How clerical failure, weak enforcement mechanisms, and theological complacency combine to turn private confession from a protected pastoral practice into a high-risk moral and reputational liability f
I think you’ve read a lot of people‘s minds on this one. Really no need to go into detail; people who have been betrayed badly by clergymen, even repeatedly, wish it were not so, but as you aptly described it, the romanticized version is not likely to happen that way in more and more people‘s experience.
No personal knowledge, but I have heard it hinted at. It’s not the sort of thing that gets advertised, but on probability it has to have happened. If a pastor can abandon his wife and children for another woman / man, then the seal is unlikely to be the one special thing in an honor among thieves sense.
I think we need to use much caution before we frame anything pertaining to the right use and reception of the Sacraments as “high risk.” Let’s assume that the worst case scenario happens. A pastor breaks the confessional seal and divulges all of the sins confessed to him. Will there be potential temporal consequences for those who have confessed said sins? Probably. But confession and absolution does not exist to remove temporal consequences (sometimes they might even be necessary fruits of repentance). The gift given in confession and absolution is the certainty that, even if THIS sin should one day be laid bare for all eyes to see, THIS sin is forgotten by God. It is covered in Christ’s forgiveness. Even should all men remember it, God never again will. Might I one day be betrayed by the very pastor who vowed never to divulge the sins I confessed? Maybe. But the higher risk is to conceal that sin and never hear the assurance that it is atoned for.
Use of the Sacraments is always high risk. When one communes, one risks becoming sick or dying (1 Cor 11). This is why a communicant must examine himself every time he approaches the altar.
I have a pastor friend whose confession was compromised by the district president who heard it. This happened decades ago and the parties are both with the Lord. My friend confronted his confessor, absolved him of his sin and breech of office, and continued to use him as a confessor. He said the incident made the man a better confessor and pastor.
I appreciate this concern. But I am afraid that this post can have the spiritual effect of simply increasing fear of private confession. I don't know what the institutional solution is, but in the spirit of offering solutions, we also need to provide some comfort.
Part of the freedom of private confession is also that because you know what God says about your sins that you don't care what man can do against you.
So I'll absolutely do due diligence to hopefully not confess my sins to a slimeball, but if he speaks of my sins again and it hurts me in this life, so what? What can man do to me? I have the very word of the Judge of the universe.
That's certainly true, but what happens to your family and friends if some guy decides to go rogue and destroy your life? If a man loses his job because of it, becomes unemployable, and his wife and children bear the brunt of the poverty and shame, does he just look at them and say, "It's fine, the real judge has our backs"?
The chance that his church / church body / community will come to the rescue is slim to none.
Absolutely. This doesn't relieve temporal consequences. This kind of slander conceals the real sin: breaking of the fifth commandment. The one with a destroyed reputation is dead even while he lives. We should treat this sin that way.
The synod must have the practice of applying swift and severe consequences against such a scoundrel. "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:20). The silence of the church about public sin emboldens the wicked and scandalizes the weak.
And we must teach our people how Christians are to respond to the neighbor in need, and set a Godly example for them by helping those who are sinned against.
Real solutions are going to be costly -- especially in the short term.
Everything you wrote is absolutely true. This is what "should" and "must" happen. Unfortunately, and all too often, this is not what DOES happen. Then what recourse do the faithful have? We've seen too many of them leave the LCMS, or even stop going to any church, over this. Immediate action must be taken, but who will do it? In our case, taking it to the DP did nothing.
@Ad Crucem News wrote: “This is why it is so critical for Church bodies to get their houses in order. If they are going to be centralized and hierarchical, then they are, by default, accepting responsibility not to send wolves to devour the sheep.”
For decades, we have heard the mantra: “Synod is advisory.” This has resulted in a “do what thou wilt” self-governance by congregational leaders and no consistency in doctrine nor in practice. In order to enforce policies and procedures uniformly and consistently across all congregations, the LCMS may need to restructure to become more centralized and hierarchical. How else can it be done?
Pastoral misconduct does not have to rise to the level of being booted from ministry to induce mistrust in parishioners to the point where they are hesitant, even averse to go to private confession. When a pastor shows extreme partiality to those who are publicly and privately harming others in the congregation, lies about events, and does nothing when action is clearly needed, trust is eroded to the point where it would not be prudent to confess sins to a man who has already shown he is willing to betray the faithful.
If this is all true, according to LCMS rules and regulations, there is ample reason to call for this man's resignation. Get your facts down, take notes, get proof and witnesses, and call him to account, and if he doesn't listen to you, get your congregation leadership involved. If he doesn't listen to them, then call your circuit visitor and district president. As long as you have actual proof, and not just inuendo and accusations, thought the process may take some time, it should end with his removal from office. That is one way of getting the wolves out of our congregations. So far, it seems that all the suggestions have been that we need to have an all-knowing, all seeing synodical leadership with sufficient power to just come in and beat the man out of office at the first sign of misconduct. That is ridiculous. Even if it were possible, would anyone want to live under that kind of a dictatorship?
But, unfortunately, sin is part of the world we live in. Paul told the pastors who were weeping for him as he made his way to Jerusalem where he would be falsely accused, arrested, beaten, and locked up, that wolves would arise from among them to lead people astray. Christ does not promise us a perfect church, a perfect pastorate, a perfect administration. In fact, He promises that none of these things are going to happen, but that the Devil will always have possessed men in the synagogue. Our Synod President is a sinner, by his own admission. If he didn't admit it, then we should immediately ask for his resignation. District presidents are sinners, as are circuit visitors and pastors. Every one of them can become a tool used by the Devil to cause scandal in the church.
It doesn't mean that our leadership has somehow failed us, it means that we still long for the return of Christ. In the mean time, there is no better way to come back from the edge of believing that your sin is so great that there is no way God could forgive you than to confess that sin to a called and ordained servant of God and to hear that man say, with the full authority of Christ Jesus who told us the man could say it, "All your sin is forgiven you." I'll take the risk that the man telling me that may also be a sinner. In fact, I know he is. But when I need to hear those words, I won't let some so-called journalist or even worse, a lawyer, take that comfort from me by simply implying that because a few men fail miserably, all are suspect. This doubt cast into the pen is destructive in ways that pastors who fall into scandal or who mismanage their offices could never accomplish. Lord, have mercy!
