Confessing your sins to a priest? ( Or other authority)

[Albion]

I have repeatedly stated this isn't about public confession of every sin as if the individual needs to stand before the congregation and give a list of their wrong doings. This is about fostering a community in which open confession is the norm, where individuals are comfortable confessing to one another and do not feel any need to cover their sins.

Obviously, you two are describing opposing views concerning a confession of sins.

The issue appears to be whether or not there is someone involved who has a God-given authority to pronounce an absolution, i.e. God's forgiveness of sins.

 

[Fervent]

Obviously, you two are describing opposing views concerning a confession of sins.

The issue appears to be whether or not there is someone involved who has a God-given authority to pronounce an absolution, i.e. God's forgiveness of sins.

While he may view that as an issue, it's not critical to my view of confession. Absolution is a small fragment of the purpose of confession as I've laid it out. Though the broader issue of whether confession is done in order to receive forgiveness rather than as an act of faith and acknowledgement that forgiveness has already been given may be cogent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Assumption? No, it's an observation.


That's quite revealing of where your mind goes.


What I asked was not intended to shame you, but to question the disproportionate push-back you have been giving. At every turn you have twisted what I have said to ridiculous proportions as if you are looking for a cause to attack.


I'm not sure if you don't grasp what I am advocating, or you are intentionally distorting it. I have repeatedly stated this isn't about public confession of every sin as if the individual needs to stand before the congregation and give a list of their wrong doings. This is about fostering a community in which open confession is the norm, where individuals are comfortable confessing to one another and do not feel any need to cover their sins.

I have been at every opportunity, not twisting what you say, but taking it to its logical extrapolation. You, meanwhile, until this post, fail to show that you do NOT mean EVERY sin. Here you decry such a notion as if you had never meant that. Maybe you did not meant that, but your light sweet notion of a freed conscience by route of confession to one another includes the logical extreme —you show no wisdom of any sort of boundary, but instead turn antagonistic when the need for a boundary is discussed.

If I were to call your bluff —demand that you practice what you preach right here and now, and confess your sins to the readers of this thread— would you continue in the same vein as you have been? Or would you demonstrate the need for some boundary? (After all, any congregation is no different, full of all kinds of mindsets, pretenses, assumptions and motives...)

 

[Fervent]

I have been at every opportunity, not twisting what you say, but taking it to its logical extrapolation. You, meanwhile, until this post, fail to show that you do NOT mean EVERY sin. Here you decry such a notion as if you had never meant that. Maybe you did not meant that, but your light sweet notion of a freed conscience by route of confession to one another includes the logical extreme —you show no wisdom of any sort of boundary, but instead turn antagonistic when the need for a boundary is discussed.

Taking it to an extreme is a distortion and twisting, unless such an extreme is expressed. The issue isn't the number of sins, but the implied method of delivery you seemed to be envisioning. If I were giving the impression of a complete lack of boundaries, then I was not as clear as I would have hoped. Though I did explicitly mention that maintaining healthy boundaries is a consideration in at least one post. My antagonism was a response to the absurd lengths you took my proposition to, as what I proposed is not nearly that extreme.

If I were to call your bluff —demand that you practice what you preach right here and now, and confess your sins to the readers of this thread— would you continue in the same vein as you have been? Or would you demonstrate the need for some boundary? (After all, any congregation is no different, full of all kinds of mindsets, pretenses, assumptions and motives...)

I have no qualms about confessing sins. For instance, I have a prediliction for inappropriate content which occasionally sears my conscience to the point where I do not even care that it is a sin. Now, that is not to say I do not recognize and maintain boundaries of some sort it is simply that shame, guilt, and a false sense of self-preservation do not prevent me from being open about my struggles. My sins have been forgiven by God, so men may judge me at their leisure.

 

[Albion]

While he may view that as an issue, it's not critical to my view of confession.

It's probably more that I confused you with another poster. My apologies.

 

[Paidiske]

While we may pray generic prayers, specific prayers are more effective.

This supposes that the effectiveness depends on our wording, rather than God's gracious response, and I'm not sure that I'd agree with that.

Yes, community culture can certainly cause people to feel pressure to conform. Yet this isn't really a reason to not foster a community where open confession is a norm since most of the things that cause us to refrain from confession are unhealthy.

I don't agree. Most of the things that cause us to refrain from sharing our every weakness with all and sundry are healthy and necessary protective behaviours. That may point to an unhealthy community which is not fit for such sharing, but we're not going to make it safer by asking the lamb to bare her neck.

At its extreme (and yes, I am very concerned about extremes, because churches are prone to them) what this kind of culture can pressure people to do, is share their vulnerabilities and wounds with people who will use that knowledge to abuse them. We have seen that happen time and time and time again.

I think you're misunderstanding, because this isn't about everything being known by everyone.

Well then yes, I have no idea what you're talking about. Because you seem to keep advocating for a community where everyone is comfortable "airing their sins," but I don't know how you do that without everyone then knowing what you've aired.

You may be comfortable posting your sins here; as someone who's had what I've posted here used to attack me, I am not so comfortable. I don't think that's because I'm trapped in guilt and shame, but because I've learned that not everyone is safe, even if, ideally in a church they would be.

Taking it to an extreme is a distortion and twisting, unless such an extreme is expressed.

Or it's an important way to assess the possible harm of a course of action.

 

[Fervent]

This supposes that the effectiveness depends on our wording, rather than God's gracious response, and I'm not sure that I'd agree with that.

This is an entire can of theological worms, but effective prayer doesn't mean "more likely to get a response" as it is not about persuading God to act or informing Him of things He does not already know. Non-specific prayers easily become ritual, empty prayers rather than engendering in the individual praying a sense of caretaking for the one being prayed for. Non-specific prayers also do not give us the ability to see them fulfilled, because there is no true measure of a generic prayer.

I don't agree. Most of the things that cause us to refrain from sharing our every weakness with all and sundry are healthy and necessary protective behaviours. That may point to an unhealthy community which is not fit for such sharing, but we're not going to make it safer by asking the lamb to bare her neck.

Oh? It seems to me the things that keep us from sharing are fear, shame, and guilt. Which of those is healthy?

At its extreme (and yes, I am very concerned about extremes, because churches are prone to them) what this kind of culture can pressure people to do, is share their vulnerabilities and wounds with people who will use that knowledge to abuse them. We have seen that happen time and time and time again.

Such vulnerability creates opportunities for the gospel. Christianity is a radical faith that calls us to trust God in a radical way. Operating out of fear of the world and what it can do(and does), rather than reacting to God's enabling grace simply tells the world that our hope and trust is nothing more than another man-made philosophy.

Well then yes, I have no idea what you're talking about. Because you seem to keep advocating for a community where everyone is comfortable "airing their sins," but I don't know how you do that without everyone then knowing what you've aired.

There are two modes that could be viewed as communal confession, a public spectacle that can only bring about a sense of otherness and shame and a community that makes itself vulnerable to one another. While certainly everyone may know sins in an open community, if it is the norm that people disclose things there is no salaciousness to spreading people's sins. Most people aren't really all that interested in other people, unless there's something scandalous and an open community removes the scandal.

You may be comfortable posting your sins here; as someone who's had what I've posted here used to attack me, I am not so comfortable. I don't think that's because I'm trapped in guilt and shame, but because I've learned that not everyone is safe, even if, ideally in a church they would be.

Since when is the Christian life about being safe? If they crucified the master, why should the servant expect anything less?

Or it's an important way to assess the possible harm of a course of action.

No, taking it to the extreme doesn't assess "possible harm" it simply serves as an intentional distortion. If someone proposes drinking water every day, taking it to the extreme of drinking so much you give yourself hypernatremia does not accurately recognize potential harm but exagerates it.

 

[Paidiske]

This is an entire can of theological worms, but effective prayer doesn't mean "more likely to get a response" as it is not about persuading God to act or informing Him of things He does not already know. Non-specific prayers easily become ritual, empty prayers rather than engendering in the individual praying a sense of caretaking for the one being prayed for. Non-specific prayers also do not give us the ability to see them fulfilled, because there is no true measure of a generic prayer.

I don't really agree, but it's getting really off topic, so would rather not pursue that further.

Oh? It seems to me the things that keep us from sharing are fear, shame, and guilt. Which of those is healthy?

Well, first, it's a heck of a lot more complicated than that. And second, if the fear is reasonable (ie. you're afraid that telling someone else will mean they then treat you badly, and in fact that is likely to happen) then that fear is a healthy response to a real threat.

Such vulnerability creates opportunities for the gospel. Christianity is a radical faith that calls us to trust God in a radical way. Operating out of fear of the world and what it can do(and does), rather than reacting to God's enabling grace simply tells the world that our hope and trust is nothing more than another man-made philosophy.

Have you ever done any study in psychology, pastoral care, or trauma? Because while I agree about radical trust of God, dismissing the possibility of abuse in communities without addressing it, is too much a pattern in church life, and itself a red flag for safety.

Since when is the Christian life about being safe? If they crucified the master, why should the servant expect anything less?

There is a time for being vulnerable. But expecting every person who walks through our doors to be automatically vulnerable, not for the sake of the mission or the gospel, but because you have decided that is the ideal, is not appropriate. Indeed, it is abusive; more akin to the crucifiers than the crucified.

No, taking it to the extreme doesn't assess "possible harm" it simply serves as an intentional distortion.

Well, here's the thing. I've been in ministry in a bunch of different churches now. In every single one of them, in different ways, what you're advocating would have ended up causing harm. You may say that's an indication of unhealthy churches and you wouldn't be wrong, but we don't have the luxury of pretending that churches are healthy when they aren't (and I've never encountered a church that was perfectly healthy, nor do I believe I will this side of eternity). Our duty is to care for people, not put them in harm's way.

 

[DaveM]

I confessed my sins to a priest for a majority of my life. I was in bondage to sin the majority of my life.

NOT until I repented and asked Jesus to forgive me, was I set free from the bondage of sin that had control over me.

I went to a priest to confess only because thats how I was raised, once I started reading Gods word, I stopped going to confession and went TO God through his Son Jesus as the word tells us to do.

 

[Fervent]

I don't really agree, but it's getting really off topic, so would rather not pursue that further.

Fair enough.

Well, first, it's a heck of a lot more complicated than that. And second, if the fear is reasonable (ie. you're afraid that telling someone else will mean they then treat you badly, and in fact that is likely to happen) then that fear is a healthy response to a real threat.

There is only one appropriate fear, and that's fear of God. Being motivated by fear of man and what he may do is "reasonable," sure, but it is disbelief. Now that is not to say we should encourage people to put themselves in a position to be harmed for the sake of it, but if the primary motive for not confessing is a fear of repercusions then that is an unhealthy response.

Have you ever done any study in psychology, pastoral care, or trauma? Because while I agree about radical trust of God, dismissing the possibility of abuse in communities without addressing it, is too much a pattern in church life, and itself a red flag for safety.

Encouraging open confession does not preclude intervening in abuse, nor does it entail taking a blind eye to its possiblity of it happening.

There is a time for being vulnerable. But expecting every person who walks through our doors to be automatically vulnerable, not for the sake of the mission or the gospel, but because you have decided that is the ideal, is not appropriate. Indeed, it is abusive; more akin to the crucifiers than the crucified.

This is a distortion of what I have said, especially since I have explicitly stated that what I am advocating is making open confession normative not expecting people to immediately be ready to dive in the deep end. Being willing to make ourselves vulnerable to each other is a marker of love, and the Christian community must be marked by its love. Being unwilling, and withholding out of fear of abuse and distrust is not a marker of love. Though one must first be loved in order to be prepared to show love.

Well, here's the thing. I've been in ministry in a bunch of different churches now. In every single one of them, in different ways, what you're advocating would have ended up causing harm. You may say that's an indication of unhealthy churches and you wouldn't be wrong, but we don't have the luxury of pretending that churches are healthy when they aren't (and I've never encountered a church that was perfectly healthy, nor do I believe I will this side of eternity). Our duty is to care for people, not put them in harm's way.

This isn't something that happens by fiat, and ultimately most things that would be good for a church would be harmful if implemented in full immediately and without recognition of the gradual way change happens. But this is a question of implementation rather than an indictment of the concept, and the goal is not to have an immediately healthy church but to direct the church towards health as a rudder.

 

[Paidiske]

There is only one appropriate fear, and that's fear of God. Being motivated by fear of man and what he may do is "reasonable," sure, but it is disbelief. Now that is not to say we should encourage people to put themselves in a position to be harmed for the sake of it, but if the primary motive for not confessing is a fear of repercusions then that is an unhealthy response.

