The Pastor-Penitent Privilege: A Case Study

Some months ago, an interesting theological conundrum reared its ugly head regarding the seal of the confessional and pastoral counsel. I want to share this story with my fellow pastors on this blog, and hopefully the reader may be edified in our theology and practice of the Christian faith.

From the title I have given this essay, you can already tell that this whole discussion must be sensitive to matters of privacy. With the permission of the senior pastor I work with, the Rev. James Woelmer, and his review of this essay, I want to share with you what we have learned in this ordeal.

There was a clear cut, publicly acknowledged leaving of a spouse, with an unscriptural divorce. Thus far, I am sharing public knowledge, and this is as far as I go.

The counsel from God’s Word given by me and our senior pastor, and our listening to and discussion of the details of what happened, is and always remains sealed. If our pastoral care does not remain totally confidential, then how will Christians ever trust me or any other pastor to come for help and spiritual counsel? Not to mention, we have made a vow before God not to divulge the sins confessed to us. These principles stand on clear passages of Holy Scripture.

As the divorce case came to trial, certain details could not be agreed to between the two parties, and amazingly enough, in Texas, issues in a divorce can be put to a jury trial to be settled. As far as we can tell, this seems to be unique in our country. As this trial by jury came up, suddenly, out of nowhere, the senior pastor and I were subpoenaed to testify in the trial.

We were advised to call the lawyer (of the offending party) who had subpoenaed us and ask for clarification. When we talked to the lawyer over the phone, we asserted that we could not testify publicly nor would we speak to our confidential pastoral care, but nevertheless the lawyer refused to release us from the subpoena. Why not? “You have information in your private counsel with our client that will help our case, and my client has released the rite to privacy and confidentiality.”

Get that? The penitent – or, person we want to be penitent – has “released the rite to privacy and confidentiality” for the sake of somehow winning the case.

I replied to the lawyer, “Excuse me, but I do not care what your client says. Our counsel to your client as one of our flock is always privileged and confidential. There’s no way we are going to share anything discussed here. We have pastor-penitent privilege.”

The lawyer replied: “We’ll let the judge decide what you will or will not say in court.” And with that, the phone line basically went dead. It was clearly a threat. If the lawyer convinces the judge to go against our privilege as pastors with our flock, then perhaps it would come time to make the good confession of the faith, obeying God rather than man, and face the temporal consequences.

The senior pastor and I consulted with a fellow LCMS pastor whom we respect. He advised us to read “The Pastor-Penitent Relationship, Privileged Communications” – a 1999 document of the LCMS CTCR.

Does the CTCR document give the penitent or the person giving confidential information permission to divulge their confidential counsel with the pastor? No! The CTCR gives no such advice. If one looks on page 13 of the CTCR document under “Summary Principles and Practical Guidelines” one can see the summary of all of the previous discussion of this issue in the document: there are no circumstances, as far as the CTCR document is concerned, under which a Lutheran pastor need give away confidential information whether in the confessional or just in private pastoral counsel and aid.

We see the position of the mistaken lawyer in footnote #27 of the CTCR document, which notes the position of the ELCA. The ELCA constitution and bylaws say that the person giving confidential information can give the pastor permission to divulge confidential information, no distinction being made between the confessional or other pastoral communication. However, the CTCR merely notes this position as “interesting” and it is obviously in contrast to their summary principle #2: “Historically, the Lutheran church has consistently and resolutely maintained the seal of the confessional, that is, the confidential nature of confessional communications. The Lutheran church expects its pastors to maintain this position.”

Further, the CTCR’s principle #4 recognizes that although there may be a distinction between communications to the pastor in the confessional and those that are offered for other reasons, “communications to a pastor as pastor… are to be held in strict confidence as privileged communications.” (Pastor-Penitent, CTCR, 13) The CTCR document leaves very small room for breaking this principle, “except in the most extraordinary of circumstances” – and even then, it does not detail what such might be. One might call that the only weakness of the CTCR document.

Doing further research into the matter, we found the “Ethical Guidelines” of our LCMS Texas District written in 2005. (http://www.txdistlcms.org/downloads/Guidelines_for_Ethical_Conduct_of_Called_Servants.pdf)

This document refers to the CTCR document; yet, it contradicts it and seems to come down on the side of the ELCA position, note my emphasis added:

“5.1 Goal of Confidentiality

A called servant maintains the strictest standards of confidentiality in order to provide an opportunity for people to confess any and every sin and to receive forgiveness; to permit discussion of matters of the utmost personal importance; and to protect the good name of Christ’s holy people from malicious gossip and slander. The called servant also has a responsibility to the welfare of the community, which requires reporting information to legal authorities when life and health are discovered to be at risk.

5.2 Confession

An ordained servant of the Word does not reveal those matters that have been revealed to him as a consequence of the confession of an individual. (See CTCR Document, The Pastor Penitent Relationship.)

5.3 Privileged Communications

A called servant regards any entrusted information as privileged communication to be held in the strictest confidentiality. The person divulging the information, not the called servant who receives it, owns the privilege. Entrusted information should be revealed with the full knowledge and consent of the individual. However, in situations where the health and welfare of other people are at risk, or where it is required by law, the called servant will comply with the legal stipulations except for matters under the confessional seal. (See 5.2) When such revelation occurs, the called servant should inform the individual as soon as possible, consistent with the circumstances as legally allowed.”

Somehow, some theologians have found a “responsibility to the welfare of the community” that is nowhere backed up with Scriptures or the Confessions. The Texas document is quite muddled, you are to retain confidences, but you are not if the community needs to know, but you are if under the confessional, but maybe or maybe not if the penitent says so, one can’t tell what to do.

Did Jesus die to defeat and cleanse us of the sin and the corruption of the world and the devil or did He not? God “remembers” our sin “no more,” Jeremiah 31:34. The sins repented of are gone “as far as the east is from the west” in God’s view, Psalm 103:12. Likewise, all of the circumstances and hurtful events that surround, lead to, and follow those sins!

So, who are we to reveal anything given over to God and His forgiveness on account of the blood of Christ? Does our preaching and teaching of God’s Law and Gospel as pastors in private also belong to God? Are we only acting in this office in His stead and by His command? Who are we, whether pastor or penitent, to share publicly what Word of God has or has not been applied in private for the sake of the cure of souls? Further, do we or do we not trust God to protect “the welfare of the community” without one of His pastors divulging what does not belong to them to divulge?

To this humble pastor, no human “owns the privilege” of receiving or giving the counsel of God’s Word – the Bible simply does not acknowledge or leave room for such a position. I ask: is the idea that the penitent “owns the privilege” based on current American legal situations, current cultural views, or one based on a theological argument? This question remains unanswered and undocumented where such an opinion comes from, I saw no documentation in the Texas District ethical guidelines. (I admit, I have not researched the origins of the ELCA position…)

One excellent piece of advice was to consult with a retired judge and LCMS layman who advised the CTCR on the writing of its document in 1999. His advice to us pastors was crystal clear. Under all circumstances, there are no judges in the United States who will not recognize at this time the “Priest/Pastor - Penitent Privilege” in court. The retired judge told us to absolutely maintain confidentiality, and that the lawyer who threatened us was issuing so much hot air.

It turns out, these subpoenas were a scam on the part of the lawyer to keep us pastors out of the courtroom and out of the view of the jury, from sitting behind and in support of our faithful member who has been abandoned. Since we were sworn-in by the judge as witnesses (a new experience for me!), we could not sit in the courtroom. We were excused and never called back to the courthouse, much less to the witness stand. It did make for two days of fearing the ring of our cell phone, the judge telling us he could call us in at anytime to take the stand!

The day may come soon in our country when judges may threaten to throw the pastor in jail over refusing to testify in a divorce trial. One never knows. The whole circumstance, however, certainly worked to sharpen our theology as pastors on this important area of pastoral practice.

Does anyone know where these foreign ideas to the theology and practice of our church come from? Is anyone else not surprised that the ELCA finds the right of the individual to be as or more important than God’s choice and gift to forgive and retain sins and cure souls? Does anyone else find comfort, at least in this CTCR document, that the LCMS stands on the scriptural side of Christian theology and practice in this matter? I realize there is a lot more to say on this, a lot more history and practice good and bad even in our own LCMS. Feel free to comment or criticize.