This reply begins with: "If this is all true", which immediately plants the seed of doubt. What would be the benefit of spouting lies here? In addition, it's a strawman argument to say that writing about the result of one situation means all are suspect. Our facts are clear as day, especially since much of the sin was public, taking place in congregational meetings and public church media. Proof and witnesses are ample. The pastor was (gently) called to account numerous times, by several concerned members and even some church leaders. Most of the congregational leadership allied with those harming others, and the few who didn't were slowly beaten down by a wall of silence, and outright resistance to their authority. The circuit visitor was contacted and stated that he would not get involved unless the pastor asked him. Finally, the DP was contacted by several members with specific data, events and timelines. In the meantime, many families, including several frustrated elders, left the congregation. Months later, the DP finally met with the remaining church leadership (but not the complainants), and they blatantly lied and denied any knowledge of the events, and made those who brought the concerns look like they were the liars, while the pastor, who knew everything, and had formerly agreed with us that the situation was grossly problematic, sat silently by. After the meeting, the DP told us (and others) to go back and patch everything up in brotherly love. Sadly, a large percentage of the families who left the congregation also left the LCMS, and a few are not attending church at all. There is no comfort in being told (once again) that "we are all sinners" as an excuse for allowing this kind of thing to happen in the church, as this further erodes the little trust that is left.
"If this is all true" simply acknowledges the fact that I do not really know you, I do not know about the situation other than what you write, and I do not know any of the Pastors, CVs, or DPs you accuse of wrong doing. Paul says not to listen to an accusation against an elder without two or three witnesses. However, if I had believed you to be making it all up, I wouldn't have taken the time to provide you with the proper channels for dealing with it. From what you say, it seems that those channels were used but to no avail. I am sorry that happened.
While I didn't make the suggested "strawman" argument, you have actually proven it to be true. Because of one man, you said some members left the LCMS and others do not go to church at all. So, the situation of one man poisoned them against the entire Church, in fact, against God Himself. They no longer avail themselves of His means of grace. On the judgement day a Pastor who has behaved so poorly that some left the Church, and who never repented of his sin, will face a stern judgement. As Jesus said, "It will be better on that day to have a heavy millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the depths of the sea." But that will be little comfort to the one who allowed the incident to destroy his faith, for that one too will face judgement on that day.
"We are all sinners" is not an excuse, it is a call for repentance. Pastors who have been caught in any sin, be it minor, such as making a sarcastic comment that hurt someone's feelings, or major, such as abusing his office or sexual deviance, need to repent and seek both God's forgiveness and that of those they sinned against. Of course, if it is a major offense, he must also resign from his office. There should be no need for someone to forcefully remove him from office, he should admit that he is no longer above reproach and resign.
But, if the fact that Pastors are sinners too erodes your trust, there is a strong possibility that your trust was poorly placed. If your trust was in the fact that your Pastor would never do anything wrong, then you will most certainly have that trust eroded. God is greater than the untrustworthiness of sinful men, and His gifts that He gives through the hands and mouths of sinful men do not depend even upon them being above reproach, though He still demands that of those who hold the office. Even Mr. Mohr, every child he baptized is a baptized child of God, every sin he forgave is still forgiven by God in heaven, every good sermon or spiritual counsel he ever gave is still the holy truth of God, even though he himself has fallen into grave sin. Let your trust be in the God who gives the good gifts, and not in the perfection of those called into the office, and your trust will never be eroded by the sins of men.
Is it really that they are making excuses for "this kind of thing to happen in the church," or is it helping you to realize that no matter how hard we try to prevent it, these kinds of things will happen. There just are not enough safeguards in this sin-filled world to prevent sinners from sinning. The best we can do is to catch the worst of it as quickly as possible and try our best to clean up the mess, and pray to God for help, mercy, grace, healing, and comfort along the way.
Interesting use of Law and Gospel in this reply, and astounding presuppositions.
“If all this is true” puts the worst possible construction on a comment, whether one personally knows the writer and those involved or not. Why not put the best construction on it and initially assume that what the writer states is true?
It was never asserted that one man poisoned the people who left the congregation against the entire church. Sadly, some of the members did leave the LCMS. However, unless God and the LCMS are the same entity, this does not automatically mean they are now poisoned against God Himself, and certainly does not make them doomed to hell, as you stated. In addition, those who are currently not attending church because of what was done to them, do not necessarily have their faith “destroyed”. To categorically state this is a hasty and unjust judgement. In addition, to threaten them with God’s eternal judgement is certainly not going to bring them back to the LCMS. When a third of a congregation leaves, it is not a minor or trivial matter. Time would be better spent listening to and believing their accounts and doing what one can to remedy the situation, instead of condemning them to hell for leaving. Stating that the unfaithful pastor "should" resign is a worthy start, but if words are all that happens, trust is not restored, and people will likely never return.
It would be helpful to have a specific example of “We are all sinners” successfully used as a call to repentance, with repentance actually happening after this. In fact, I have never seen this statement used that way, but instead used too often as a means to excuse, minimize, and equalize sin and allow it to increase unchecked. For pastors engaged in major sin, you offer a series of “shoulds, “must" and “need to” statements. These statements sound good but have no weight whatsoever. They are merely suggestions, if action does not follow.
Dismissing legitimate claims of wrongdoing by accusing someone of putting trust in the fact that a pastor would never do anything wrong is yet another strawman, misrepresenting someone’s position and refuting that position. It was never stated or implied that I expected a pastor to be without sin, and trust was lost because the pastor lacked perfection. This is using the Law to make someone an egregious sinner for giving a true and eyewitness account of a very problematic situation that affected a large part of a congregation. It places the blame on people who were harmed, instead of where it belongs; on those members who practiced willful and unrepentant sin against other members and a pastor who defended and protected them, and by doing so allied himself with them.
Your defense of Mr. Mohr is incredibly blind to the harm done to victims. It is unmerciful and heartless to assure victims and families that the man who abused their children preached good sermons and blessed them with spiritual counsel. His despicable behavior is inexpressibly far more than "lacking perfection" and to not acknowledge the pain and suffering it caused the victims is cruel and pitiless.
When pastors and church leaders engage in willful and major sin, the sheep lose trust in the church. Pastors are in a special position, serving in the stead of Christ. To blame and shame, instead of binding up the wounds of those who have lost trust in the church due to grave sins of false shepherds is despicable, as it applies Law to sheep who have been genuinely sinned against and only serves to further drive them from the sheepfold. The Lord has harsh words for unfaithful and wicked shepherds, and nowhere in those Scripture passages does He minimize this responsibility by insisting that it's inconsequential because "these things will happen" to the sheep.
@Andrew Sorenson, Ellen partially answers what I had been arguing regarding toxic laymen running most LCMS congregations.
In my case, I originally pointed out in a tastefully critical email to both the senior pastor and to the other members in my small group my objections to the study of pop-Evangelical curricula in our LCMS congregation. I stated it upset me that we were required to study the same works by Evangelical pastors routinely critiqued on Chris Roseborough’s Fighting for the Faith podcasts. Either he was wrong, or Chris Roseborough was wrong, and I asked him to explain.
The pastor responded by wanting to meet with me to discuss demographics. He did not want to discuss theology. He based his ministry on this thesis: If the LCMS does not imitate non-denominational megachurches, it will die. My (now former) congregation was very Purpose Driven. It still is. One of our associate pastors actually came from King of Kings in Omaha.
The other small group participants were shocked and offended that I dare challenge the pastor. The reaction was predictable: “I’ll get you!” A couple of leaders decided to defend the pastor by engaging in gossip and slander against me and against any others viewed as an obstacle to the Church growing.
Compare this kind of behavior to a toxic workplace, where a coworker heard you complain about something and then ran to tell the boss. The boss decides to apply relentless pressure on you and also to look the other way when a couple of favored coworkers do the same.
My LCMS pastor used the small group leaders as his eyes and ears in the congregation. Rather than ask questions, I was always met with accusations by the pastor. It was deflected back on me as if I was the one with a personal problem. Nothing has been fixed.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is why the ordination vows have the ordinand promised to adorn the Office with a holy life. The standards for clergy conduct exceed that of the ordinary member for the very reasons you cite. When the Office is dragged into disrepute because of the conduct of its ministers, the whole body of Christ suffers.
I would also add to moral failings such things as pastors trafficking in gossip, using people as sermon illustrations (“I talked with a guy who….”), and being too chatty about members of the congregation and their personal lives. Not everything falls under the seal of the confessional, but it is sacrosanct and must be closely guarded. This is why breaking the seal will result in expulsion from the ministry even if it is demanded by government.
This also determines how private confession is practiced. It should be done in the open and follow a strict liturgical rite of the church’s Agenda so as to distinguish it from ordinary conversation. Pastors and penitents should never be left alone in church.
I would add this thought in response to the Lutheran lawyer who spoke of confessing something incriminating: If one has committed a heinous sin and confessed it, and if that confession is compromised and one suffers the temporal consequences of one’s act as a result, faith would receive this as a gift of divine discipline and chastisement, a temporal judgment to avert eternal condemnation. This does not excuse the breech of the confessional seal, but suggest that even if the seal were broken, God would use it for your repentance and faith.
The old Adam loves secrecy. The proper remedy for fear of incrimination in confession is, after confessing one’s sin to the confessor, go to the proper authority and admit what you have done, and as far as possible make amends. If you don’t let the secret out, then you must live with the constant fear that one day it will come to light, which it will on the Last Day when our works are judged. Fortunately, we will not be judged by our works but it will be manifest how great a Savior we have in Jesus.
By the way, only my opinion, of course, but this comment of yours, and your follow up comment, are an example of the very helpful contributions you make (which I mentioned in a previous post) to any number of discussions, from your wisdom and experience as a Pastor. Thank you.
Is this a real problem or are you writing hypotheticals? A vow to hold the confession of sins is a lifetime vow, regardless of what the congregation or district may do with the pastor’s status. It is unthinkable for this to happen….and you certainly haven’t helped the cause of returning to the regular process of confession and Absolution.
Private Confession and Absolution is a true gift to Christians, perhaps the most neglected. In my 14 years of ministry the overall percentage of those availing themselves of the Office of the Keys is minuscule. I don't think these current cases of pastoral malfeasance will move the needle much either way. Those who despise the gift will continue to do so, and those who treasure it will continue as well, unless personally impacted, or the feared hypothesis above becomes reality.
I've seen a small increase in the use of Private Confession in the past year at my congregation. I've been here eight years - it takes time to build trust. Another good reason to encourage lengthy pastorates. Years 7-21 are traditionally the most effective.
Private confession has always been doctrinally recognized within the LCMS since Walther's time. However, it has never been a dominant practice within LCMS congregations. Initially, members who planned to commune came for confession a day or two before the Sunday worship service when the Lord's Supper was given, typically monthly or quarterly. Later this became a common confession by those congregational members meeting together with the pastor a day or two prior to the Lord's Supper that following Sunday.
This continued into the 20th century with the confessional meeting being referred to as "communion announcements" In the latter part of the 20th century, the practice of communion announcements slowly died out, just as the Lord's Supper began to be offered weekly at many Lutheran congregations.
"The central problem is not doubt, but sin." I fail to see the distinction between these two. I've never committed a sin where doubt in the Gospel was not the root cause. I either doubted that God really saw, or that He cared about what I did. Sin is always acting as though we do not believe that God exists or that He rewards those who seek him. If we are acting that way, it is certain that real doubt lays close at hand.
I also question just how "pervasive" antinomianism and universalism" are in the LCMS. Usually this claim is made by legalists who want to make proud distinctions between those who deserve God's grace, and those who don't. However, real antinomianism and universalism are a problem, just as real legalism is a problem, even if they aren't pervasive. But my experience is that most accusations of "antinomianism" and "universalism" are little more than claims made by proud legalists who want to excuse their Phariseeism under the cloak of such claims.
In the end, legalists are just as prone to falling into grave sins as antinomians are, and just as capable of justifying themselves until they are caught red-handed and can no longer make excuses. In fact, even then most would go on justifying themselves and accusing those who caught them and made them accountable for their sin of being the real sinners.
Just like you. Hide behind pithy comments and see yourself as so far above the rest of us who just aren't as wise as you. I would pray for the Lord to have mercy on your soul, but it is clear that you believe you need no mercy.
I don’t know whether it is instructive, illustrative, tragic, or all the above that you are, by recollection, the fourth Lutheran pastor to condemn me as not a Christian for publishing facts and opinions.
As always, you do not listen. Maybe you just don't read well, as your pride and emotions keep getting in the way.
I appreciate when you bring things to light that others would keep shrouded in darkness. It is not your actual work of journalism that is the problem. It is your constant breaking of the 8th commandment, explaining everything in the worst possible light, assuming to know the intents of the heart behind actions, calling for removals from office without proper investigation and proceedings. Mr. Mohr was eventually dealt with precisely according to the requirements of Synod to which Pres. Harrison "vaguely alluded too." Yes, you admitted it, but did you retract your accusation that these words were just a cover for doing nothing? You jump to conclusions , you make blanket judgements with little to no supporting evidence, and when asked to support your statements you act like you are under attack.
I wish you would stick to the task at hand, to expose deeds done in darkness, to hold people to account by bringing facts to light, without your deep dives into yellow journalism of ad hominem attacks and baseless allegations of evil intent. I do not accuse you of being unchristian for publishing facts and opinions, I accuse you of being unchristian for your unrepentance of pride, false accusations, baring false witness, and sowing descension and doubt.
I am especially concerned when you sowed doubt concerning the private absolution based on the rather narrow possibility of confessing something of legal consequences to a man who later falls from the office because of illegal behavior. That is not casting doubt on a human institution, but on the very Word of God, believing yourself to be without blame because sinful human beings caused the problem with their sinful lives. God gave the church the power to hear confessions and forgive sins, to be exercised through the pastoral office. An attack on that gift is an attack on the gift of God.
You talk and act like you are the expert on everything, including the proper distinction of Law and Gospel, which even the likes of Martin Luther and C. F. W. Walther would not lay claim to. Are you greater men than they? When you accused Mr. Mohr of a fatal mistake of law and gospel, and I asked you to clarify your statement, you ignored me and went on a rant about something else entirely. So you appear to believe that everyone can be held accountable for their sins except you, and that is unchristian behavior, it is sinful, and continued unrepentance makes you unchristian, just as much as a man who claims to be a Christian and yet marries and remains married to another man. Where there is a blatant refusal to repent of grievous sin, even to acknowledge it as sin, there is no faith in the forgiveness of sin, and therefore no Christian.
Just as Paul, when he sternly pointed out the sins of the Galatians that he believed separated them from Christ, it is my sincere and honest hope and prayer that things have not gone so far with you that return to faith is impossible. That is why I keep responding to you.
However, know this, if you continue in unrepentance, I will continue to expose your horrendous theology, false accusations, and lies, for the sake of those who read your posts, but no longer for yours. As of now, I still pray for you and for them.
Upon more reflection on this topic, I wonder what the lawyer had in mind. What kind of "incriminating" statements would a penitent make during private confession with no intent of taking moral and legal responsibility for the actions? Isn't that at least part of what repentance should look like?
Let's say a man confesses to his pastor that for the last 5 years he has been defrauding the US Government by filing tax returns in the name of his deceased, twin brother. Certainly the pastor is bound by the seal of the confession, and should not, under any circumstances, go to the authorities with this information on his own. However, if the man is truly repentant, shouldn't he be ready to deal with the consequences? It is entirely likely that if he self-reports and already has a plan in place to repay the money, the IRS would rather make such a deal than lose the money just so they can put the man in jail for the sake of justice. At that point, it matters not if the pastor later falls from grace and decides to write his memoirs of the sordid lives of his parishioners to pay his bail. The man will have already made things right.
But what if a man tells his pastor that he has killed someone, either accidentally or intentionally, and gotten away with it. Again, while the private confession is sealed, after absolution, true fruits of repentance would involve the killer reporting himself and taking whatever consequences come his way. Confession and absolution is never a way to clear your conscience without accepting any consequences for your actions. That would be false repentance, and would eventually result in being placed under the ban until fruits of repentance are shown.
There may be some cases where someone may be guilty of some misdemeanor crime, where it is possible to make amends with those wronged without involving the law, but then, in those cases, if the victims do not report the crime, even if the authorities were to find out, they would not be able to act unless the victims filed a complaint. So the lawyer's point is really no point at all, as it seems to be a misunderstanding about the real nature of the confession.
At Seminary we are given the hypothetical case of a man who poisoned the town well and then confessed his sin to the pastor. What is a good pastor to do in this situation? Should he say and do nothing because the man confessed his sin and received absolution? But then many people would die. But if he tells anyone that the well is poisoned, they will suspect that the other person coming out of the church near the same time probably did it, and the seal would be broken. I now realize that this was just a discussion to get us to think clearly about the importance of our oath, but in reality, if the man intended his crime to remain a secret, he is not repenting, and the seal does not apply. If he repents, then he will have to let the town know that the water is poisoned and accept the consequences, which would not be as great as keeping the information to himself until the investigation uncovered his crime after many people died.
So, in the end, all this man could do is reveal a lot of embarrassing information, which may result in a few people losing jobs or getting divorced, but no one is going to jail. As for the divorces, if a spouse is so unforgiving that they would divorce over something that happened years ago, the partner repented of the sin, and nothing more came of it, then the marriage was already in trouble.
So, people, do not let such concerns keep you from the blessed gift that is the private absolution. It is worth the risk, which is, thankfully, very small. It's not like every day another pastor is being arrested for serious crimes. Most of us take the requirement to be above reproach very seriously, and do not give in to such dark temptations.
I think you’ve read a lot of people‘s minds on this one. Really no need to go into detail; people who have been betrayed badly by clergymen, even repeatedly, wish it were not so, but as you aptly described it, the romanticized version is not likely to happen that way in more and more people‘s experience.
To your knowledge, has this betrayal of the confessional seal actually happened in LCMS history? Or is this just a thought experiment?
No personal knowledge, but I have heard it hinted at. It’s not the sort of thing that gets advertised, but on probability it has to have happened. If a pastor can abandon his wife and children for another woman / man, then the seal is unlikely to be the one special thing in an honor among thieves sense.
I think we need to use much caution before we frame anything pertaining to the right use and reception of the Sacraments as “high risk.” Let’s assume that the worst case scenario happens. A pastor breaks the confessional seal and divulges all of the sins confessed to him. Will there be potential temporal consequences for those who have confessed said sins? Probably. But confession and absolution does not exist to remove temporal consequences (sometimes they might even be necessary fruits of repentance). The gift given in confession and absolution is the certainty that, even if THIS sin should one day be laid bare for all eyes to see, THIS sin is forgotten by God. It is covered in Christ’s forgiveness. Even should all men remember it, God never again will. Might I one day be betrayed by the very pastor who vowed never to divulge the sins I confessed? Maybe. But the higher risk is to conceal that sin and never hear the assurance that it is atoned for.
Thanks, helpful and true. Maybe it is enough to overcome the hesitancy and reluctance pastoral scandals create.
Use of the Sacraments is always high risk. When one communes, one risks becoming sick or dying (1 Cor 11). This is why a communicant must examine himself every time he approaches the altar.
I have a pastor friend whose confession was compromised by the district president who heard it. This happened decades ago and the parties are both with the Lord. My friend confronted his confessor, absolved him of his sin and breech of office, and continued to use him as a confessor. He said the incident made the man a better confessor and pastor.
I appreciate this concern. But I am afraid that this post can have the spiritual effect of simply increasing fear of private confession. I don't know what the institutional solution is, but in the spirit of offering solutions, we also need to provide some comfort.
Part of the freedom of private confession is also that because you know what God says about your sins that you don't care what man can do against you.
So I'll absolutely do due diligence to hopefully not confess my sins to a slimeball, but if he speaks of my sins again and it hurts me in this life, so what? What can man do to me? I have the very word of the Judge of the universe.
That's certainly true, but what happens to your family and friends if some guy decides to go rogue and destroy your life? If a man loses his job because of it, becomes unemployable, and his wife and children bear the brunt of the poverty and shame, does he just look at them and say, "It's fine, the real judge has our backs"?
The chance that his church / church body / community will come to the rescue is slim to none.
Absolutely. This doesn't relieve temporal consequences. This kind of slander conceals the real sin: breaking of the fifth commandment. The one with a destroyed reputation is dead even while he lives. We should treat this sin that way.
The synod must have the practice of applying swift and severe consequences against such a scoundrel. "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:20). The silence of the church about public sin emboldens the wicked and scandalizes the weak.
And we must teach our people how Christians are to respond to the neighbor in need, and set a Godly example for them by helping those who are sinned against.
Real solutions are going to be costly -- especially in the short term.
And, to reiterate, I am warning that a horse has bolted from the barn. I'm not encouraging anyone to open barn doors.
Everything you wrote is absolutely true. This is what "should" and "must" happen. Unfortunately, and all too often, this is not what DOES happen. Then what recourse do the faithful have? We've seen too many of them leave the LCMS, or even stop going to any church, over this. Immediate action must be taken, but who will do it? In our case, taking it to the DP did nothing.
@Ad Crucem News wrote: “This is why it is so critical for Church bodies to get their houses in order. If they are going to be centralized and hierarchical, then they are, by default, accepting responsibility not to send wolves to devour the sheep.”
For decades, we have heard the mantra: “Synod is advisory.” This has resulted in a “do what thou wilt” self-governance by congregational leaders and no consistency in doctrine nor in practice. In order to enforce policies and procedures uniformly and consistently across all congregations, the LCMS may need to restructure to become more centralized and hierarchical. How else can it be done?
C.F.W Walther must be turning in his grave.
Pastoral misconduct does not have to rise to the level of being booted from ministry to induce mistrust in parishioners to the point where they are hesitant, even averse to go to private confession. When a pastor shows extreme partiality to those who are publicly and privately harming others in the congregation, lies about events, and does nothing when action is clearly needed, trust is eroded to the point where it would not be prudent to confess sins to a man who has already shown he is willing to betray the faithful.
Ellen, well said.
If this is all true, according to LCMS rules and regulations, there is ample reason to call for this man's resignation. Get your facts down, take notes, get proof and witnesses, and call him to account, and if he doesn't listen to you, get your congregation leadership involved. If he doesn't listen to them, then call your circuit visitor and district president. As long as you have actual proof, and not just inuendo and accusations, thought the process may take some time, it should end with his removal from office. That is one way of getting the wolves out of our congregations. So far, it seems that all the suggestions have been that we need to have an all-knowing, all seeing synodical leadership with sufficient power to just come in and beat the man out of office at the first sign of misconduct. That is ridiculous. Even if it were possible, would anyone want to live under that kind of a dictatorship?
But, unfortunately, sin is part of the world we live in. Paul told the pastors who were weeping for him as he made his way to Jerusalem where he would be falsely accused, arrested, beaten, and locked up, that wolves would arise from among them to lead people astray. Christ does not promise us a perfect church, a perfect pastorate, a perfect administration. In fact, He promises that none of these things are going to happen, but that the Devil will always have possessed men in the synagogue. Our Synod President is a sinner, by his own admission. If he didn't admit it, then we should immediately ask for his resignation. District presidents are sinners, as are circuit visitors and pastors. Every one of them can become a tool used by the Devil to cause scandal in the church.
It doesn't mean that our leadership has somehow failed us, it means that we still long for the return of Christ. In the mean time, there is no better way to come back from the edge of believing that your sin is so great that there is no way God could forgive you than to confess that sin to a called and ordained servant of God and to hear that man say, with the full authority of Christ Jesus who told us the man could say it, "All your sin is forgiven you." I'll take the risk that the man telling me that may also be a sinner. In fact, I know he is. But when I need to hear those words, I won't let some so-called journalist or even worse, a lawyer, take that comfort from me by simply implying that because a few men fail miserably, all are suspect. This doubt cast into the pen is destructive in ways that pastors who fall into scandal or who mismanage their offices could never accomplish. Lord, have mercy!
This reply begins with: "If this is all true", which immediately plants the seed of doubt. What would be the benefit of spouting lies here? In addition, it's a strawman argument to say that writing about the result of one situation means all are suspect. Our facts are clear as day, especially since much of the sin was public, taking place in congregational meetings and public church media. Proof and witnesses are ample. The pastor was (gently) called to account numerous times, by several concerned members and even some church leaders. Most of the congregational leadership allied with those harming others, and the few who didn't were slowly beaten down by a wall of silence, and outright resistance to their authority. The circuit visitor was contacted and stated that he would not get involved unless the pastor asked him. Finally, the DP was contacted by several members with specific data, events and timelines. In the meantime, many families, including several frustrated elders, left the congregation. Months later, the DP finally met with the remaining church leadership (but not the complainants), and they blatantly lied and denied any knowledge of the events, and made those who brought the concerns look like they were the liars, while the pastor, who knew everything, and had formerly agreed with us that the situation was grossly problematic, sat silently by. After the meeting, the DP told us (and others) to go back and patch everything up in brotherly love. Sadly, a large percentage of the families who left the congregation also left the LCMS, and a few are not attending church at all. There is no comfort in being told (once again) that "we are all sinners" as an excuse for allowing this kind of thing to happen in the church, as this further erodes the little trust that is left.
"If this is all true" simply acknowledges the fact that I do not really know you, I do not know about the situation other than what you write, and I do not know any of the Pastors, CVs, or DPs you accuse of wrong doing. Paul says not to listen to an accusation against an elder without two or three witnesses. However, if I had believed you to be making it all up, I wouldn't have taken the time to provide you with the proper channels for dealing with it. From what you say, it seems that those channels were used but to no avail. I am sorry that happened.
While I didn't make the suggested "strawman" argument, you have actually proven it to be true. Because of one man, you said some members left the LCMS and others do not go to church at all. So, the situation of one man poisoned them against the entire Church, in fact, against God Himself. They no longer avail themselves of His means of grace. On the judgement day a Pastor who has behaved so poorly that some left the Church, and who never repented of his sin, will face a stern judgement. As Jesus said, "It will be better on that day to have a heavy millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the depths of the sea." But that will be little comfort to the one who allowed the incident to destroy his faith, for that one too will face judgement on that day.
"We are all sinners" is not an excuse, it is a call for repentance. Pastors who have been caught in any sin, be it minor, such as making a sarcastic comment that hurt someone's feelings, or major, such as abusing his office or sexual deviance, need to repent and seek both God's forgiveness and that of those they sinned against. Of course, if it is a major offense, he must also resign from his office. There should be no need for someone to forcefully remove him from office, he should admit that he is no longer above reproach and resign.
But, if the fact that Pastors are sinners too erodes your trust, there is a strong possibility that your trust was poorly placed. If your trust was in the fact that your Pastor would never do anything wrong, then you will most certainly have that trust eroded. God is greater than the untrustworthiness of sinful men, and His gifts that He gives through the hands and mouths of sinful men do not depend even upon them being above reproach, though He still demands that of those who hold the office. Even Mr. Mohr, every child he baptized is a baptized child of God, every sin he forgave is still forgiven by God in heaven, every good sermon or spiritual counsel he ever gave is still the holy truth of God, even though he himself has fallen into grave sin. Let your trust be in the God who gives the good gifts, and not in the perfection of those called into the office, and your trust will never be eroded by the sins of men.
Is it really that they are making excuses for "this kind of thing to happen in the church," or is it helping you to realize that no matter how hard we try to prevent it, these kinds of things will happen. There just are not enough safeguards in this sin-filled world to prevent sinners from sinning. The best we can do is to catch the worst of it as quickly as possible and try our best to clean up the mess, and pray to God for help, mercy, grace, healing, and comfort along the way.
Interesting use of Law and Gospel in this reply, and astounding presuppositions.
“If all this is true” puts the worst possible construction on a comment, whether one personally knows the writer and those involved or not. Why not put the best construction on it and initially assume that what the writer states is true?
It was never asserted that one man poisoned the people who left the congregation against the entire church. Sadly, some of the members did leave the LCMS. However, unless God and the LCMS are the same entity, this does not automatically mean they are now poisoned against God Himself, and certainly does not make them doomed to hell, as you stated. In addition, those who are currently not attending church because of what was done to them, do not necessarily have their faith “destroyed”. To categorically state this is a hasty and unjust judgement. In addition, to threaten them with God’s eternal judgement is certainly not going to bring them back to the LCMS. When a third of a congregation leaves, it is not a minor or trivial matter. Time would be better spent listening to and believing their accounts and doing what one can to remedy the situation, instead of condemning them to hell for leaving. Stating that the unfaithful pastor "should" resign is a worthy start, but if words are all that happens, trust is not restored, and people will likely never return.
It would be helpful to have a specific example of “We are all sinners” successfully used as a call to repentance, with repentance actually happening after this. In fact, I have never seen this statement used that way, but instead used too often as a means to excuse, minimize, and equalize sin and allow it to increase unchecked. For pastors engaged in major sin, you offer a series of “shoulds, “must" and “need to” statements. These statements sound good but have no weight whatsoever. They are merely suggestions, if action does not follow.
Dismissing legitimate claims of wrongdoing by accusing someone of putting trust in the fact that a pastor would never do anything wrong is yet another strawman, misrepresenting someone’s position and refuting that position. It was never stated or implied that I expected a pastor to be without sin, and trust was lost because the pastor lacked perfection. This is using the Law to make someone an egregious sinner for giving a true and eyewitness account of a very problematic situation that affected a large part of a congregation. It places the blame on people who were harmed, instead of where it belongs; on those members who practiced willful and unrepentant sin against other members and a pastor who defended and protected them, and by doing so allied himself with them.