I think this is grossly unfair. To say to people who are not ready to share everything with everyone that this is "disbelief" is to heap blame on people who may not be at all blameworthy.

It is good and right for people to attend to their own care and safety. For many people, their ability to do that has been impaired, and we should help them to work on it, not tell them off for it.

Encouraging open confession does not preclude intervening in abuse, nor does it entail taking a blind eye to its possiblity of it happening.

Frankly, I find the thrust of your posts to be bordering on abusive, and if you were saying such things in my congregation I would be deeply concerned and pondering how to intervene.

This is a distortion of what I have said, especially since I have explicitly stated that what I am advocating is making open confession normative not expecting people to immediately be ready to dive in the deep end.

But the minute you make it normative, you place pressure on people to conform to the norm, whether they are ready or not.

Though one must first be loved in order to be prepared to show love.

That would be a better place to put the emphasis. Love does not make demands of openness, but respects people's working through things at their own pace.

But this is a question of implementation rather than an indictment of the concept, and the goal is not to have an immediately healthy church but to direct the church towards health as a rudder.

Your posts come across very much with a tone of, "All believers should be doing this to the full right now, or they're unloving, untrusting, disbelieving." That is what is causing some of us to push back.

 

[Fervent]

I think this is grossly unfair. To say to people who are not ready to share everything with everyone that this is "disbelief" is to heap blame on people who may not be at all blameworthy.

It is good and right for people to attend to their own care and safety. For many people, their ability to do that has been impaired, and we should help them to work on it, not tell them off for it.

Again, you are twisting what I am saying. I did not say not being immediately ready to have absolutely no secrets with anybody is disbelief. I said being motivated by fear of what may happen is disbelief, because there is only one fear that should enter a believers life.

Frankly, I find the thrust of your posts to be bordering on abusive, and if you were saying such things in my congregation I would be deeply concerned and pondering how to intervene.

Right, because encouraging fostering an environment of openness is so abusive. Any sense of "abusiveness" is likely because you keep making leaps to the extreme rather than actually paying attention to what I am advocating.

But the minute you make it normative, you place pressure on people to conform to the norm, whether they are ready or not.

This objection seems specious to me, as the same objection could be placed on any positive behavior that requires a period of adjustment. People placing pressure on themselves to take steps they are not ready for is only a negative if what they are taking steps towards is a negative. If openness is a positive, then the pressure to conform will cause them to make forward progression. Now, that is not to say there will be no fallout or regrets but the question ultimately is whether the thing that people feel pressure to do is ultimately good or not. Sometimes a little pressure and discomfort is necessary for growth, rather than being stuck in a comfortable but ultimately unhealthy pattern.

That would be a better place to put the emphasis. Love does not make demands of openness, but respects people's working through things at their own pace.

And what I have been suggesting is not exclusive to recognizing that not everyone is prepared for such things. But love also doesn't simply leave people be, it pushes and pulls. It calls higher and makes proscriptions, it maintains expectations of growth. If something is a good, and will ultimately benefit a person, love encourages that thing. Your whole objection appears to be about pacing, but I have made no suggestion of pace or timeline. I am advocating a practice that is an eventual, with no recommendation to how/when it happens in a person's life. If it is a good, then fostering an environment that works towards it is good.

Your posts come across very much with a tone of, "All believers should be doing this to the full right now, or they're unloving, untrusting, disbelieving." That is what is causing some of us to push back.

While my tone or some other aspect of what I am saying may come across as such, that's simply my style of speaking. Proscriptives must be absolute, just as Jesus "demanded" such things as "Be perfect." Does that mean in practice there are absolute expectations? No, people need to be met where they're at. But fostering an environment of open confession actually should increase a congregations ability to meet people where they are at since there will be fewer false impressions of perfection and more awareness that people who have been in the faith a long time continue to struggle, often with the same sins over and over again. When sins are kept in the closet and fences are kept mended it is far too easy for attitudes of "we're not like them" to develop.

 

[Paidiske]

I said being motivated by fear of what may happen is disbelief, because there is only one fear that should enter a believers life.

And I'm saying that's both flat out wrong and pastorally dangerous. Fear is an appropriate response to a threat. Blaming and shaming people for feeling fear is to blame the victim.

Right, because encouraging fostering an environment of openness is so abusive.

It can be, if it makes demands of people.

Any sense of "abusiveness" is likely because you keep making leaps to the extreme rather than actually paying attention to what I am advocating.

It seems to me that you are oblivious to the potential harm of what you're advocating.

People placing pressure on themselves to take steps they are not ready for is only a negative if what they are taking steps towards is a negative.

Not true. There are many positive things one should not do before one is ready.

but the question ultimately is whether the thing that people feel pressure to do is ultimately good or not.

No. For example, some people might feel pressured to go and become missionaries. While being a missionary is objectively a good thing, for a person not cut out for it, it will be a disaster. What is right for each person at any given point must be carefully discerned, without coercion.

Your whole objection appears to be about pacing, but I have made no suggestion of pace or timeline.

No, my objection is about pressure/coercion. If someone wants to share everything on their heart, fine! But the minute you tell people for whom that's not safe or healthy that they should, then we're in a whole different space.

Proscriptives must be absolute

No, again, that is pastorally dangerous. I notice that you didn't answer my question about training in pastoral care/trauma/psychology. I highly recommend doing some reading on trauma.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And I'm saying that's both flat out wrong and pastorally dangerous. Fear is an appropriate response to a threat. Blaming and shaming people for feeling fear is to blame the victim.

Unfortunately, there is a form of political correctness within Christendom, and within branches of the tree, and even within families, one brother or sister to another, where one bullies another into submission/agreement.

But another comment that buttresses yours: Christ is incredibly kind and patient, not holding even our willful ignorance against us —he even promotes our fear of perdition, or desire for reward, as valid motives for pursuing Christ.

 

[Fervent]

And I'm saying that's both flat out wrong and pastorally dangerous. Fear is an appropriate response to a threat. Blaming and shaming people for feeling fear is to blame the victim.

26 “Do not be afraid of them, for nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing is secret that will not be made known. 27 What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light, and what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

It can be, if it makes demands of people.

And this is where the principle issue comes in, because you're essentially combatting a strawman. What I am advocating is not going around and making demands from on high about what people should do, but about creating an environment that defies the cultural norm of secrecy and isolation and instead fosters open disclosure and mutual vulnerability through confession.

It seems to me that you are oblivious to the potential harm of what you're advocating.

And it seems to me you're oblivious to the actual harm that individualist cultural norms does.

Not true. There are many positive things one should not do before one is ready.

Sure, but the backlash from making a step in a positive direction prematurely is generally less than the real harm caused by perpetuating unhealthy cycles because the status quo is always more comfortable.

No. For example, some people might feel pressured to go and become missionaries. While being a missionary is objectively a good thing, for a person not cut out for it, it will be a disaster. What is right for each person at any given point must be carefully discerned, without coercion.

Being a missionary is not something that is basically universally healthy to begin with. But again, the central issue appears to be that you're imagining some sort of coercive influence rather than making any sort of objection to the question of whether or not confession is a healthy practice. Is fostering an environment in which people are encouraged to eat a healthy diet "coercive?" Should it be avoided because some people lean on food because of trauma? Should we avoid fostering such an environment because some people will be harmed by going through cycles of dieting and binging? Pressure to conform is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if the conformity is towards something that is generally healthy.

No, my objection is about pressure/coercion. If someone wants to share everything on their heart, fine! But the minute you tell people for whom that's not safe or healthy that they should, then we're in a whole different space.

Your objection is spurious at best, because it can be applied to any behavior and implies that we shouldn't have things that are normative in a community at all since there is no communal ethic that is universally safe.

No, again, that is pastorally dangerous. I notice that you didn't answer my question about training in pastoral care/trauma/psychology. I highly recommend doing some reading on trauma.

First, your declaration that it is "pastorally dangerous" implies that there is only one way to pastor. Some are called to pastor through a prophetic mold, in which case making absolute proscriptions is not only not dangerous but is what is called for. Simply because it is not your preferred mode does not make your mode preferential. It's not a good fit for every congregation, but neither is a constant mercy worker. Either with the wrong congregation can cause harm, but if a person is called to pastor they must pastor as God has called them rather than conforming to a different mold.

 

[Paidiske]

And this is where the principle issue comes in, because you're essentially combatting a strawman. What I am advocating is not going around and making demands from on high about what people should do, but about creating an environment that defies the cultural norm of secrecy and isolation and instead fosters open disclosure and mutual vulnerability through confession.

But don't you see that by making statements about norms and what people should do, that does place pressure on people to conform?

And it seems to me you're oblivious to the actual harm that individualist cultural norms does.

Not at all. But placing expectations on our most vulnerable isn't the right way to tackle that.

Sure, but the backlash from making a step in a positive direction prematurely is generally less than the real harm caused by perpetuating unhealthy cycles because the status quo is always more comfortable.

This is not something that can be determined as a blanket rule, but must be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis. Which is where a wise and experienced confessor may be a good thing.

But again, the central issue appears to be that you're imagining some sort of coercive influence rather than making any sort of objection to the question of whether or not confession is a healthy practice.

Not at all. I'm happy to say that confession is a very healthy practice. But I'm not happy to equate that with an expectation of public confession shared openly with the whole congregation.

And yes, attacking the character of those who are reluctant (as disbelieving, unloving and so on), does amount to a degree of coercion.

Is fostering an environment in which people are encouraged to eat a healthy diet "coercive?"

It certainly can be, and such has been linked to the incidence of eating disorders.

Should it be avoided because some people lean on food because of trauma? Should we avoid fostering such an environment because some people will be harmed by going through cycles of dieting and binging? Pressure to conform is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if the conformity is towards something that is generally healthy.

Pressure to conform is absolutely a bad thing. If you wish to promote healthy eating, or healthy community dynamics, you need to find ways to do that which are non-coercive.

Your objection is spurious at best, because it can be applied to any behavior and implies that we shouldn't have things that are normative in a community at all since there is no communal ethic that is universally safe.

There's certainly a question to be explored there, but keeping it to the point of this thread, and the particular vulnerabilities people have around areas of brokenness, disorder and sin in their lives, and how those are disclosed and shared, I think there's a very strong argument to be made, and my objection is not at all spurious.

First, your declaration that it is "pastorally dangerous" implies that there is only one way to pastor.

There are as many ways to pastor as there are pastors; but some of them are dangerous. All of us should be keenly aware of our power and our potential to misuse our power, even with the very best of intentions. I don't believe God calls anyone to be ignorant, unprofessional and careless in their pastoring.

 

[Fervent]

But don't you see that by making statements about norms and what people should do, that does place pressure on people to conform?

I'm not sure why the idea that there are imperatives is objectionable, unless the imperatives themselves are somehow deficient.

Not at all. But placing expectations on our most vulnerable isn't the right way to tackle that.

...this is so absurd I'm not even sure how to answer. Life within a community means that some expectations are going to be placed on each member, it's simply impossible to not have expectations of some sort and it would be unhealthy to not have any expectations at all.

This is not something that can be determined as a blanket rule, but must be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis. Which is where a wise and experienced confessor may be a good thing.

It's something that can be determined generally, as while there are exceptions it is generally healthier to act prematurely in a positive direction than to persist in a status quo that is unhealthy.

Not at all. I'm happy to say that confession is a very healthy practice. But I'm not happy to equate that with an expectation of public confession shared openly with the whole congregation.

While you've come closer to an accurate representation of what I am saying, you continue to present what seems to be a distorted understanding. What I am encouraging is fostering an environment where it is normal for individuals to confess to one another. If an implicit expectation develops from that environment, I fail to see the harm.

And yes, attacking the character of those who are reluctant (as disbelieving, unloving and so on), does amount to a degree of coercion.

That certainly would be, and is not at all what I am advocating. My statements in this thread have not been directed at individuals, but the motives you are ascribing. Acting out of fear is disbelief, it is a declaration that God will not protect you. Does this mean it would be appropriate or adviseable to make such statements to someone who is acting out of fear? No, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw them away from that fear. Now, seeing that the only possible outcome of an action is harm and choosing not to engage is not acting in fear it is prudence. Sometimes it is prudent not to confess, but that's a separate issue from whether an environment in which open confession is the norm is something worth encouraging.

It certainly can be, and such has been linked to the incidence of eating disorders.

So I guess we shouldn't encourage people to eat healthy, or promote an environment in which eating healthy is the expectation.

Pressure to conform is absolutely a bad thing. If you wish to promote healthy eating, or healthy community dynamics, you need to find ways to do that which are non-coercive.

