LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 223

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
However, already in the latter part of the 16th
century, some followers of Luther began to criticize the
directions in which the Reformation had developed. The
movement that came to be known as Pietism had deep
suspicions about the practice of private confession and
absolution. The matter was especially tied to the proclamation of the loosing key, the word of absolution, whether delivered individually or corporately. They asked: “Has
not absolution become too easy and free? Should we not
put a greater emphasis on seeing the necessary fruits of
repentance before we proclaim the word of absolution? Is
mere confession of sins enough?”
What the Pietists started was carried to a far greater
extreme by the Rationalists. For them, absolution — involving the speaking of divine words — made no sense at
all, because they rejected the inspiration of Scripture and
the power of the Word of God. In their view, the forgiveness of sins was obtained simply through the resolution
to live a better life.
The new trend transferred to America since Rationalism was amenable with the American Protestant tradition.39 Ralph Waldo Emerson “almost single‐handedly
laid the epistemological foundations for the modernist
impulse in American Protestantism. Emerson’s ideas
deepened the already present anti‐authoritarian, autonomous sentiments exhibited in American cultural Protestantism… Specifically and with the utmost persuasion,
Emerson, in his Divinity School Address of 1838, stressed
the immanence of God in nature and God’s accessibility
to the human soul directly, thereby arguing that the mediation of religious symbols was no longer needed.”40
These general themes were reflected in the theology
of the influential American Lutheran Samuel Simon
Schmucker (1799‐1873). Schmucker sought to
“protestantize” Lutheranism while aligning it with
American culture. In doing so, Schmucker revised
Lutheranism’s sacramental core, and certain “errors” —
in his view — had to be corrected. One of Schmucker’s
most egregious actions was to edit the Augsburg
Confession. In respect to Article XI of the AC, he argued
that for Lutheranism to complete the Reformation,
“the omission of this Article [on private confession and
absolution] is demanded … .”41

William S. Wiecher, “Piepkorn on the Third Sacrament: An American Lutheran Reconsideration,” Lutheran Forum (Fall 1997): 36.
39

40

Wiecher, “Piepkorn on the Third Sacrament,” 36.

41

Definite Platform, 11.

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

|

Evangelical rejection of Lutheran teaching is based to
some degree on the false view that the pastor’s absolution is grounded on faith in the person or personal
word of the pastor who absolves. To help those who have
this misunderstanding — including many of our own
people — a clarification is critically needed. The pastor’s
absolution is not a substitute for faith in Christ, but it
flows from faith in Christ and His promises. In giving the
Gospel to the Church to be proclaimed by pastors, our
Lord assures us that this Gospel — although spoken by
sinful men — is His Word. The forgiveness that is spoken
is His forgiveness. “If you forgive the sins of any, they
are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any,
it is withheld” (John 20:23). “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
(Matt. 18:18). Only faith in such promises from Jesus gives
confidence in the “I forgive you” that a pastor speaks,
whether in public worship or private conversation. Faith
in Jesus’ words leads us to “by no means doubt but firmly
believe that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in
heaven.”55 The absolution thereby truly effects the forgiveness it declares. Christ and His Gospel are the sure
foundation on which the absolution — spoken by human
lips — stands.56
Other objections to confession and absolution may
also be met by careful teaching about the absolution. As
noted earlier, the Roman view of satisfaction is ruled
out based on the absolution itself. However, some might
wonder whether an absolution without satisfaction
implies a lax view of sin — that an absolution means
permission to continue in sin (Rom. 6:1). This, of course,
AC XIII 3, 2, KW 46.

54

Ap XII 2, KW 188.

55

SC, “Baptism,” KW 360.16.

Despite the retention of private confession and absolution at the Synod’s founding, the practice slowly faded
from the life of its congregations in the early 20th century. As Missouri Synod Lutherans entered the mainstream
of American religious life, they increasingly discarded
what some saw as “peculiar” practices. Still, by the middle of the 20th century, certain groups were working to
reclaim the practice.43 As the 21st century has dawned,
while some pastors regularly offer private confession and
absolution to their congregations, anecdotal evidence
suggests that few laity make use of this gift. The resolution addressed in this report (2013 Res. 4-13) suggests
that this is also true of a majority of the Synod’s pastors.

Challenges
The preceding material indicates that the authentically
Lutheran view of individual confession and absolution
is largely unique, occupying a middle ground between
Rome and evangelical Protestantism.44 Unlike most
Evangelicals or other Protestants, Lutherans do not repudiate private confession before a minister and steadfastly
uphold the propriety and efficacy of the pastor’s absolution in the name of Christ.45 Unlike Rome, however,
Lutheran teaching and practice makes private confession
42
“Our First Synodical Constitution,” Concordia Historical Institute
Quarterly 16 (April 1943): 11–13. See also Page 184 in C.F.W. Walther,
American Lutheran Pastoral Theology (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 2017).

See, for example, the unofficial journal Una Sancta, which regularly
advocated for private confession and absolution.

43

44
In this report, “Evangelical” is used in its common contemporary
sense of non-Roman Catholic Christians who claim personal faith in
Jesus as Savior with the need for evangelism and also uphold the authority of Scripture, while denying or minimizing that the Sacraments
are Means of Grace (e.g., most Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominational Christians, as well as many others that have separated from or
are in protest within the so-called “mainlines”). Protestants refers to
the remainder of self-identified Christians (“Mainline churches”) who
are not Roman Catholic (e.g., most Methodists, Presbyterians, ELCA
Lutherans, Episcopalians). The term “evangelical Protestant” then refers
to both of these groups.
45
Together with confessional Lutherans, one other group, orthodox
Anglicans such as those who make up the Anglican Church in North
America, practice auricular confession. An order for it is in the Book of
Common Prayer in which the priest expressly absolves the sinner in the
Triune name (“I absolve you in the name…”).

11

PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS

condemn the notion that Sacraments (including confession) “justify ex opere operato” (that is, by the mere performance of the act). Rather, they are rightly used “when
received in faith for the strengthening of faith.”53 It is by
“the voice of the gospel” that “we obtain the forgiveness
of sins by faith,” and to deny it is “to show contempt for
the blood and death of Christ.”54

53

In light of this, the Missouri Synod’s insistence at
its founding in 1847 on the retention of private confession and absolution demonstrates its determination to
adhere firmly to historic Lutheran doctrine and practice.
“Where private confession is in use,” the founders wrote,
“it is to be kept according to Article 11 of the Augsburg
Confession. Where it is not in use, the pastor is to strive
towards introducing it.”42

As noted above (Page 4), “since the keys of the kingdom (‘the power
of the keys’) — which bind or release a person from the bonds of sin —
were given by Christ to His entire Church (Matt. 18:15ff.; John 20:19ff.),
any member of Christ’s Church may be used by God to assure another
person of forgiveness as he confesses his sin” (see Brief Statement of
the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, §30). Our focus in this
document, however, is on private confession to a pastor as discussed in
the fifth chief part of Luther’s Small Catechism (“Confession”).

fails to reckon with the two sides of the Office of the
Keys. In some cases, an admission of sin may be coupled
with an explicit intention to continue it. This is not truly
“confession” in the biblical sense, and it must not result
in absolution. For good reason, the order of Individual
Confession and Absolution from Lutheran Service Book
has the penitent person end his or her confession with
the words, “I am sorry for all of this and ask for grace. I
want to do better.”57 The appropriate pastoral response
to a sham and insincere confession is a declaration that
binds instead of looses (Matt. 16:19), one that pronounces
the Lord’s judgment against unrepentant sin and withholds rather than declares forgiveness (John 20:23). Or, as
the Small Catechism reminds us, the Office of the Keys
includes two possible eventualities. One is, of course,
the absolution, but the other is when ministers “exclude
openly unrepentant sinners from the Christian congregation.” In either case, “this is just as valid and certain,
even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with
us Himself.”58 This is a frightening responsibility, but a
necessary one.
It is also important to note the difference between
temporal and eternal consequences of sin. God’s forgiveness covers all sins and saves from God’s wrath and judgment so that His forgiven children will not suffer eternal
death and hell (John 3:36; 11:25–26; Titus 3:5–7; 2 Tim. 1:10).
Whether delivered by the preached Gospel, Baptism, the
Lord’s Supper or absolution, God’s promise of forgiveness for Jesus’ sake is unconditional and absolute, freeing
us from every eternal consequence of sin. But temporal
consequences often continue. Therefore, sins against
the second table of the Law are indeed fully forgiven,
covered by the blood of Jesus Christ (1 John 1:7), but temporal punishment or consequences may not be avoided.
So, the unruly child may still suffer in “time-out,” the
murderer be subject to incarceration or execution, the
adulterer be divorced, the thief imprisoned, the slanderer
sued, the addict or alcoholic suffer physical harm, and so
forth. Such temporal consequences are permitted by our
gracious God, even while His forgiveness graciously frees
us of all eternal punishment.59 Moreover, this distinction
between the temporal and the eternal reminds us that,
while we can never repay God for His merciful forgiveness, we may and indeed should amend our sinful life,

56

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

|

PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS

57

LSB 292.

58
Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 2017), 314.
59
On temporal punishment, see AC XVI 2, KW 48–49; Ap XII 151,
KW 214.

13

entirely voluntary, rejects the notion that one must (or
even can) enumerate all one’s sins before a confessor,
and rejects the addition of satisfaction as confession’s
third element. Lutheran teaching upholds the absolution above all else and affirms its great comfort for the
individual penitent.
Nevertheless, although confessional Lutheranism
never repudiated its affirmation of individual confession,
the practice is not regularly maintained by most Lutheran Christians, including pastors.46 Perhaps the most
common source of Lutheran discomfort with private
confession is the widespread notion that, despite some
differences between Lutheran and Roman teaching, the
practice is too “Catholic.” In this respect, many Lutherans seem to share a Protestant or Evangelical bias against
private confession. One may note several reasons for this.
Some may assume that since Lutherans do not
mandate private confession, it is unimportant. They may
recall the words of the Small Catechism: “Before the
pastor we should confess only those sins which we know
and feel in our hearts.” In recent editions of Luther’s
Small Catechism with Explanation, we are encouraged to
confess sins that “trouble” us.47 Therefore, unless they are
deeply troubled about a particular sin, private confession
may seem to be of little value. Or for those who have
forgotten or never studied the Small Catechism, the Lutheran teaching that Jesus uses His Church and its called
pastors to forgive sins, entrusting them with the Office
of the Keys, may not be fully or clearly understood or
appreciated (Luke 10:16; John 20:23).
In addition, others who have been heavily influenced
by Evangelical teaching may be unconvinced of the
Small Catechism’s doctrine, believing that the pastor’s
absolution is without a biblical basis and that it is at best
doubtful or even blasphemous for anyone but God to
claim to forgive our sins.48 Central to Evangelicalism is a
personal conversion experience, focused on several steps.
46
Somewhat surprisingly, private confession is also in steep decline
and is minimally practiced by U.S. Roman Catholics. See, for example,
James Martin, S.J., “Bless Me, Father,” America: The National Catholic
Review 192: 18 (May 21, 2007), online edition accessed Nov. 9, 2017,
americamagazine.org/toc-past/2007-05-21. Across the religious landscape, there is little regard for confession before a minister.
47
Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 2017) includes the text of the Small Catechism,
followed by “An Explanation of the Small Catechism.” See Page 25 and
then question and answer 328 on Page 309.
48
See Mark 2:1–11, nb. v. 7, where Jesus’ authority to forgive was
denied. He claims the authority to forgive as the Incarnate Lord, the
Son of Man, and as we note below, explicitly authorizes His disciples to
declare the same divine forgiveness.

