At the blog “Grateful to the Dead,” a “church historian’s playground,” a Protestant professor (Chris Armstrong, specialist in church history at Bethel University) posts an exchange with a young, earnest Evangelical student over the Catholic sacrament of confession. It’s an instructive back-and-forth in which the professor rebuffs some basic caricatures and demonstrates a genuine commitment to ecumenism, rightly understood.
But perhaps one of the more intriguing lines in the post comes when the interlocutor alludes to C. S. Lewis’ voluntary practice of personal, auricular confession. Thus a question for my Protestant friends: could they (and would they) ever consider partaking in some form of regular “confession,” like that of Lewis?
This is no doubt an unusual practice, and the very notion of it might be so historically off-putting as to detain it in the “bad joke” stage for many. After all, Luther’s crushing sense of his failure to make any progress through confession played heavily into his separation from Roman Catholicism (though, I’d note, he was rather more ambiguous about whether it could be considered a “sacrament”–it sat somewhere in the borderlands between the two he recognized [baptism and Eucharist] and those he vehemently disqualified in their traditional senses [holy orders]). But would it be absolutely unacceptable from a theological perspective? Assuming it was couched in fully Protestant terms, and not presented with equivalence to the Catholic practice (i.e., the practice was not presented as mandatory, and all sides strenuously avoided claiming that it was on the same footing as or “replicated” the Catholic sacrament), is there an actual theological problem with encouraging congregants to engage in one-on-one confession with a minister if they found the discipline truly fruitful for their spiritual life?
The answer, certainly, would vary by denomination. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, for example, describes the plurality of opinions in its own tradition: “Luther said one thing. Zwingli said another. The Anabaptists said one thing. The Roman Catholics said another. [. . .] Lutherans have traditionally tried for greater clarity in their definition by stating that a sacrament is an act that is commanded by Christ, uses a material or earthly element, and through connection with the Word is the bearer of God’s promise. And Lutherans have quite clearly stated that using those criteria Holy Baptism and Holy Communion qualify as sacraments, and nothing else. [Yet] in recent years theologians and liturgical scholars have been working toward a richer and fuller understanding of sacraments.”
Calvin was less sanguine, though like Luther and other Reformers his central objection was to the Catholic claim of the priest’s sacral power and the necessity of “satisfaction” (penance) as an element of the sacrament. Other elements of confession, even individual confession, could under some circumstances be beneficial provided they were seen simply as a helpful human method of drawing closer to God, and not as a divine ordinance. Calvin even granted that the early Church had some form of this activity, though he tried to establish a rigid ”distinction [. . .] between public and private reconciliation. I consider that ancient observance of which Cyprian speaks to have been holy and salutary to the Church, and I could wish it restored in the present day. The more modern form, though I dare not disapprove, or at least strongly condemn, I deem to be less necessary.”
Given other movements in Protestantism in recent years which have tried to recover something of the “high church” experience, might a more personal form of confession (something beyond the general penitential rite often undertaken in various denominations’ Sunday services) be helpful, at least for some of their members? Would they agree with Professor Armstrong that the practice, like a renewed focus on liturgy or ecclesial structure, could produce real ”benefits in the realm of church order”?
September 10th, 2012 | 1:09 pm
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
Private confession with a pastor is a good thing. But our faith nor our salvation does not depend on it.
Our Lord, Christ Jesus is more than happy to hear our confession and grant us His forgiveness.
Thanks.
September 10th, 2012 | 1:30 pm
Lutherans (LCMS anyway) still allow for personal confession.
http://witness.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=727&IssueID=42
September 10th, 2012 | 2:06 pm
Our Lord, Christ Jesus is more than happy to hear our confession and grant us His forgiveness.
Unfortunately, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, can’t say, “Hey, buddy, you’re fooling yourself,” or say, “You need professional help with this problem,” or recommend an appropriate way to repair harm done. But then again, it’s pretty difficult for a priest hearing anonymous confessions to do that, either. I think what is needed is a spiritual director or perhaps even a Christian therapist.
September 10th, 2012 | 3:03 pm
I believe the lingo is “accountability partner,” in protestant circles. Whatever one thinks of it, I’ve always figured that the idea springs from the same basic impulse that drives the practical side of confession, that it’s easy to fool yourself into believing you’ve repented to go and sin no more, much more rigorous if you’ve got to tell someone else about it.
September 10th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
As a Lutheran Pastor and a professed member of the Society of the Holy Trinity, Individual Confession and Absolution is regularly practiced. Being an example to my parishioners, I speak freely of the relief and joy in confessing my sins to an Ordained Pastor and receiving Absolution.
As a result of this practice, I now have regular meetings with parishioners who seek out Absolution on an individual basis.
In our LCMS Parish, Mass is preceded by “The Order of Preparation” which is Corporate Confession and Absolution. Members and visitors know they are welcome to meet with me during the week as well. I am seriously considering offering Individual Confession and Absolution on a scheduled basis in the sanctuary during Advent and Lent.
These meetings are not done on a “therapist” model, but with a liturgical order found in “Lutheran Service Book”.
September 10th, 2012 | 5:54 pm
Thanks for the link and thoughtful interaction, Matthew. I think this is a conversation we sorely need to have in the Protestant churches. One more detail: 19th-c. social-gospel novelist Charles Sheldon (he who coined the phrase “What would Jesus do?”) had an open-door policy in his Topeka, Kansas church office that one biographer, I believe it was Timothy Miller, likened to the RC practice of confession. One thing that marked Sheldon: he was a deeply practical man who believed in meeting people “where they lived.” May other Protestant pastors take his cue.
September 10th, 2012 | 10:22 pm
As Gregg says, Lutherans still practice confession and absolution, both generally in the Divine Service and individually in pastoral care. Luther did believe the absolution is efficacious, that pastors can forgive sins; that is, that Christ forgives sins through them by virtue of their calling. The only reason Luther stopped short of calling it a sacrament is that it lacks an “element” like water, bread, or wine, though some have argued the pastor is that element. But it falls under the doctrine of the efficacy of the Word.
To see Luther’s high, though evangelical, view of confession, see the Small Catechism, which is binding on ALL Lutherans:
http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession
September 18th, 2012 | 8:42 am
Actually, one can make the case that this very matter is exactly what the Reformation was about. It may have started with indulgences, but it quickly moved to the matter of confession/absolution (and with this, the Roman penitential system).
I’ve done 3 posts that talk about this in some detail:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/forgiveness-free-and-true-the-crux-of-the-reformation-the-essence-of-the-christian-life/
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/joan-of-arc-faith-vs-infant-faith-part-1-of-2/
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/joan-of-arc-faith-vs-infant-faith-part-2-of-2/
+Nathan Rinne
September 18th, 2012 | 8:45 am
Gene Veith is exactly right. While many LC-MS pastors do not regularly practice or encourage confession and absolution, all are taught that it is valid and there are some in particular that praise it very highly and speak of it very forcefully.
The series with Ken Korby found at this link is particularly illuminating:
http://issuesetc.org/tag/confession-and-absolution/
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact