Sexual Repression vs Mortification

[Reformed Catholic]

There seems to be some places where our theology and modern empirical psychology seem to be in real tension on this topic, and I’m curious how others here navigate it. I'm skeptical of modern Psychology, but also not a fan of the "let's ignore all the research and studies that have come from academia" mindset.

Specifically, ⁠sexual repression v.s. mortification. "The psychological literature is pretty consistent that suppressing sexual desire tends to backfire since it creates shame spirals, increases obsessive thinking, and can lead to worse outcomes than acknowledgment and redirection. But I guess biblically speaking we need to mortify sin, including lustful desire. Are these describing the same process with different value judgments, or is there actually a meaningful difference between what a psychologist means by “repression”? If so, what does that difference look like practically?"

 

[Slave-to-the-Light-777]

OI, you need to read Owen’s Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers. His method is entirely grace-mediated. You mortify sin by seeing the beauty and fullness of Christ, and by redirecting the affections toward what is true and good and holy.

When a man fighteth against his sin only with arguments from the issue or the punishment due unto it, this is a sign that sin hath taken great possession of the will, and that in the heart there is a superfluity of naughtiness. Such a man as opposes nothing to the seduction of sin and lust in his heart but fear of shame among men or hell from God, is sufficiently resolved to do the sin if there were no punishment attending it; which, what it differs from living in the practice of sin, I know not. Those who are Christ’s, and are acted in their obedience upon gospel principles, have the death of Christ, the love of God, the detestable nature of sin, the preciousness of communion with God, a deep-grounded abhorrency of sin as sin, to oppose to any seduction of sin, to all the workings, strivings, fightings of lust in their hearts. So did Joseph. “How shall I do this great evil,” saith he, “and sin against the Lord ?” my good and gracious God.
John Owen, The Mortification of Sin
[automerge]1777364841[/automerge]

OI, you need to read Owen’s Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers. His method is entirely grace-mediated. You mortify sin by seeing the beauty and fullness of Christ, and by redirecting the affections toward what is true and good and holy.

When a man fighteth against his sin only with arguments from the issue or the punishment due unto it, this is a sign that sin hath taken great possession of the will, and that in the heart there is a superfluity of naughtiness. Such a man as opposes nothing to the seduction of sin and lust in his heart but fear of shame among men or hell from God, is sufficiently resolved to do the sin if there were no punishment attending it; which, what it differs from living in the practice of sin, I know not. Those who are Christ’s, and are acted in their obedience upon gospel principles, have the death of Christ, the love of God, the detestable nature of sin, the preciousness of communion with God, a deep-grounded abhorrency of sin as sin, to oppose to any seduction of sin, to all the workings, strivings, fightings of lust in their hearts. So did Joseph. “How shall I do this great evil,” saith he, “and sin against the Lord ?” my good and gracious God.
John Owen, The Mortification of Sin

Set faith at work on Christ for the killing of thy sin. His blood is the great sovereign remedy for sin-sick souls. Live in this, and thou wilt die a conqueror; yea, thou wilt, through the good providence of God, live to see thy lust dead at thy feet.

John Owen, The Mortification of Sin

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello O.I.,

On the matter of "sexual repression v.s. mortification", this is the positive Christian view in a nutshell, that is, the process of sanctification; Romans 8:13, from 4 versions:

Rom 8:12-13 KJV: "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."​

​

Rom 8:12-13 NKJV: "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."​

​

Rom 8:12-13 ESV: "So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."​

​

Rom 8:12-13 NLT: "Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, you have no obligation to do what your sinful nature urges you to do. For if you live by its dictates, you will die. But if through the power of the Spirit you put to death the deeds of your sinful nature, you will live."​

The first 3 are almost identical, and the 4th just more colloquial.

How does this work? is the question. It is certainly not repression, but a more powerful dynamic. Three of them say "put to death", while the KJV says simply "mortify".

What does this entail? If one is a genuine brother or sister, that is, a regenerated person, the indwelling Holy Spirit brings the presence of the risen Christ to the awareness of the believer, who says to the temptation: "I am dead to you now, O sin, and alive to my God, who is far more attractive to me than you ever used to be." This believer might say, "Lord Jesus, sin is knocking at my door again, would you please answer it for me, that Your glory might send it running?"

Romans 6:11 says, "reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

O.I., when a person is regenerated by the Spirit of Christ he or she is given a new heart, a new inner dynamic, having been brought into union with Jesus Christ in both His death and His resurrection life.

We now love God and hate our old life of sin – and we actually have the inner spiritual power to mortify it / put it to death – because we are out of the realm of death and its power.

Philippians 2:13 puts it like this: "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." The power of Christ by His indwelling Spirit actually works in you both to will – to strongly desire – and to actually do – to accomplish – the holiness He takes pleasure in working to realize in you your holy living.

