our sin, calling us to receive forgiveness and restoration (Welch 2001, p. 40). The change of attitude toward an addiction is fundamental in our change of behavior. The change, above all, is a process (Welch 2001, p. 41). Welch allows that it may take significant time and effort to move away from slavery to addictions. However, he encourages perseverance.
10/2/25
Welch, Edward T. (2001). "Chapter 2: Sin, Sickness, or Both?" (pp. 17-43). In Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing (Personal Library)
Welch sees a biblical concept of sin as central to understanding addictions (Welch 2001, p. 17). He admits this is an unpopular view, but primarily due to a failure to understand sin biblically. Welch understands sin to be an inescapable reality in life (Welch 2001, p. 19). Humans eventually enter into sin, and we need to recognize that. Though it is uncomfortable, we admit that all people make "moral judgments about our own or other's behavior" (Welch 2001, p. 19). Decisions, and actions based on decisions, have consequences. However, the Bible does not allow us to set ourselves up as the lawgiver, judge, jury, and executioner. It is essential that we all examine ourselves and our sin before others and, ultimately, against God (Welch 2001, p. 20).
Welch holds that our sin is the greatest problem we have (Welch 2001, p. 20). He further clarifies that sin is normally hidden and quiet. All is rooted in a failure to love God perfectly (Welch 2001, p. 21). Since the gospel proclaims that Jesus gives forgiveness of sin, a failure to confess sin also rejects the gospel.
While sin is easily seen as something problematic from a moral point of view, addictions are often interpreted as being medical in nature (Welch 2001, p. 21). Yet Welch finds that the Bible discusses addictions in different terms than diseases. The classic example is drunkenness (Welch 2001, p. 22). It is portrayed consistently in moral terms, as people allow themselves to be overcome by alcohol. This is a problem of misplaced desires, not of medical illness. A difficulty which Welch acknowledges in this interpretation is that while sin is understood as directed against God, drunkenness may seem only to hurt oneself (Welch 2001, p. 23). Yet the question of lordship or mastery remains. Welch asks, "Who is your master, God or your desires?" (Welch 2001, p. 23). Addictive thoughts and behaviors ultimately rule us. They also have a negative influence on all our relationships.
In general, Welch considers that the element of volition governs our understanding of sin versus sickness. "If we do something wrong and we do it purposefully, self-consciously, and in control, then it is sin. If we do something that might be considered wrong, but we do it without apparent intent or even in spite of our intent, then it is a disease" (Welch 2001, p. 25). This concept leads to a view that something begun in a willing manner but which then becomes out of control may be considered a disease. It ultimately is without intent or in spite of intent. However, Welch observes that the person engaged in addictive behavior generally, at least at some point, thinks there are payoffs, so chooses to continue down that path (Welch 2001, p. 26). This is not the pattern we find in diseases. While biological factors may predispose people to certain patterns, studies consistently fail to demonstrate an inescapable pattern of determined behavior (Welch 2001, p. 27).
The issue of cravings is an important element in an analysis of addictions. Cravings to engage in addictive behavior fall into three essential categories. Some come while the person is "clean and sober" (Welch 2001, p. 28). Those seem to suggest a biological root, at least a disposition. Welch suggests that these cravings can be triggered by a wide variety of situations, many of which are relational in nature, either based on a relationship with a person, a setting, or a substance (Welch 2001, p. 29).
A second category of craving is that which we experience after beginning an addictive behavior. The heavy drinker is likely to continue to drink after a first drink (Welch 2001, p. 30). However, this is a tendency, not a foregone conclusion. Welch rejects a deterministic view that the addicted person is completely helpless.
A third area of carving is that experienced by someone physically dependent on a substance (Welch 2001, p. 31). Withdrawal from a physical addiction is difficult, in large part because it creates medical instability. Spiritual care during the symptoms of withdrawal is unlikely to be fruitful.
Welch strongly advocates understanding addiction as rooted in a self-serving internal attitude, played out in behaviors which tend to take control over our will (Welch 2001, p. 32). He defines this in terms of sin which leads to slavery. The slave cannot escape without dealing both with the sinful attitudes and the behavioral consequences of those attitudes (Welch 2001, pp. 33-34). Dealing only with the actions fails to break the bondage. Likewise, dealing only with the attitude fails to stop the destructive behavior apart from conscious effort.
Welch asks a critical question. "Does sin turn into a disease?" (Welch 2001, p. 370. While this approach makes sense on the surface, the Scripture urges a view in which sin is the fundamental problem and by which sin leads to more sin, with consequences also multiplying. The longer a pattern continues, the more complicated its troubles become.
Welch admits freely that the view of sin governing addictions seems like a step backwards, one which could be used to condemn others (Welch 2001, p. 39). However, Welch advocates a philosophy that all people sin and that sin is meant to be dealt with through repentance and life change. This does not lead to condemnation.
From the standpoint of applied theology, Welch suggests we cultivate an acceptance of God's work to confront our sin, calling us to receive forgiveness and restoration (Welch 2001, p. 40). The change of attitude toward an addiction is fundamental in our change of behavior. The change, above all, is a process (Welch 2001, p. 41). Welch allows that it may take significant time and effort to move away from slavery to addictions. However, he encourages perseverance.
RSS Feed