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

|

These include (1) acknowledgement of personal sin, (2)
faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection, (3) verbal confession of Jesus as one’s personal Lord, and (4) heartfelt
acceptance of Jesus as one’s Savior. While this “plan of
salvation” may vary in minor ways, it is foundational for
American Evangelicalism.49 This leads Evangelicals to
view sacraments (or “ordinances”50) as, at most, symbols
of grace or unity and, at worst, rituals that distract from
personal faith.
From an Evangelical standpoint, therefore, confession before a pastor is unwarranted.51 Having a pastor
“forgive” another person is often viewed as a denial that
individuals can approach God on their own or that forgiveness comes through faith in Christ alone. Therefore,
the “problem” with private confession for Evangelicals
is less the confession of sins to a pastor than the pastor’s
absolution. An Evangelical may confess to his pastor in a
context of pastoral counseling, but he believes God forgives sins only in a direct manner and that His forgiveness is not mediated through another. Evangelicalism
recognizes that the pastor speaks about Christ, but not
that he may also speak for Christ. Forgiveness therefore
hangs entirely on one’s personal faith, not on a Word
spoken on behalf of Christ.
Certainly, Lutheran theology teaches that forgiveness
of sins is given only on account of Christ’s atoning death
and resurrection. Salvation is by grace through faith in
Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Moreover, it is God
alone who forgives our sins. Repentant “faith believes
that sins are forgiven on account of Christ, consoles the
conscience, and liberates it from terrors.”52 So Lutherans
49
For example, see the Southern Baptist Convention’s webpage “How
to Become a Christian” at sbc.net/knowjesus/theplan.asp; accessed
11/9/2017.
50
Evangelicals express their understanding of the Sacraments in various ways. Not atypical is the Southern Baptist Convention’s definition
of both Baptism and the Supper as an “act of obedience.” See sbc.net/
bfm2000/bfm2000.asp; accessed 11/9/2017.
51
Note the perspective of the Assemblies of God: “In leading people
to Christ, the confession of sins is to be directed to God through Jesus
Christ. Nowhere does God’s Word tell us to confess our sins to a clergyman or human mediator in order to receive God’s forgiveness. Instead
this is to be done from the repentant heart of the sinner directly to the
Savior–Jesus Christ” (Commission on Doctrinal Purity of Assemblies
of God, “Confession of Sins,” at ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/Sin-Confession-of-Sins; accessed 11/9/2017). Some are harsher. Max D. Younce
says, “If you are one who is trusting the Lutheran preacher or Catholic
priest to forgive sins, instead of Jesus Christ, you will spend eternity
separated from God. Christ encountered these same types of religious
leaders in His day and levied a stern rebuke against them.” See “Who
Can Forgive Sins? The Lutheran Minister, Catholic Priest, or Christ,”
at jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Max_Younce/who_can_forgive.htm;
accessed 11/9/2017.
52

Another challenge is more pragmatic. The preached
Gospel declares the forgiveness of sins. The general
absolution of the Divine Service declares it liturgically.
Forgiveness is made personal in Baptism. Forgiveness
is promised yet again as one receives Christ’s body and
blood at the altar. There is no shortage of the message
of God’s grace and forgiveness in Christ Jesus within
the Divine Service. Do we need yet another means of
forgiveness? Is the private absolution some different or
higher level of forgiveness? A careful answer is needed:
God’s redeeming work is “plenteous” indeed (Ps. 130:7
KJV). Shall we object to that bounty and stop absolving
(or for that matter, baptizing or communing) since we
have forgiveness in the preached Gospel? While “forgiveness is forgiveness,” personal absolution is nevertheless a particular help to poor sinners. A person who
has grieved deeply over sin, sorrowfully admitted it in
private confession and then heard our Lord’s emphatic,
unambiguous absolution spoken directly to him in the
midst of his shame and sorrow can be exceedingly grateful for our Lord’s kind wisdom in giving this specifically
personal word of grace. Moreover, the reality of the fallen
nature means that guilty feelings often return, even after
one knows what Christ has done and has heard the Word
of His forgiveness in the Sacrament of the Altar or in
the absolution. This is all the more reason to give thanks
that God does not limit or restrict His Gospel, but He
declares His forgiveness again and again through various
means, including preaching, teaching, Baptism, the
Supper, the absolution, and the mutual conversation and
consolation of one’s brothers and sisters in Christ.