This is, in a nutshell, the power of sanctification God gives the born-again believer, who is a new creature in Christ.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

O.I., this is a sermon of mine from a few years ago on the topic: Dead to sin, alive to God – How this works in us

Where I tried to make this real to some in our church.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Specifically, ⁠sexual repression v.s. mortification. "The psychological literature is pretty consistent that suppressing sexual desire tends to backfire since it creates shame spirals, increases obsessive thinking, and can lead to worse outcomes than acknowledgment and redirection. But I guess biblically speaking we need to mortify sin, including lustful desire. Are these describing the same process with different value judgments, or is there actually a meaningful difference between what a psychologist means by “repression”? If so, what does that difference look like practically?"

There is a reason why the Reformed traditionally believed that the undue delay of marriage was a sin. Clerical celibacy and delayed marriage are ungodly examples of "sexual repression" that have certainly backfired. Mortifying desires to fornicate and commit adultery can hardly be called repression in any meaningful sense, especially when we include marriage as a means to mortify lust.

 

[JvMill]

As far as I’m concerned ‘secular’ psychology lost credibility in matters of sexuality after Freud. There may be some useful tools in helping those who have been sexually abused, etc., but secular psychologists have no telos for sex (or anything else), so their definition of ‘human flourishing’ is often (always?) at odds with the biblical faith.

There is such a thing as undue sexual repression, but it is NOT abstaining from sex until marriage. It’s abstaining from sex in marriage or abstaining from marriage itself (unless granted to him for the sake of the kingdom).

 

[philomath]

Some good things have been said on the topic of mortification already and I recommend Owen on the topic as well. I'll focus on how I navigate this question you shared:

Are these describing the same process with different value judgments, or is there actually a meaningful difference between what a psychologist means by “repression”? If so, what does that difference look like practically?"

I would say what a psychologist means by repression and what is meant by mortification of sin are not the same process with different value judgements. They're completely different things with different value judgements. I'll focus on repression in general.

What a psychologist practically means by repression is a man-centered strong arming or blocking of thoughts, impulses, emotions, etc. An example could be someone with OCD who hums with increasing volume to try and drown out some thought causing discomfort. Such an action may bring momentary relief, but it doesn't stop the discomforting thought from coming back. It becomes a cycle that leads to despair if that's where you leave it. Put in other terms, it's all Law and no Gospel.

Mortification on the other hand could be defined as the daily work of weakening and killing sin in us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Practically speaking, mortification is God-centered. It looks to God for its success. Owen is very helpful on this.

One way I could put it is by using the example of Philippians 2:12-13. A person dealing with repression may have a tendency to stop at verse 12. They would stop at "do this". They would be tearing apart the sentence by stopping there. Mortification looks at the whole thought. "Why and How" are the questions verse 13 answers. "13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Mortification includes the Gospel. Repression does not.

I hope some of this is helpful!

 

[ZackF]

The man’s picture that is my avatar wrote this helpful essay.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Chalmers,%20Thomas%20-%20The%20Exlpulsive%20Power%20of%20a%20New%20Af.pdf

 

[JH]

The man’s picture that is my avatar wrote this helpful essay.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Chalmers,%20Thomas%20-%20The%20Exlpulsive%20Power%20of%20a%20New%20Af.pdf

He's talking about matters of the heart, sounds like some sort of pietist.

 

[ZackF]

He's talking about matters of the heart, sounds like some sort of pietist.

Reformed hearts matter.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I'm not a psychologist, but I'm married to one. So take this for whatever that may or may not add to the mix.

Much depends on what "repression" means.

Perhaps we need to make a distinction between physical desire for one's spouse and physical desire for someone to whom we are not married. The second is sin. The first is not only allowed, but commended and even commanded.

There are conservative Christians who are more Victorian than biblical in their views on the subject of desire within marriage. It's less of a problem today than it was a few generations ago but continues to be a problem in some Christian subcultures and some non-American cultures.

That goes both ways. The "Latin Lover" stereotype of Italians and Hispanics exists for a reason -- a very bad reason. Conversely, the Asian stereotypes exist for a reason, including attitudes that are sometimes closer to Catholic than Protestant views of marital intimacy.

That isn't intended as an attack on Catholicism, by the way. There are lots of Catholics who would point out that the older Catholic approach was often based on bad theology that didn't reflect actual Catholic teaching, and would point out that the older stereotype of huge Italian and Irish families, and the supposed "dangers" of "it being in the nature of Catholics to breed" show that plenty of Catholic laymen enjoyed marriage.

Ironically, that can lead to the identical results for opposite reasons -- Italy and South Korea are usually close to the bottom of reported rates of childbearing today, despite both having a strong culturally Christian emphasis, one Catholic and one evangelical Protestant. It is not an exaggeration to say Italian immorality leads to delay and avoidance of marriage, while the severe cultural condemnations of immorality in Korea have avoided a problem of children out of wedlock but many young people delay marriage way too long and avoid having children for reasons related to work and education and the perceived cost of raising children. In other words, "keep your pants zipped and don't have children before marriage, and wait after marriage until you can afford to be good parents" -- which too often means waiting so long that husbands and wives never become parents at all.