Rev. Jacob Sutton

On Fasting

Here's a little something I wrote up for our congregation. Rev. David Petersen's recent church newsletter article on the same topic helped me think through some of this (especially under point #1):

The Christian is invited to and expected to fast. Although Christians typically fast on certain days throughout the year--except during the Easter season--Lent is an especially appropriate season to practice fasting. Fasting is a bodily exercise of self-control and repentance, both themes of the Lenten season.

Christians do not fast just to “give something up.” Fasting is not a punishment or a kind of religious masochism. Instead, we fast for two general reasons: 1) to increase the joy of the festive seasons, such as Easter, and 2) to train our souls to be self-controlled.

Firstly, fasting enhances the rhythms of life. When you fast during solemn times, the joy of festivity is enhanced. Small servings of potatoes and vegetables during Lent makes the lamb and pies of Easter taste richer and sweeter. By engaging the body in the mood of the season, the experiences of restraint and of plenty are heightened. Fasting joins your body to what is happening with your spirit.

Secondly, fasting trains your soul. That isn’t a typo. It should not seem odd that bodily exercise ends up training your soul, for your soul is the center and source of your desires. When you intentionally deprive your soul of what it wants, it has to get by without. When you want supper but don’t eat it, not only your belly, but your soul also learns temperance and resiliency. Fasting trains not only your body, but also your self-control.

Why is that important? Your desires, uncontrolled, give in to temptation. They lead you into sin. Uncontrolled desires make idols of what your soul wants: desiring excess food is gluttony; desiring extravagant clothing or cars or décor is greed; desiring a man or woman outside of marriage is adultery. Desiring anything outside of God’s order makes you an idolater.

Fasting is like working out. It is spiritual exercise. As jogging or lifting weights conditions your body, fasting conditions your soul.

So how should you fast? Like exercise, start with a routine you can handle. If you have never fasted before, don’t try to give up food for a whole day. But, on the other hand, make it noticeable. Everyone should be able to give up dessert and second helpings. For moderate fasting, eat smaller portions at each meal. To step it up a bit, replace two meals each with a small snack, and, for the third meal, eat only about half of what you normally would.

Can’t do it every day? Fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, the days Christians traditionally fasted throughout the year.

Want to fast in a specific way to address your particular weaknesses and temptations? Think about what tempts you, and limit your exposure. If shopping is your weakness, no shopping sprees or comfort purchases during Lent. Too much time wasted on the internet, or visiting sites you shouldn’t be? Only use it at work or when someone else is with you. If you need encouragement, counsel, or more ideas talk with your pastor.

Fasting makes you more conscious of your desires. Even as you try to control them, they will seem enhanced, simply because you’re thinking about them. As you become more aware of temptations and sinful desires, confess them. Confess them in your prayers, confess them in preparation for the Divine Service, and confess them to your pastor. Then receive the absolution of Christ, and His life and Spirit to encourage and refresh you on your spiritual journey.

Note: Sundays are never fast days, so go ahead and enjoy the good gifts of creation to their fullest on these days! Also, expectant or nursing mothers, children, and the ill are never expected to fast from food, but to provide the nourishment their bodies need.

May Absolution Be Referred to As a Sacrament?

The 1943 Catechism taught many a Missouri Synod Lutheran that there are only two sacraments. Period. The definition of “sacrament” that we use customarily is not a biblical definition but is rather a theological or church-determined definition. Most of the time Lutherans say that there are two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. And that is right to do. For the definition of sacrament that Lutherans use is threefold: a divine rite instituted by Christ in His earthly ministry that gives the forgiveness of sins and uses a visible, physical element. Under that definition Baptism and the Lord’s Supper most clearly fit. In the case of the absolution spoken by the pastor, absolution can only be called a sacrament if the visible the most crucial thing about what is or isn't a sacrament. Of course in Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution there must be someone there doing the speaking and administration.