12

all of medicine, that may be beneficial to believers
and nonbelievers alike. Pastoral counsel brings a
distinctly spiritual element into counseling, anchored
in the Word of God. We can affirm it without implying
that it makes confession and absolution irrelevant or
unimportant. While the same pastor may well engage
in both counseling and private confession, the two
practices should be distinguished but not divorced.
Private confession may well involve pastoral counsel, but
its central task is to address sin in the repentant, broken
person with Christ’s Word of forgiveness. It “is not a
quick fix for psychological disorders or difficulties.”61
Moreover, good counseling may in fact help the
Christian to better understand what he or she needs
to confess.62 In addition, after private confession and
absolution, “the penitent may still need psychological
counseling from those whose calling it is to provide this
service in the kingdom of the left hand.”63
Finally, we add the potential obstacle of fear that a
private confession might not remain private. A pastor’s
unwise use of “sermon illustrations” about things
someone has said to him would likely undermine
confidence in his commitment to uphold confessional
confidentiality. Both teaching and practice should
emphatically complement one another with regard
to pastoral confidentiality. Reference may be made to
the explicit ordination vow to that effect — with the
implication that violation of the vow would jeopardize
the pastor’s standing and ministry.
For Lutherans, then:
1. Those who exercise the Office of the Keys and
confession are entrusted with a twofold power and
responsibility: to retain the sins of the impenitent
and to forgive the sins of the penitent. The ultimate
goal, however, is always to absolve the penitent.

Another practical challenge to private confession is
that the person troubled by sin may need counseling
more than confession and absolution. We need to be
careful here not to set the two at odds with each other
or create a false alternative. An affirmation of private
confession is not a condemnation of pastoral counsel
or appropriate psychotherapeutic counseling. We can
and should affirm and give thanks for appropriate
psychotherapy as a “left-hand kingdom” resource, like
60
Lutheran orders of confession and absolution have often included the
penitent’s express intention to amend his or her sinful life. See Page 48
in the Order of the Confessional Service in The Lutheran Hymnal (St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941) and Page 309 in Service of
Corporate Confession and Absolution in LSB. LSB omits the reference
to amending one’s sinful life in its order of corporate confession but
retains the pastoral blessing from 1 Thess. 5:23–24 with its references to
God’s sanctifying work (“may your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept
blameless”).

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

|

AC XII 5, KW 45.

PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS

and this may require specific restitution and “making
amends” to those whom we have hurt by our sins.60

PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS

223

2. Private confession and absolution is an actual
Means of Grace. It is one of the ways that sins are
forgiven. Forgiveness is not merely an announcement or a proclamation, but it truly gives and
effects what is proclaimed. For example, God said,
“Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), and light appeared.
In the same way, God says, “I forgive you” in the
61
John T. Pless, “Your Pastor Is Not Your Therapist: Private Confession
— The Ministry of Repentance and Faith,” Logia: A Journal of Lutheran
Theology 10:2 (2001): 25.
62
Richard C. Eyer, Pastoral Care Under the Cross: God in the Midst of
Suffering (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1994): 14. Eyer compares beneficial “clinical psychiatry” over and above “pop psychology,”
which often aims at making people feel good while deeper ills remain.
63

Pless, “Your Pastor Is Not Your Therapist,” 25.

14

2019 Convention Workbook