Your defense of Mr. Mohr is incredibly blind to the harm done to victims. It is unmerciful and heartless to assure victims and families that the man who abused their children preached good sermons and blessed them with spiritual counsel. His despicable behavior is inexpressibly far more than "lacking perfection" and to not acknowledge the pain and suffering it caused the victims is cruel and pitiless.
When pastors and church leaders engage in willful and major sin, the sheep lose trust in the church. Pastors are in a special position, serving in the stead of Christ. To blame and shame, instead of binding up the wounds of those who have lost trust in the church due to grave sins of false shepherds is despicable, as it applies Law to sheep who have been genuinely sinned against and only serves to further drive them from the sheepfold. The Lord has harsh words for unfaithful and wicked shepherds, and nowhere in those Scripture passages does He minimize this responsibility by insisting that it's inconsequential because "these things will happen" to the sheep.
@Andrew Sorenson, Ellen partially answers what I had been arguing regarding toxic laymen running most LCMS congregations.
In my case, I originally pointed out in a tastefully critical email to both the senior pastor and to the other members in my small group my objections to the study of pop-Evangelical curricula in our LCMS congregation. I stated it upset me that we were required to study the same works by Evangelical pastors routinely critiqued on Chris Roseborough’s Fighting for the Faith podcasts. Either he was wrong, or Chris Roseborough was wrong, and I asked him to explain.
The pastor responded by wanting to meet with me to discuss demographics. He did not want to discuss theology. He based his ministry on this thesis: If the LCMS does not imitate non-denominational megachurches, it will die. My (now former) congregation was very Purpose Driven. It still is. One of our associate pastors actually came from King of Kings in Omaha.
The other small group participants were shocked and offended that I dare challenge the pastor. The reaction was predictable: “I’ll get you!” A couple of leaders decided to defend the pastor by engaging in gossip and slander against me and against any others viewed as an obstacle to the Church growing.
Compare this kind of behavior to a toxic workplace, where a coworker heard you complain about something and then ran to tell the boss. The boss decides to apply relentless pressure on you and also to look the other way when a couple of favored coworkers do the same.
My LCMS pastor used the small group leaders as his eyes and ears in the congregation. Rather than ask questions, I was always met with accusations by the pastor. It was deflected back on me as if I was the one with a personal problem. Nothing has been fixed.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is why the ordination vows have the ordinand promised to adorn the Office with a holy life. The standards for clergy conduct exceed that of the ordinary member for the very reasons you cite. When the Office is dragged into disrepute because of the conduct of its ministers, the whole body of Christ suffers.
I would also add to moral failings such things as pastors trafficking in gossip, using people as sermon illustrations (“I talked with a guy who….”), and being too chatty about members of the congregation and their personal lives. Not everything falls under the seal of the confessional, but it is sacrosanct and must be closely guarded. This is why breaking the seal will result in expulsion from the ministry even if it is demanded by government.
This also determines how private confession is practiced. It should be done in the open and follow a strict liturgical rite of the church’s Agenda so as to distinguish it from ordinary conversation. Pastors and penitents should never be left alone in church.
I would add this thought in response to the Lutheran lawyer who spoke of confessing something incriminating: If one has committed a heinous sin and confessed it, and if that confession is compromised and one suffers the temporal consequences of one’s act as a result, faith would receive this as a gift of divine discipline and chastisement, a temporal judgment to avert eternal condemnation. This does not excuse the breech of the confessional seal, but suggest that even if the seal were broken, God would use it for your repentance and faith.
The old Adam loves secrecy. The proper remedy for fear of incrimination in confession is, after confessing one’s sin to the confessor, go to the proper authority and admit what you have done, and as far as possible make amends. If you don’t let the secret out, then you must live with the constant fear that one day it will come to light, which it will on the Last Day when our works are judged. Fortunately, we will not be judged by our works but it will be manifest how great a Savior we have in Jesus.
By the way, only my opinion, of course, but this comment of yours, and your follow up comment, are an example of the very helpful contributions you make (which I mentioned in a previous post) to any number of discussions, from your wisdom and experience as a Pastor. Thank you.
Is this a real problem or are you writing hypotheticals? A vow to hold the confession of sins is a lifetime vow, regardless of what the congregation or district may do with the pastor’s status. It is unthinkable for this to happen….and you certainly haven’t helped the cause of returning to the regular process of confession and Absolution.
Padre, the horse has bolted. Don’t blame the messenger for noticing.
I would never confess privately to any pastor I know, they just don't evoke trust
Private Confession and Absolution is a true gift to Christians, perhaps the most neglected. In my 14 years of ministry the overall percentage of those availing themselves of the Office of the Keys is minuscule. I don't think these current cases of pastoral malfeasance will move the needle much either way. Those who despise the gift will continue to do so, and those who treasure it will continue as well, unless personally impacted, or the feared hypothesis above becomes reality.
I've seen a small increase in the use of Private Confession in the past year at my congregation. I've been here eight years - it takes time to build trust. Another good reason to encourage lengthy pastorates. Years 7-21 are traditionally the most effective.
Private confession has always been doctrinally recognized within the LCMS since Walther's time. However, it has never been a dominant practice within LCMS congregations. Initially, members who planned to commune came for confession a day or two before the Sunday worship service when the Lord's Supper was given, typically monthly or quarterly. Later this became a common confession by those congregational members meeting together with the pastor a day or two prior to the Lord's Supper that following Sunday.
This continued into the 20th century with the confessional meeting being referred to as "communion announcements" In the latter part of the 20th century, the practice of communion announcements slowly died out, just as the Lord's Supper began to be offered weekly at many Lutheran congregations.
"The central problem is not doubt, but sin." I fail to see the distinction between these two. I've never committed a sin where doubt in the Gospel was not the root cause. I either doubted that God really saw, or that He cared about what I did. Sin is always acting as though we do not believe that God exists or that He rewards those who seek him. If we are acting that way, it is certain that real doubt lays close at hand.
I also question just how "pervasive" antinomianism and universalism" are in the LCMS. Usually this claim is made by legalists who want to make proud distinctions between those who deserve God's grace, and those who don't. However, real antinomianism and universalism are a problem, just as real legalism is a problem, even if they aren't pervasive. But my experience is that most accusations of "antinomianism" and "universalism" are little more than claims made by proud legalists who want to excuse their Phariseeism under the cloak of such claims.