However, our own Lutheran Confessions, as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580, something to which the congregations, Lutheran pastors, and our synod subscribes without reservation, also notes that the definition of a sacrament is not something to be quibbled over. They say, “For no prudent man will strive greatly concerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be retained which have God's command and promises.” The reason the Roman Catholic Church lists seven sacraments and we do not is because we don’t use the same definition. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession says in Article XIII:
3] If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God's command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. 4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us 5] for Christ's sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.

Similarly, in the Large Catechism Martin Luther writes:
74] And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament [absolution], which has been called repentance, 75] as it is really nothing else than Baptism.

Absolution is a means of grace along with the preached Word, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren (Christians speaking God’s Word to each other). In the 1991 synodical explanation to the Small Catechism also reminds us that while usually we speak of there being two sacraments, it is also acceptable, though not often mentioned, for Lutherans to speak of absolution as a third sacrament. This is also stated in “What About Confession and Absolution,” in the popular tract series authored by the late Rev. Dr. A.L. Barry, former president of the LCMS. So in conclusion, absolution “may” be freely referred to as a third sacrament among Lutherans, acknowledging that it is a “stretch” of the usual definition. So as our confessions remind us, we will not “strive greatly about the number or term.” In Scripture “sacrament” (mysterion – Greek) means “mystery” but beyond this it is a humanly-devised definition that is descriptive of what we find in the particulars of the means of grace. The number of sacraments is an area of some flexibility according to the definition in our own official Confessions since 1580. In other words, it depends on where the emphasis is placed. It is for catechetical simplicity that two is the most common way of explaining it.

Restore the One Who Is Sick

(I am posting the following with permission from the person referred.)

A couple weeks ago while counseling a parishioner, she mentioned that she had been suffering from an ailment for a number of months. She mentioned it mostly in conjunction with the other difficulties she was experiencing, that they exacerbated each other.

Our session ended with the order of Individual Confession and Absolution. At the end of the ritual, where the absolution is pronounced, I also anointed her with oil and announced to her the passage from James 5, that if anyone is sick, "he must call the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." A few days later she told me that by the next morning she had been healed of her ailment.

The greater miracle here, of course, is the forgiveness of sins, as we rightly and readily confess. But it also reminded me of the intimate connection between the forgiveness of sins and all the other works of God. We confess this in the catechism, that where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. Life and salvation includes the healing of the body.

So what is to prevent us from praying for bodily healing, when the Scriptures command it? We know the warnings: we do not want to get caught up in signs and wonders, distracting us from the essence of Christ's ministry, the forgiveness of sins. Or perhaps we have even been told that after the time of the apostles these kinds of miracles cease. This latter argument I have never found convincing from the Bible passages quoted in its support. Yet we surely do not want to be distracted from the essential ministry of Christ, caught up instead with speculation about miracles which would divert our attention from the things above back to the things of this world.

Such prayers for healing, it seems, need to be made in the context of the absolution and the Office of the Keys. Not only in their context, but subordinate to them. This is also part of what James says: if anyone is sick he calls for prayer, and his sins will be forgiven.

Yet prayers to be healed should also be made in earnest, not out of a theology of glory that sees healing tied to a level of faith, piety, or spirituality, but because healing is tied to forgiveness. Healing of our bodies will occur, sooner or later. Healing is tied to the forgiveness of sins. We are commanded to pray for it.

Finally, that the healing occurred quietly, almost unnoticed until after the fact, also points to the primacy of the forgiveness of sins. We both knew her sins were forgiven as soon as I spoke the words of Our Lord. But even she didn't realize she was healed until some hours later, perhaps even some hours later than the healing actually occurred. It could never be proven that the healing occurred by the word of God. And that is how it should be, for healing, like forgiveness, is assured through faith in the promise of Christ, not by some amazing sign that accompanies it, or a scientifically observable chain of events.

Regarding the Practice of Individual Confession and Holy Absolution

Reverend fathers and brothers in Christ, the Blackbirds have received another question to ponder and discuss, this time from one of our colleagues in the Office of the Holy Ministry, the Reverend Greg Truwe, Associate Pastor of Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church in San Antonio, Texas.

