Lead us not into Temptation

Within a few months, we will have to learn a change to the Lord’s Prayer. Every so often, liturgical changes come down from on high, and we have to respond. It is difficult, because one of the purposes of ritual is repetition; we are supposed to murmur our prayers from familiarity, only occasionally thinking more deeply about their meaning.

It takes years to embed a change. It must be ten years now since “of one being” became “consubstantial” in the Nicene Creed. I still murmur it wrongly now. Listening to others reciting the Lord’s Prayer, I still hear a mixture of who’s and which’s and thy’s and yours’s, from changes introduced decades ago but not consistently across congregations.

Understanding all this, liturgical committees only change when they see a very good reason, although I would argue that consubstantial fails that test pretty clearly. The impending change is to the line “lead us not into temptation”, which will change, I believe, to “let us not be led into temptation”. The logic is that God loves us, so would hardly lead us to sin; rather it is we who are sinners, perhaps influenced by Satan, who need God’s protection. I guess if we can accept that God seems to allow an awful lot of suffering for no obvious purpose into the world, we can also buy into this logic. Still, I wonder if I will be flawless in the new rendition before God chooses to end my mortal life.

Anyway, considering the change made me think about the nature of temptation, so perhaps some good has come of it. The main outcome has been amazement at how poor we are at resisting temptation, and to wonder why that might be.

Even though we know what causes obesity, humanity moves from malnourishment to widespread obesity within two generations. We cannot fail to know by now the harm that smoking causes, yet still many partake. The same is true of drugs and alcohol. Most of us find ourselves attracted to forms of pornography, and many find it hard to remain fully honest within a monogamous relationship. We understand something about debt and the odds around gambling, but many succumb. Social media has created a large class of purveyors of vitriol. Our phones lead us so easily into idle wasting of time, even when we know we should be sleeping. We would rather binge watch junk than educate ourselves with anything that makes us think. We become very tribal in how we respect others and constantly seek affirmation of views that the slightest thought would have us reject. We text while driving despite knowing the risks. Some of us too easily become violent, and a few even contemplate suicide. Most will undertake unprotected sex at some point in our lives despite being aware of the potential consequences of such recklessness.

It is hard to read this list and to feel righteous. There are clearly differences between thoughts, occasional actions and habitual actions, but most of us would have to admit to at least a few habitual actions from the list.

The bible apparently does not list seven deadly sins, but we have Pope Gregory I in the sixth century to thank for pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth as our list of shame. No wonder he did, he must have been perplexed at how strong each of these temptations is, no doubt even for himself. All of the list above can be classed under one or more of the seven sinful categories.

Most of the potential pitfalls above feel to me like manifestations of the classic child experiment about self-control. The child is offered one marshmallow now, or two later, and many cannot resist the urge for instant gratification. We are those children, when we binge or pig out or flirt or get out the credit card or condemn others.

That might lead to a more helpful way of looking at temptation than self- flagellation. Most are natural consequences of humanity, our evolution and our chemical make up. Many urges emerged as necessary ways to develop our own species, either through reproduction, nurturing or just surviving. Many remain good things in moderation. Even some of those we have come to proscribe in excess are merely societally imposed constraints, some with arguable benefits except for those making the rules.

Is temptation getting worse? I don’t know, but some trends don’t help. We don’t trust our elders and our clerics so much nowadays, so the old constraints around sin don’t work so well, especially when we see those same clerics as flawed and hypocritical. An open and free society creates all sorts of tempting situations, and technology brings some to our fingertips. Stressful lives lead us towards options for easy relief.

Most of all, it seems that modern capitalism is almost designed to encourage temptation. That single marshmallow is so often gift-wrapped, and its opportunity cost obscured. My car dealer is paid handsomely by a bank to persuade me to buy with a financial package. He gets his sale, the bank might get lots of interest when I default later, both sets of shareholders make their 6% real, and I even have some new shiny wheels, but might be in debt for life. States are rushing to promote lotteries, casinos, sports betting and legalised drugs. Facebook designs everything to keep me hooked, and coca cola supersizes my gut. They all pay lip service to moderation only in their small print, though even the state pays in the end through higher medical and law enforcement bills.

Back to the marshmallow experiment, which kids demonstrated most self-restraint? It was the educated ones from stable and affluent families. And this trend reinforces itself, because waiting for two marshmallows is also a good predictor for future affluence.

This leads to a different way to think about temptation. We are humans, so we are all tempted, and the most vulnerable are the most tempted. It is not a sin be to be human. If we want to be good humans, we should work to make sure that the things we condemn are really those that damage us, and that more of us can understand this and have tools to make better choices. Some marshmallows are just nice and can be enjoyed in abundance. Some we can indulge in moderation as a choice, but with good disclosure about consequences. And others are just poisonous, primarily that ones that harm the young.

We should not cast the first stone, but be honest about our own temptation, and the fact that if we have better self-control than others that probably reflects our lucky legacy more than our godliness. Indeed, we should accept that if others err, there will usually be good reasons. There are few health food stores in Baltimore but plenty of loan sharks. If your life is likely to be brutal and short, then it is only common sense to be reckless and enjoy today. A sweet marshmallow is very tempting to someone who is hungry.  

As usual, I am optimistic. Education can help successive generations make smarter choices. Health science has huge and imminent scope to work on our chemical make-up and to improve therapy. There are plenty of good tools available already, and more will follow. Humanity is progressing quickly, with or without help from God.

But the risks are also obvious and perhaps increasing. Populism offers a huge sweet marshmallow with beautiful wrapping. Populists in power only want to make those marshmallows sweeter still and to consume plenty of them too, while the planet burns. Authoritarians can reduce marshmallow consumption, but only by fiat.

We do indeed lead ourselves into temptation. We can be honest in accepting that, even embracing it, and then helping ourselves and those more vulnerable to limit marshmallow intake to a healthy level. It is not a bad social manifesto. And that way we can forgive trespasses and be delivered from evil too, no matter how Pope Gregory I’s successor chooses to word those phrases.