This sounds like double speak. Pressure to conform is only a bad thing if it is excessive or if what is being conformed to is a negative. Otherwise its simply an unavoidable part of being a member of a community, especially since it is something that is generally exclusive to the individual. Now, if you think we should have no community standards nor proscriptive behavior then that's a different argument entirely.

There's certainly a question to be explored there, but keeping it to the point of this thread, and the particular vulnerabilities people have around areas of brokenness, disorder and sin in their lives, and how those are disclosed and shared, I think there's a very strong argument to be made, and my objection is not at all spurious.

If your objection is specific to confession, then articulate it in a manner that is specific to confession. Otherwise the universality of its application to any normative ethic renders it spurious.

There are as many ways to pastor as there are pastors; but some of them are dangerous. All of us should be keenly aware of our power and our potential to misuse our power, even with the very best of intentions. I don't believe God calls anyone to be ignorant, unprofessional and careless in their pastoring.

All of them are dangerous in the wrong congregation, but there is a place for most of them. A congregation prone to licentiousness and filled with individuals with martyr complex are greatly harmed by a pastor who indulges them under the guise of being sensitive, just as a pastor who refuses to compromise on truth can turn into an insensitive bully. I certainly agree that being ignorant, unprofessional, and careless is never called for but this is distinct from being uncompromisingly direct.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure why the idea that there are imperatives is objectionable, unless the imperatives themselves are somehow deficient.

Well, this one - the idea that we should be prepared to share everything with everyone - certainly is deficient.

...this is so absurd I'm not even sure how to answer. Life within a community means that some expectations are going to be placed on each member, it's simply impossible to not have expectations of some sort and it would be unhealthy to not have any expectations at all.

Okay, sure. I expect people to turn up to church dressed. I expect people not to hit one another. That kind of blanket expectation is fine. But what you're talking about is in a whole other universe.

It's something that can be determined generally, as while there are exceptions it is generally healthier to act prematurely in a positive direction than to persist in a status quo that is unhealthy.

Not necessarily.

I fail to see the harm.

Which is why I suggested doing some reading on trauma, for a start. It would help you to understand the potential for harm.

My statements in this thread have not been directed at individuals, but the motives you are ascribing.

But when we put that into practice, it ends up aimed at the individuals struggling with particular situations.

Acting out of fear is disbelief, it is a declaration that God will not protect you.

Well, let's be real. God doesn't always protect us. A quick glance at Scripture is enough evidence of that. So that doesn't mean it's wrong to take precautions for one's own safety.

So I guess we shouldn't encourage people to eat healthy, or promote an environment in which eating healthy is the expectation.

It would need to be done extremely carefully, and with sensitivity to particular people's problems. Unlike the way you're presenting the imperative to confess.

Pressure to conform is only a bad thing if it is excessive or if what is being conformed to is a negative.

Nope. You can do harm by pressuring or coercing someone to do a positive thing. The pressure or coercion is a problem in itself, as it is controlling, and undermines their agency and dignity.

Now, if you think we should have no community standards nor proscriptive behavior then that's a different argument entirely.

I think we should be extremely careful about "standards," especially those which we know touch on areas of particular vulnerability.

I certainly agree that being ignorant, unprofessional, and careless is never called for but this is distinct from being uncompromisingly direct.

But being ignorant of trauma, unprofessional in how one wields one's power, and careless of the potential damage, is a problem. And that is the danger I am trying to point out to you in this thread. I'm pretty blunt and have been accused of being direct, even cold; but that's different from placing harmful expectations upon people.

 

[Fervent]

Well, this one - the idea that we should be prepared to share everything with everyone - certainly is deficient.

Oh? Then argue the deficiency, rather than objecting to coersion or other peripheral issues.

Okay, sure. I expect people to turn up to church dressed. I expect people not to hit one another. That kind of blanket expectation is fine. But what you're talking about is in a whole other universe.

Again, argue why the particular expectation is a problem.

Not necessarily.

Well, yes. Generalities are not necessarily true, they are generally true.

Which is why I suggested doing some reading on trauma, for a start. It would help you to understand the potential for harm.

It's not that I don't see the potential harm you are concerned with, it is that the potential for harm is outweighed by the potential benefits. Simply because in extreme cases, when handled poorly some individuals may expose themselves to a potential harm does not negate positive community ethics.

But when we put that into practice, it ends up aimed at the individuals struggling with particular situations.