Pastor Truwe is interested in studying the practice of Individual Confession and Absolution, and to that end he has requested the input of those pastors who have been able to incorporate such a regular practice within their parishes. He has posed the following questions, which I encourage not only the Blackbirds but any of our brother pastors to answer in the comments here. Depending on how things develop, a follow-up post could be offered to move things forward. But to begin with, here are Pastor Truwe's initial questions:

For those of you who are currently offering (and encouraging) regular opportunities for private Confession/Absolution, I’m wondering if you might respond to the following questions:

1) If this was a practice that you initiated, how did you go about preparing the congregation to receive it well? Did you make use of adult Bible Class, pre-confirmation catechesis, newsletter articles, sermons, etc.?

2) How has the practice been received? Are many making use of C/A?

3) What does your current practice look like? In other words, how often do you offer it? Are people encouraged to make an appointment at their convenience, or is there a time (say, 2 hours on a Saturday) that is publicized during which you will be available for C/A? Do you prepare a printed order for the confessor? Do you hear the confession in you office, the sanctuary, or some other place? Are you vested? Etc.

4) What resources do you use to teach the people to prepare to make confession?

5) What resources did you use to prepare yourself to hear confession? What resources do you recommend?

In the Case of Besetting Sins

Brothers, in providing pastoral care in cases of besetting sin, especially in dealing with those who struggle with chronic addictions (are there other kinds of besetting sins?), how may we discern between the recurring frailty and weakness of the flesh and persistent unrepentance?

Along the same lines, in such cases of besetting sin, can the pastoral care of souls be assisted and exercised by any sort of corporal discipline or by the assigning of penance? I am not asking whether a pastor should execute some kind of corporal punishment per se, but whether a pastor may request or require any particular bodily discipline or fruits of repentance.

The Office of the Keys, the Rites of Preparation, and Pastoral Care

In contrast to the preaching of the Gospel, which is scattered to the four corners of the world without distinction because the world has been reconciled to God in Christ — and in contrast to the Christian forgiveness of those who trespass against us, which is freely given for Jesus' sake, no strings attached — the Office of the Keys is "that special authority which Christ has given to His Church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinners, but to withhold forgiveness from the unrepentant as long as they do not repent." Accordingly, the called ministers of Christ absolve those who repent of their sins and want to do better, but retain the sins of those who persist in their sins and refuse to repent. These are matters of personal pastoral care for individuals, not a public declaration of that which is universally true in Christ.

Which is why the rites of preparation (the so-called "Confession and Absolution" at the beginning of the Divine Service, as in all five LSB "settings") are not a substitute for Individual Confession and Absolution, such as our Lutheran Confessions everywhere extol. It is also why the history of those rites of preparation has been a bit chequered. So do we find numerous historic examples of conditional absolutions, which are ultimately worse than nothing and are no absolution at all; because the proud sinner will presume upon the absolution, despite the caveat, while the humbled and remorseful penitent will be driven back to his or her own resolve by the condition.

The Missouri Synod hasn't had conditional absolutions, thankfully, but we have gone to the opposite extreme, following the "Absolvo Te" tradition of the Saxon agendas; or so I am given to understand the trajectory. Thus, the public rites of preparation with their general confession are met with the strong indicative-active form of the Absolution from the rite of Individual Confession: "I forgive you all your sins in the Name + of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This is very clear and forthright Gospel, Christ be praised. But here there is at least a potential confusion of the Office of the Keys with the preaching of the Gospel to the world; because there is no discernment or distinction between repentant and unrepentant sinners.

Historically, in the rites of preparation, Lutherans tended to prefer the so-called "Declaration of Grace," such as one finds in the p. 5 "Service without Communion" in TLH, and now as an optional response to the general confession in LW and LSB. This form is a simple and succinct proclamation of the Gospel, that God has given His Son to die for us, and for His sake forgives us all our sins. It holds forth the universal promise of that Gospel, as it is openly preached to all creation: "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." It typically concludes with a prayer or petition that God would grant such faith and forgiveness to all. But it does not presume to exercise the official "Loosing Key" indiscrimantly. It does not pretend to be the pastoral care of Individual Confession and Absolution, but is rather the more general pastoral care of preaching.

