Public confession of sins in front of church congregations has caused a lot of embarrassment and shame to those that are forced to do it. Some churches advocate this and include it in their rules of conduct. But is such a thing warranted at all, is there even one precedent in scripture for public confession as a requirement? Can it be demanded by using scripture? Confession to one other person or small group of elders is mentioned in scripture, but there are conditions for the necessity of such a confession.
As far as the Old Testament rules for confession, they seem only to apply to unintentional sin, and then only require confession to the priest plus an offering.
The Priest and community had to bring offerings (young bull) publicly, before the tent of meeting, if they have sinned unintentionally, others could bring them to the place of burnt offerings. Nevertheless, an offering for a leader was a young male goat, and other members of the community were to bring a female goat or lamb. The difference in size and sex of the animals showed the intensity of the person’s sin against God. See Leviticus 4. For unintentional sins concerning justice, cleanliness and oaths, a confession, presumably to the priest, was necessary and a sin offering “to the LORD”. The options were a female lamb, or two pigeons or even some grain. See Leviticus 5. The guilt offering concerned unintentional sins directed at God’s holy things. They had to be confessed to a priest. Offerings required restitution as well. See Leviticus 5. For an intentional sin against another person no confession seems to have been necessary, but a full restitution was, even including interest of a fifth of the value. A guilt offering was necessary, a male ram.
A definition of restitution is: "1. The act of restoring something that has been taken away or lost. 2. The act of making good or rendering an equivalent for injury or loss." 1. Biblical restitution even included interest as seen above. The main idea is the one of restoration. The body of Christ may not be able to restore everything that has been taken away from a person that was wronged or even abused. But as witnesses of Christ there is a certain responsibility to maintain justice, especially within the church. This would go a long way toward restoration of those that have been wronged or even abused. Through scripture, God shows his expectation that his people exercise love and mercy while upholding justice. Thus we would be cooperating with God, who does not destroy his people, but restores them.
Nehemiah 9 contains a public confession, but all of the Israelites were present to confess their sins and renounce those of their ancestors to make a new start as a nation before God, no single confessions were required in public. This was done according to Lev. 26:40-45; Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8 mirrors Leviticus 26 and passages in 2 Chronicles 6.
In 2 Samuel 12 Nathan confronts King David with his behavior concerning Bathsheba and David confesses his sin to Nathan. Verse 13, "I have sinned against the LORD."
He was immediately forgiven for his sins, not by Nathan, but by God who had recognized the state of David's heart. Since David was a public leader, God told him that his sin would have public consequences, though it was not necessary for David to confess in public. His lack of self-control and self-justice at least before he confessed his sin had already taken its toll on his family and still would. The child born before he repented would die (although the child conceived with Bathsheba afterward, Solomon, was granted favor and later anointed king - this is another study within itself). King David's ommission of justice and discipline in the family would lead to even worse events that could not escape the public eye. But God decided what would happen. David was not publicly shamed by Nathan, but rather by his own faults which evidenced themselves through the behavior his children had learned from him (or learned because he did not concern himself with them). See the events of 2 Samuel 13-16. It may have been that David wrote this passage after Nathan's confrontation concerning Bathsheba:
Our sins, both intentional and unintentional, are atoned for by the blood of Christ, but if we sin in any way, we can confess it to God.
The gospels contain no mention of confession of sin at all, though many of repentance. Jesus was primarily concerned with the heart, and repeatedly stressed that a change in the heart was more desireable to God than outward offerings and shows of penance. See Luke 18:9-14, the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, and Matthew 23 – a scathing speech of Jesus to the Pharisees against hypocrisy.
The next passage from 1 John mirrors Jesus’ teaching. No mention of public confession is made, confession is to the Lord and concerns a true change of heart.
One verse in the New Testament that explicitly mentions confession of sin to another person is contained in James.
There may be different ways to translate this passage. The word, “therefore” makes it necessary to look at the meaning of the statement before it.
The word, “sick” as used in this passage comes from the Greek verb, “astheneo”, the literal meaning would be weak or feeble, possibly meaning physical sickness. In other passages the adjective, “asthenes”, is also used to describe someone without strength, also indicating a lack of moral or ethical strength. 2.
If the verse is taken using the implicit meaning of the word, as in 1 Corinthians 8:7,10 and 1 Corinthians 9:22 that concern a sense of moral weakness, then the word, “sick”, may not be referring to physical weakness at all. Indeed, sincere and faithful prayer has not always helped the physically ill to be healed. But sincere prayer, confession and counseling have often helped those that have personal problems they are dealing with. If the word is referring to a spiritual weakness, then the act of confession of a sin would be, at the same time, a request for assistance to overcome a problem.
Confession in this case may help concerning a larger problem that is caused by spiritual and moral weakness in a person. The weakness itself is confessed to another that is able to help, perhaps a professional, even if sin is not present. The potentiality for sin is already important here. If a person has sinned because of his weakness of heart, then prayer, confession and the help he receives will heal him, he will recover from the spiritual sickness. Simply believing that God is the one that gives healing here is not enough, verse 16. is a detailed description of verse 15. The spiritual healing most definitely comes through the prayerful, loving and capable assistance of other believers, though God is the source of it.
Even now no command has been given to confess such a sin of the heart before a church congregation. The confession, prayer and assistance can all be done discreetly (crimes still must be reported to the authorities see 1 Peter 2:13,14 below).
Jesus gave guidelines for dealing with sin.
The King James Version uses these words:
The word sin in verse 15 comes from the Greek, “hamartano”, the literal meaning is to miss the mark. The word can refer to one act of sin or a continual practice of sin, a sinful lifestyle. 3.
In this case, Jesus is referring to a situation in which one person has wronged another within the congregation. If we also consider the passage in Leviticus 6 (see above) that concerns such a situation, this further explains what Jesus was commanding at that moment. The guilt offering is, of course, Jesus Christ and already has been offered for every believer once and for all time. But restitution to the person that has been wronged still has to take place. No sweeping under the rug is allowed. Jesus said this for very good reasons, covering up wrongs, especially crimes, can lead to even more problems that can expand to the rest of the congregation and even beyond the church group.
Criminal offenses should not be covered up by church congregations, but be reported and taken care of civilly as well. The only exception I would make to that rule is if the Christian faith itself or conversion to it were outlawed (as in Iran). Then other verses would be relevant as well, Acts 4:19, Acts 5:29, that state that to obey God is better than to obey men if there are conflicting views.
Unfortunately, hiding things that shouldn’t be hidden happens all too often these days. I know of a case of child molestation that happened some 30 years ago. It became known to the elders of the church. Instead of dealing with the sexual offender and demanding restitution, the mother was told to be silent and the offender quickly relocated to another church. He still serves in a church of that denomination. It is possible that he has molested more children in that time. The offense was never reported to the police. A legal confrontation would have led to at least incarceration and possible monetary restitution of the sexual offender. The offence became known to the church congregation, but because it was not dealt with justly, gossip ensued. The child itself was blamed for the sexual molestation and even the sibling was teased and avoided. The family received no help or comfort and was the object of gossip and shunning until it left that church entirely. The mother is distraught to this day, feeling that she did wrong to her child by remaining silent, though she obeyed the commands of her church leaders, thinking that they knew better than she did how the situation should be treated. She has tried to find a new church community, but no one will have her if she speaks of what has happened in the past, it is often taken as gossip. No church that she has encountered has really listened with an open ear and demanded justice. The child (now an adult) is spiritually and possibly mentally ill. That person has gone through numerous psychological treatments and counseling to no avail and is not really mature enough to live outside the parental home, though the nature of the illness makes that person most difficult to live with. Family life for them has been severely impaired.
If the sexual offense had been handled as it should have been according to scripture, the family would have received comfort, not gossip, and restitution instead of rejection. The child would have known that it was not the source of the problem, but that the sexual offender was in the wrong. Those involved would have seen the sexual offender turned over to the authorities to be punished for his crime. That would have done justice to the child and family. It is highly likely that the child would have healed and grown to be a mature and healthy adult today, the family would still be an integral part of that church, and the sexual offender would not have been transferred to possibly continue sexual molestation and destroy the lives of others in such a horrible manner.
Confession of sins and the repentance and sincere change of heart that follows can be taken care of in a confidential atmosphere, even if the crime requires that the offender be turned over to authorities outside the church. According to James 5:16 counselling can be given to the offender whether in or out of prison, with the purpose of strengthening him so that he doesn’t repeat the behavior. The problem is that confession of moral weakness to someone that can help is not often undertaken before a concrete sin of the flesh exists. This would require complete honesty on the part of the sinner, which is not always present. Many are not willing to even admit moral weakness until it has become a sin against another person. Such admissions of weakness are discouraged in general society, where appearance is often more important than the heart, and sadly this attitude has badly influenced the functioning of individual Christians and churches. One example of such moral weakness could be when a man thinks that another woman other than his wife is desireable. The attraction itself is normal and healthy for a man, if he does not dwell on it. If he has trouble trying not to think about the woman, though, this could be a problem in the making. He could confess this to his wife, or a male friend if he prefers, to help him pray about overcoming his weakness, and ask God's forgiveness. If he doesn't receive help, the situation might end up with him sleeping with the other woman and committing adultery - since he has already done it in his heart (Matthew 5:28). He still has time to stop the action before the situation gets out of hand. He knows himself and his own weaknesses. This is the ideal, nipping such sins in the bud. Self-control is stronger in some Christians, others need help before they can reach a higher level of self-control. Some may have more self-control in some areas and less in others. The procedure of repentance, sometimes including confession, is there to provide a way out of sinful behavior and lifestyles. We are meant to help each other and compliment each other as Christians.
But full-blown crimes especially major crimes of the type that are repetitive and based on substantial spiritual and moral weakness, like sexual crimes, should be reported to the authorities, as those persons are not only a danger to those in the church, but general society as well. Even if the church has ushered them out of the door, reporting a criminal to the local authorities might prevent the criminal from repeating his crime. Indeed, if we love others as ourselves, we could not do differently than to turn such people over to the police. And if we love ourselves, which is the prerequisite, we would not sweep such incidents under the rug, but deal with them justly.
Paul echoed Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 in 1 Corinthians 5. In another case, Paul also addressed the matter of sin in a church, but was addressing petty disputes that should not need the intervention of the local authorities.
So many misinterpret this passage to mean that we cannot go to court as Christians at all. In this case it was because the believers were going to court because of trivialities that could have been settled in the church, if the church was handling things correctly. He wanted them to act like a unit, and not be so divided. From praxis, it seems that this may be the exception to the rule, since there are few church bodies that are so united. This would require humble spiritual leaders that do not lord it over the congregations and humble congregation members that love their brothers as themselves so that sins against a brother are down to a bare minimum. A humble believer, knowing that he had done wrong, would be willing to pay the other back as expected and would sincerely repent to God and ask the other person’s forgiveness, preferably before that person would need to tell the elders of the church. The humble and wise elders would deal with all mercifully and discreetly. It would never need to come to someone having to leave the church. At least in personal experience, I have not encountered a perfectly functioning church body like that.
I have heard of so many cases where “sins” have been defined not as offenses against others, but as “false” dress, hairstyle and music. Even smoking, television and use of the internet have been condemned as sin. Smoking is unhealthy. Television and the internet may be used for sinful things, but they can be used for good as well. They are not sins. Money is also used for good and bad, yet is not bad in itself. The attitudes of the heart like charity, greed or lust are what determine whether something is good or bad for someone, not the thing itself. Simply watching television or smoking has been and is enough for people to be thrown out some churches, although no such sins exist, especially under the freedom from the law of sin and death that Jesus gave us, Romans 8:1,2. There is no need to confess such irrelevant issues as if they were sins at all, because they are not sins, nor are they to be considered a crime dangerous to or directed at any believer. They do not coincide with the prerequisites for disciplinary action in the church that Jesus commanded and Paul echoed.
Another hindrance to the just implementation of Jesus’ command is that church leaders are not always humble, loving, merciful and understanding with others, and may completely disregard Jesus’ teaching on these subjects.
It is not an accident that the parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:23-35 comes directly after Jesus’ teaching about how sins (and by omission confessions) are to be handled in the church. The two passages complement each other. Fairness, compassion and mercy are to be our guides when sin and disputes are present, as well as justice. A healthy balance is necessary. Love without justice may be harder to imagine, but too often people are concerned only with justice in the absence of love and mercy. This can often lead to spiritual abuse.