In the end, legalists are just as prone to falling into grave sins as antinomians are, and just as capable of justifying themselves until they are caught red-handed and can no longer make excuses. In fact, even then most would go on justifying themselves and accusing those who caught them and made them accountable for their sin of being the real sinners.
Thank you for illustrating the point so well.
Just like you. Hide behind pithy comments and see yourself as so far above the rest of us who just aren't as wise as you. I would pray for the Lord to have mercy on your soul, but it is clear that you believe you need no mercy.
I don’t know whether it is instructive, illustrative, tragic, or all the above that you are, by recollection, the fourth Lutheran pastor to condemn me as not a Christian for publishing facts and opinions.
As always, you do not listen. Maybe you just don't read well, as your pride and emotions keep getting in the way.
I appreciate when you bring things to light that others would keep shrouded in darkness. It is not your actual work of journalism that is the problem. It is your constant breaking of the 8th commandment, explaining everything in the worst possible light, assuming to know the intents of the heart behind actions, calling for removals from office without proper investigation and proceedings. Mr. Mohr was eventually dealt with precisely according to the requirements of Synod to which Pres. Harrison "vaguely alluded too." Yes, you admitted it, but did you retract your accusation that these words were just a cover for doing nothing? You jump to conclusions , you make blanket judgements with little to no supporting evidence, and when asked to support your statements you act like you are under attack.
I wish you would stick to the task at hand, to expose deeds done in darkness, to hold people to account by bringing facts to light, without your deep dives into yellow journalism of ad hominem attacks and baseless allegations of evil intent. I do not accuse you of being unchristian for publishing facts and opinions, I accuse you of being unchristian for your unrepentance of pride, false accusations, baring false witness, and sowing descension and doubt.
I am especially concerned when you sowed doubt concerning the private absolution based on the rather narrow possibility of confessing something of legal consequences to a man who later falls from the office because of illegal behavior. That is not casting doubt on a human institution, but on the very Word of God, believing yourself to be without blame because sinful human beings caused the problem with their sinful lives. God gave the church the power to hear confessions and forgive sins, to be exercised through the pastoral office. An attack on that gift is an attack on the gift of God.
You talk and act like you are the expert on everything, including the proper distinction of Law and Gospel, which even the likes of Martin Luther and C. F. W. Walther would not lay claim to. Are you greater men than they? When you accused Mr. Mohr of a fatal mistake of law and gospel, and I asked you to clarify your statement, you ignored me and went on a rant about something else entirely. So you appear to believe that everyone can be held accountable for their sins except you, and that is unchristian behavior, it is sinful, and continued unrepentance makes you unchristian, just as much as a man who claims to be a Christian and yet marries and remains married to another man. Where there is a blatant refusal to repent of grievous sin, even to acknowledge it as sin, there is no faith in the forgiveness of sin, and therefore no Christian.
Just as Paul, when he sternly pointed out the sins of the Galatians that he believed separated them from Christ, it is my sincere and honest hope and prayer that things have not gone so far with you that return to faith is impossible. That is why I keep responding to you.
However, know this, if you continue in unrepentance, I will continue to expose your horrendous theology, false accusations, and lies, for the sake of those who read your posts, but no longer for yours. As of now, I still pray for you and for them.
Upon more reflection on this topic, I wonder what the lawyer had in mind. What kind of "incriminating" statements would a penitent make during private confession with no intent of taking moral and legal responsibility for the actions? Isn't that at least part of what repentance should look like?
Let's say a man confesses to his pastor that for the last 5 years he has been defrauding the US Government by filing tax returns in the name of his deceased, twin brother. Certainly the pastor is bound by the seal of the confession, and should not, under any circumstances, go to the authorities with this information on his own. However, if the man is truly repentant, shouldn't he be ready to deal with the consequences? It is entirely likely that if he self-reports and already has a plan in place to repay the money, the IRS would rather make such a deal than lose the money just so they can put the man in jail for the sake of justice. At that point, it matters not if the pastor later falls from grace and decides to write his memoirs of the sordid lives of his parishioners to pay his bail. The man will have already made things right.
But what if a man tells his pastor that he has killed someone, either accidentally or intentionally, and gotten away with it. Again, while the private confession is sealed, after absolution, true fruits of repentance would involve the killer reporting himself and taking whatever consequences come his way. Confession and absolution is never a way to clear your conscience without accepting any consequences for your actions. That would be false repentance, and would eventually result in being placed under the ban until fruits of repentance are shown.
There may be some cases where someone may be guilty of some misdemeanor crime, where it is possible to make amends with those wronged without involving the law, but then, in those cases, if the victims do not report the crime, even if the authorities were to find out, they would not be able to act unless the victims filed a complaint. So the lawyer's point is really no point at all, as it seems to be a misunderstanding about the real nature of the confession.
At Seminary we are given the hypothetical case of a man who poisoned the town well and then confessed his sin to the pastor. What is a good pastor to do in this situation? Should he say and do nothing because the man confessed his sin and received absolution? But then many people would die. But if he tells anyone that the well is poisoned, they will suspect that the other person coming out of the church near the same time probably did it, and the seal would be broken. I now realize that this was just a discussion to get us to think clearly about the importance of our oath, but in reality, if the man intended his crime to remain a secret, he is not repenting, and the seal does not apply. If he repents, then he will have to let the town know that the water is poisoned and accept the consequences, which would not be as great as keeping the information to himself until the investigation uncovered his crime after many people died.
So, in the end, all this man could do is reveal a lot of embarrassing information, which may result in a few people losing jobs or getting divorced, but no one is going to jail. As for the divorces, if a spouse is so unforgiving that they would divorce over something that happened years ago, the partner repented of the sin, and nothing more came of it, then the marriage was already in trouble.
So, people, do not let such concerns keep you from the blessed gift that is the private absolution. It is worth the risk, which is, thankfully, very small. It's not like every day another pastor is being arrested for serious crimes. Most of us take the requirement to be above reproach very seriously, and do not give in to such dark temptations.