In a relatively small congregation like Emmaus, the use of the "Absolve Te" form in the rites of preparation usually gives me no qualms of conscience; because I know the people well, whom I am absolving. When we have visitors on any given Sunday, I almost always have some opportunity to chat with them, even if only briefly, prior to the Divine Service. In a much larger congregation, especially one with frequent and numerous visitors, I'm not at all sure how this would work with much integrity. Leastwise not as an exercise of the Office of the Keys in the way that our Lutheran Small Catechism teaches and explains it.

Several weeks ago, this was brought to my awareness and consideration when we had a large number of visitors at Emmaus. Many of the students of our local Lutheran school were there with their families to sing with and for our congregation. It was lovely to have them join us, but it meant there were dozens of people I didn't know gathered together with the members of my own flock. I don't hold that against them, nor do I have the slightest hesitation in preaching the Law and the Gospel to any such group, whether or not I know anybody in the crowd. But is it really right and appropriate for me, "as a called and ordained servant of Christ," to absolve an entire group of people, all at once, many of whom I do not know and will not have any opportunity to know in any context of personal pastoral care?

My normal practice at Emmaus is to use the strong indicative-active "Absolvo Te" response to the general confession during the festival seasons of Christmas-Epiphany and Eastertide, and the so-called "Declaration of Grace" during the penitential seasons of Advent and Lent. I also alternate between these two forms through the post-Pentecost tides, preferring the "Declaration of Grace" during August-September and November. According to this pattern and practice, I did go ahead and use the "Absolvo Te" on that recent Sunday of Easter when we had our many visitors, but, as I say, it did raise the question in my mind as to whether that form was appropriate under the circumstances.

I have had similar concerns, and have wondered the same thing, when I have served as the officiant at large gatherings of people from numerous congregations. Where I have been given the option, I have generally preferred to use the "Declaration of Grace" on such occasions; not because I doubt or question anyone's repentance, but because I simply have no way of exercising the pastoral care that ought to go hand-in-hand with the Office of the Keys.

So now I am wondering if any of my fellow Blackbirds, or any of our astute readers, have any further thoughts, comments or suggestions on this question and concern of mine. Thanks.

Proposed Pastoral Practice regarding Confirmation and First Communion

[The following is a proposal that I have been making to our board of elders regarding the practice of confirmation and first communion here at Messiah. I would welcome your comments and suggestions. -Peperkorn]

A Proposed Practice Regarding First Communion and Confirmation of children at Messiah Lutheran Church

By Pastor Todd A. Peperkorn

December 18, 2008

Proposed pastoral practice regarding First Communion:

That Messiah Lutheran Church admit children to Holy Communion when the pastor, the child, the parents and at least one elder all concur that the child is prepared to receive Christ’s Body and Blood in Holy Communion. “Preparation” shall include but not be limited to a clear confession of faith in the Gospel by means of reciting by heart the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, by being examined and absolved by the pastor (Individual Confession and Absolution), and by verbally expressing their desire to receive Christ’s Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Proposed pastoral practice regarding Confirmation:

That Messiah Lutheran Church confirm those children in the Christian Faith who can recite by heart the Small Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther with Explanation, who have been examined and absolved, and who are able to confess the faith and answer the questions placed upon confirmands in the Rite of Confirmation found in the Lutheran Service Book.

Rationale

The reason for this proposed practice is simple: It is of great benefit for all Christians to receive Christ’s Body and Blood, and that we should be about giving our children Jesus as much as possible, and as soon as possible.


The challenges for this proposed policy are several:

1) By separating confirmation and first communion, we run the risk of denigrating the importance of the rite of confirmation.

2) This practice, while gaining acceptance in the LCMS as a whole, is not universally accepted, and does require explanation.

3) Because this is based on the confession of faith of the individual and not an arbitrary age, it makes the practice appear random, when in fact this is more consistent with our understanding of worthiness of receiving the Sacrament.

Quotations From the Book of Concord

6 Confirmation and extreme unction are rites received from the Fathers that not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God’s command. Therefore, it is useful to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God’s direct command and a clear promise of grace.

Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 185.