Fairness is important to God where human relationships are concerned. In Matthew 7:1,2, the word, “judge” comes from the Greek, “krino”. The definition, “Primarily denotes to separate, select, choose; hence, to determine, and so to judge, pronounce judgment. The uses of this verb in the N.T. may be analyzed as follows: (a) to assume the office of a judge, Matt. 7:1;…..” 4. The word, “judge” used in Romans 2, “krinon”, is from the same root as the one in Matthew 7:1,2. This kind of judging is God's prerogative only, it concerns judgment of the soul, rather than a person's actions. Our judgment of other's actions should be just, but also tempered with love and mercy, from one sinner to another. This doesn't mean that we tolerate sin, just that we have understanding for the weaknesses of fellow sinners. Is Jesus contradicting himself if we consider Matthew 18:15-17? No. He is emphasizing the need for love and mercy in all of our actions, so that we do not misuse his commands. He tells us repeatedly how God’s commands have been misused in the past and warns us against the fact that abuse exists and is sometimes tolerated, he urges us not to tolerate it.
The Pharisees created rules added to God’s commands, making them more difficult or impossible to follow, much as some churches do today.
This parable was about persistence in prayer, yet it holds a second message about how to receive justice if the judge is not to be bothered with the case. Persistence is worth it, don’t just give up.
Paul also warned about having lists of do’s and don’ts. They are useless when it comes to matters of the heart, and the heart is what will keep us from sinning, not rules.
The Old Testament also makes mention of compassion and fairness from one person to another, it is not an invention of the New Testament. Even when compassion was not mentioned, Jesus' method of interpreting the Old Testament shows that it was always implied. Here are just a few examples.
So, considering all of the evidence above concerning scripture, there is no need to confess a sin in front of the congregation, and demanding such a thing would be going against scripture, both according to the letter and the spirit of the law. In no cases except the most extreme is a notification of the congregation necessary if someone simply sins or even sins against another, and even then there was no command that a public confession was necessary. It was only necessary that the sinner confess his sin to another and make restitution. The person that heard the confession and was sure of the genuineness of the repentance could then tell the congregation – only if the matter had warranted their attention in the first place. If they had never been informed of the sin according to the procedure described in Matthew 18, this would be a breach of confidence and an offense against the one whose confidence was broken. Demanding public confessions is unjust and uncompassionate. Civil law and scriptural law can be kept without public confessions. Private confessions accompanied by repentance and a change of heart can be beneficial in a healthy church environment not only for the person that needs to confess a real sin or sinful tendency, but also for the church community even if most never hear the confession. Forced public confessions, even if the sin were real, do nothing for the confessor except cause embarrassment. Non-forced but encouraged public confessions may cause false pride and incite repentance done for show especially if such a practice would become a ritual, like altar calling for repentance or "settling things with God" has become in some circles.
Since our high priest is Jesus Christ and we are priests for one another, confession and sincere repentance can be done directly to God the Father (Hebrews 2,3,5,7; 1 Pet. 2:9,10). Only in cases of personal moral weakness or in case we have committed some sin against another, need we individuals confess or apologize to someone else. Such a confession need not be in front of the congregation. And confession for unknown sins or imaginary man-made sins is certainly out of the question. In the case of slander, the reputation of the person slandered would have to be restored, possibly by the person who did it (as restitution, not confession), since truth should be important to every body of Christians. Even though there seems to be no command against public confessions of individuals, neither is there any explicit command to do so. If anything, the verses of scripture that call us to love others should guide our behavior, even, perhaps especially, when maintaining justice. Any unnecessary action or ommission of an action that causes another embarrassment or pain should be avoided. Since there is no legitimate reason to demand a public confession (or repentance) in front of a church congregation, then I would say that any pastor or church that demands such an action is in the wrong. They are knowingly or unknowingly shaming and inflicting spiritual abuse on that person, something for which they might want to confess, repent and do restitution.
Notes:
1. Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary. Lippincott & Crowell, Published by arrangement with Harper & Row, Inc., 1983.
2. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Publisher Thomas Nelson Inc., 1997.
3. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Publisher Thomas Nelson Inc., 1997.
4. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Publisher Thomas Nelson Inc., 1997.
All websites, even though publicly available are not public domain. This according to The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998.
Go to http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf for a summary or to http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/hr2281.pdf for a full version.
You may print, copy or reference this document for your own use but the name of the author, Carmen Brill, must be included and the copies or references must include a reference to this website, http://jamesfive19.com. You may not distribute this document in your name and you may not distribute it for profit.