It can be twisted in such a manner, but abuse does not preclude proper use.

Well, let's be real. God doesn't always protect us. A quick glance at Scripture is enough evidence of that. So that doesn't mean it's wrong to take precautions for one's own safety.

You think God let's harm befall us that is not ultimately for our good? Perhaps you should examine the life of Joseph to be relieved of your unbelief.

It would need to be done extremely carefully, and with sensitivity to particular people's problems. Unlike the way you're presenting the imperative to confess.

Implementation and concept are two very different beasts. I am not laying out a plan nor an outline, simply pointing to an ideal that would be good to strive for.

Nope. You can do harm by pressuring or coercing someone to do a positive thing. The pressure or coercion is a problem in itself, as it is controlling, and undermines their agency and dignity.

Again, the issue you're articulating is peripheral at best and not specific to open confession. A community that engages in coercive pressuring behaviors is definitely a problem, but having normative behaviors in and of themselves are not a problem even though they do create pressure to conform. A sense of a need to conform is natural for any community, there is no avoiding it except to not have a community. There will be normative group ethics, and a pastor who fails to strategically apply pressure to direct his congregation towards positive group ethics is negligent.

I think we should be extremely careful about "standards," especially those which we know touch on areas of particular vulnerability.

Which opens the door for licentiousness.

But being ignorant of trauma, unprofessional in how one wields one's power, and careless of the potential damage, is a problem. And that is the danger I am trying to point out to you in this thread. I'm pretty blunt and have been accused of being direct, even cold; but that's different from placing harmful expectations upon people.

The issue is you have not articulated how the expectation itself is harmful, but have instead argued in such a way that renders any expectation at all suspect. Encouraging, and acting to foster, an environment in which the normal and expected behavior is a disposition of trust and openness in confession is not ignorant of trauma, nor is it unprofessional, nor is it careless to potential damage.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh? Then argue the deficiency, rather than objecting to coersion or other peripheral issues.

I have argued the deficiency. I have pointed out that people who are wounded, broken, traumatised, or otherwise struggling, are harmed by the expectation that they share all of that with all and sundry. Time, space, and relationships of safety and trust are essential to healing.

It's not that I don't see the potential harm you are concerned with, it is that the potential for harm is outweighed by the potential benefits.

No. No no no no no. We cannot harm others because of potential benefits. First, do no harm, is as important in the cure of souls as it is in the cure of bodies.

Simply because in extreme cases, when handled poorly some individuals may expose themselves to a potential harm does not negate positive community ethics.

It's not that extreme, though. In most congregations of any size, there will be many people with such needs.

You think God let's harm befall us that is not ultimately for our good? Perhaps you should examine the life of Joseph to be relieved of your unbelief.

God will bring good out of bad situations, but that does not mean we should not be appropriately self-protective.

Note: the accusation of unbelief is a flame, and likely to get you a warning from the moderators. I suggest you avoid such accusations.

I am not laying out a plan nor an outline, simply pointing to an ideal that would be good to strive for.

Except it's not good for everyone in all situations, so as an ideal, it's pretty flawed.

Again, the issue you're articulating is peripheral at best...

I think it's pretty central to the practice of ministry, actually.

A community that engages in coercive pressuring behaviors is definitely a problem, but having normative behaviors in and of themselves are not a problem even though they do create pressure to conform.

I don't think I agree. Pressure to conform - except on the most basic of levels necessary for the existence of a community, as noted above - almost certainly is a problem.

There will be normative group ethics, and a pastor who fails to strategically apply pressure to direct his congregation towards positive group ethics is negligent.

Always there must be free choice, though. Coercion in ministry is abusive.

Which opens the door for licentiousness.

The restraint needs to be internal, a matter of conscience; not external, a matter of control.

The issue is you have not articulated how the expectation itself is harmful, but have instead argued in such a way that renders any expectation at all suspect.

It's both. Expectations in general are suspect, but this particular expectation is especially problematic. Forcing disclosure is a terrible, terrible thing to do to someone.

Encouraging, and acting to foster, an environment in which the normal and expected behavior is a disposition of trust and openness in confession is not ignorant of trauma, nor is it unprofessional, nor is it careless to potential damage.

A disposition of trust is a good thing. It must be allowed to grow naturally, not expecting people to trust before they're ready. To say otherwise is certainly problematic in the ways I've outlined.