38 We cheerfully maintain the old traditions made in the Church for the sake of usefulness and peace. We interpret them in a more moderate way and reject the opinion that holds they justify. 39 Our enemies falsely accuse us of setting aside good ordinances and Church discipline. We can truly declare that the public form of the churches is more fitting with us than with the adversaries. 40 If anyone will consider it in the right way, we conform to the canons more closely than the adversaries. Among the adversaries, unwilling celebrants, and those hired for pay, and very frequently only for pay, celebrate the Masses. They sing psalms, not that they may learn or pray, but for the sake of the service (as though this work were a service) or, at least, for the sake of reward. Among us many use the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day. They do so after they have been first instructed, examined, and absolved. The children sing psalms in order that they may learn. The people also sing so that they may either learn or pray. 41 Among the adversaries there is no catechizing of the children whatever, about which even the canons give commands. Among us the pastors and ministers of the churches are encouraged publicly to instruct and hear the youth. This ceremony produces the best fruit. 42 Among the adversaries, in many regions, no sermons are delivered during the entire year, except during Lent. Yet the chief service of God is to preach the Gospel. When the adversaries do preach, they speak of human traditions, of the worship of saints and similar trifles, which the people justly hate. Therefore, they are immediately deserted in the beginning, after the reading of the Gospel text. A few better ones begin now to speak of good works; but about the righteousness of faith, faith in Christ, and the comfort of consciences, they say nothing. Indeed, this most wholesome part of the Gospel they rail at with their reproaches. 43 On the contrary, in our churches all the sermons are filled with such topics as these: repentance; the fear of God; faith in Christ, the righteousness of faith, the comfort of consciences by faith; the exercises of faith; prayer, what its nature should be, and that we should be fully confident that it is powerful, that it is heard; the cross; the authority of officials and all civil ordinances; the distinction between the kingdom of Christ, or the spiritual kingdom, and political affairs; marriage; the education and instruction of children; chastity; all the offices of love. 44 From this condition of the churches it may be determined that we earnestly keep Church discipline, godly ceremonies, and good Church customs.

Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 193.

Forgiveness: Attitude and Acquittal

In the Holy Gospel Christ commands Christians to forgive from their hearts those who sin against them. Christians are to have the same forgiving attitude as God, whose forgiveness knows no limit (Matthew 18). Stern warnings are spoken by Jesus against the unforgiving heart, both in the commentary on the Fifth Petition of the Lord's Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. This forgiveness, like God's forgiving attitude toward the world in Christ, is to exist regardless of any change or recognition of wrong doing on the part of the offender. It is in this sense, objective and unconditional. Individual Christians are commanded to have a forgiving attitude towards all, and are not commanded to retain sins.

The Church's forgiveness, that which is announced and declared chiefly through the Office of the Holy Ministry, is in some sense conditional. Christ does not command the disciples in John 20 to forgive the sins of the penitent and impenitent alike, according to the Small Catechism. A pastor could not in good conscience absolve someone who lacked a "broken and contrite heart." Not that a pastor can look into the heart, but if someone says he or she is "proud" of something they did and is not really confessing it as a sin, it would seem to suggest that there was no contrition. Another difference between the Church's forgiveness and that of the Christian heart is that the Christian does not wait for someone to ask for forgiveness before forgiving him from the heart. Typically, the Church forgives someone who asks for it. "Pastor, please hear my confession and forgive all my sins according to God's will."

This, it seems, reflects that theological principle that God both has forgiven the world from His heart on the basis of the atonement (objective justification), and yet, offers this forgiveness or divine acquittal to those who ask for it (subjective justification). In both cases, the foundation for the forgiveness is the same: the atoning death of Christ Jesus. Objective Justification has to do with God's total contentment with the world as it is in Christ, his forgiving attitude towards all regardless of whether or not they repent. Subjective Justification then has to do with the forgiveness that is pronounced and apprehended by faith.

Just some thoughts as the day begins.

Compel me to Absolve you!

The following is a quote from Luther's Large Catechism "An exhortation to confession" -

28 So we teach what a splendid, precious, and comforting thing Confession is. Furthermore, we strongly urge people not to despise a blessing that in view of our great need is so priceless. Now, if you are a Christian, then you do not need either my pressuring or the pope’s orders, but you will undoubtedly compel yourself to come to Confession and will beg me for a share in it. 29 However, if you want to despise it and proudly continue without Confession, then we must draw the conclusion that you are no Christian and should not enjoy the Sacrament either. For you despise what no Christian should despise. In that way you make it so that you cannot have forgiveness of your sins. This is a sure sign that you also despise the Gospel.
30 To sum it up, we want to have nothing to do with coercion. However, if someone does not listen to or follow our preaching and its warning, we will have nothing to do with him [1 Corinthians 5:11], nor may he have any share in the Gospel. If you were a Christian, then you ought to be happy to run more than a hundred miles to Confession and not let yourself be urged to come. You should rather come and compel us to give you the opportunity. 31 For in this matter the compulsion must be the other way around: we must act under orders, you must come into freedom. We pressure no one, but we let ourselves be pressured, just as we let people compel us to preach to administer the Sacrament.32 When I urge you to go to Confession, I am doing nothing else than urging you to be a Christian. If I have brought you to the point of being a Christian, I have thereby also brought you to Confession. For those who really desire to be true Christians, to be rid of their sins, and to have a cheerful conscience already possess the true hunger and thirst. They reach for the bread, just as Psalm 42:1 says of a hunted deer, burning in the heat with thirst, 33 “As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for You, O God.” In other words, as a deer with anxious and trembling eagerness strains toward a fresh, flowing stream, so I yearn anxiously and tremblingly for God’s Word, Absolution, the Sacrament, and so forth. 34 See, that would be teaching right about Confession, and people could be given such a desire and love for it that they would come and run after us for it, more than we would like. Let the papists plague and torment themselves and others who pass up the treasure and exclude themselves from it. 35 Let us, however, lift our hands in praise and thanksgiving to God [1 Timothy 2:8] for having graciously brought us to this our understanding of Confession.

I was compelled, surprisingly so, to absolve some of the children while recently at Higher Things in St. Louis. Of course I had not taken any vestments as I was not serving during any of the services that week thus I had to borrow them and a stole. These children came and asked to receive Holy Absolution. Only two of the seven asked. They had all been "compelled" to come to private confession once during the course of their confirmation training and prior to being confirmed. They had already been examined by me and received into fellowship at the Holy Supper using the rite in LSB "First communion prior to confirmation".

After confession was over for the evening I went with a few brothers to converse about this and other topics over a cool beer. The conversation turned to how one actually "does" confession well, meaning the Father confessor and not the penitent. A very helpful suggestion was holding private confession on Saturday evening and thus, with sermon prepared from text studied during the week, one can provide counsel and exhortation that is not only relevant but new as the penitent may return (hopefully) for confession again and will not hear again the same pat lines or counsel regarding their sin. Well and good.

But with all the preaching on the joy of the absolution and the clean conscience that God's absolution gives to the repentant and contrite sinner, I do not have people banging down the door pressuring me to hear their confession. One brother suggested that I just set a date and time and offer confession rather than an open invitation that if one so desires they can schedule and appointment.

I believe that the Luther quote above puts to rest any notion that confession is "Roman" but rather that the confession of the Lutherans is free, not compelled, brings complete remission of sins and not just a beginning to what must be done for satisfaction. I must confess however, that even as straight forward, even blunt a person as I am, I cringe at the statement,"29 However, if you want to despise it and proudly continue without Confession, then we must draw the conclusion that you are no Christian and should not enjoy the Sacrament either." This statement condemns me as I have yet to find, seek out, a father confessor and thus have not taken advantage of but maybe rather despised such a precious gift of God. The Table would be empty at my church if this were held to be the regulation. What to do? For me I know but for all for whom I am accountable before God?

My question is how have those of you who have instituted private confession and absolution done so in congregations that have never had it and over what period of time did you do so? I have been with this congregation for over six years, starting as vicar and then called and ordained here, have made some, maybe many, liturgical changes and have begun with much younger age communion, but have yet to establish private confession and absolution. Also, how would you answer questions in light of Luther's exhortation and condemnation of those who would not come to confession or take umbrage with his statement that such are not Christians?