Confession of sin
I recently responded to the issue of confessing sin. Click here.
One of us sinned greatly against a spouse and the question was should
she tell him. I expressed the opinion that the woman (who is genuinely
repentant and free from a reoccurrence) might consider it best
not to tell him, depending on her intimate knowledge of her entire
situation. The ideal situation would be that the sin never occurred but
since it did it would be ideal if they could share the burden and enter
more deeply into their relationship with Christ and one another despite
it and even through it—learning from it and being shaped by it.
I think it irresponsible to advise someone we don't know
to confess to another that we don't know something so serious while
knowing absolutely nothing about the entire setting and the numerous people who would be affected.
Some thought that my remarks didn't take adultery seriously enough. Let me assure you that that was not my intention at all.
Some seemed to think that if she didn't confess
to her husband she was living in violation of God's law. (Their speech
was ambiguous and when pressed they wavered a bit.) Some thought that if
she didn't confess to her husband that she was "living in pretence".
Some said if she didn't confess to her husband that she was "hiding her
sin". Some thought that if she didn't confess to him that she was
"violating the nature of the marriage covenant, part of which is to
promote openness". Some thought that she should confess to him or she'd
"live in ever-deepening misery". Some thought that confession was part
of repentance so that if she truly repented it would necessarily involve
confession. Some thought that the scriptures plainly require that she confess so further discussion is unnecessary (compare James 5:16). And so forth.
Let's get something clear from the start:
any behaviour, from a "mild flirtation" to full blown sexual
intercourse (and all stages in between) is out of order. Any
relationship that involves any of this is in that respect unhealthy and
sinful.
I accept that there can be good-natured and
innocent speech/activity that shouldn't be so categorised but making
judgements in this area can be very tricky. Still, as one American judge
famously and rightly remarked in another context, we may not be able to
define "harmful" but we know it when we're doing it.
And yet, sometimes we're doing more than we know and
what may be harmless in one setting and on any given day may be harmful
in another and on another day. Laughingly and openly flirt with someone
who's life is grand and no harm ensues. Do it with someone who is under
life's whip and we might begin something tragic and sinful. Flirt and
you may be able to dismiss it as nothing—certainly there was no sinister
intent—while the vulnerable snatches at it and a slide begins.
When I was younger I was a drinker. I had a nephew I
loved dearly—Billy. He and his family moved to Australia and many years
later I met up with them on one of my trips there. Billy was a
hard-drinker and a street-fighter. Poor thing, his life was pretty much a
shambles. I think I asked him how it all got started and he said
something I can't forget, "D'you know who gave me my first drink?" I
told him no and he said, "You!" I got free from the booze and he never
did. For good or ill, we do more than we know.
There's a difference between an habitual offender and a one-time offender. An habitual offender could easily be a desperate struggler against
what it is he/she is offending in, so he/she isn't to be dismissed as
heartless or uncaring. Nevertheless, if we know they're working havoc
they must be stopped (where that's possible and to whatever degree
that's possible)—the innocent need protection. Of course, in the area
we're discussing, when evil occurs neither party is innocent (but there
are family and friends and dependants that often suffer). Our help of
and advice to an habitual offender will and should differ in many
respects from how we will work with a one-time offender. Those that don't know this shouldn't offer advice in any shape or form.
There's "pretending" and pretending. There's "hiding" and hiding.
Here's "John" and "Joan". They've been married twenty-two years, are
devoted to each other and have raised three great kids. Sustained
financial troubles, fear of unemployment, a period of domestic tension
and a "fling" that last several months and is the cause of terrible
guilt feelings. John is genuinely grieved, ends the nonsense and
purposes no more of it. While the affair was ongoing his guilt led him
to act toward her with more sensitivity and since he was now done with
the wickedness his care for her is even more sensitive and deep than his
pre-affair devotion. For multiple reasons, best known to him, he
chooses for the present at least not to tell Joan about his sin.
It would be true to say that he's hiding his sin from
her! But to say he's "hiding his sin" is a phrase that suggests
hypocrisy and something sinister—it is almost the equivalent to saying
he is not repentant over it; but John is deeply repentant over it. He's
certainly "hiding" his sin from her in the sense that he has chosen not
to disclose it—that's what hiding it means; but so much depends on why
he chooses to hide it. If because he knows and loves her and fears that
it would needlessly injure her if he told her, he hides it, it has
nothing to do with impenitence. Others might think he is making a poor
judgment call but what they cannot know and shouldn't claim to know is
that he's "hiding" his sin for some sinister reason.
Suppose he carries his secret for many months or longer,
are we to say that he is living a life of pretence during that time? We
need to be careful with our words! In what way would his life be a life
of pretending? Is he pretending that he loves his wife? Is he
pretending that in a healthy but very marked way he is catering to her
needs as a woman and a wife and a mother and friend? If we knew that
John was a lying and hypocritical rascal who felt no remorse or guilt,
who stayed with Joan only because there were advantages he would lose if
he walked off—if we knew that that was the case then we'd say he lives a
life of pretence. But it would be sheer nonsense to say that because he
has chosen for the present at least not to reveal his sin to his wife
that his life is mere pretence.
Is he "pretending" that he has always been sexually
faithful to Joan if he doesn't tell her of his sin? Here again, we need
to be careful how we speak especially since we are dealing with actual
cases—some we may know about and some we aren't aware of! Should we take
the view that because Joan—without ever asking—believes he has been
with no one else that John is pretending if he doesn't tell her? Is all
silence pretence? Honesty and openness are virtues to be prized and
pursued but are they to be worshiped? Do the virtues of compassion and
considerateness ever come into play? Is withholding information always
lying? And is refusing to tell always hypocrisy no matter what the
reasons are for remaining silent?
What if Joan asks him one day? What if she never does?
Yes, but what if she asks him one day? If she did, that would change
the whole setting of the discussion we're having and so doesn't add
anything useful to it! What if she asks him some day? Then he will need
to find a way in truth to deal with her question! But that has nothing to do with the present discussion!
If he doesn't confess will he not live in ever-deepening misery?
That's very possible but such situations are much more complex than the
question might imply. There are those who fear so greatly that the
confession of their sin would destroy innocent lives that the only thing
that keeps their head above water is their not telling. It's
too easy for those of us whose lives are filled with peace and joy to
come to conclusions for others whose lives are anything but peaceful. In
light of the full acceptance we enjoy with our families and friends we
think that if we were to behave abominably we could confess it
without life going to pieces. Maybe that's true; but if it's true it's
because we know our situation and would act on that sure knowledge. It
may even be presumptuous to think that what we know about
ourselves is true of those about whom we know nothing and that the good
advice we would give ourselves would be good advice for those who are
complete strangers to us!
Again, there are some of us whose deep misery is the
recurring fear that our shame and wickedness might become known. The
depth of the shame is what keeps us silent so our not telling it to
others is less misery than the misery we'd experience if others were to
know. This kind of silence can easily be self-serving since our comfort
can become the primary or even the sole motivation for our silence. If
we know our silence is bought at the unquestionable expense of others we
are not doing right in keeping silent. (Imagine, for example, my doing
wrong and someone else getting the blame while I, knowing it and saying
nothing, allow them to suffer.)
It might still be true that a wife will live in
prolonged misery if she doesn't tell her husband. This would be an
additional tragedy and not an unusual fruit of our sinfulness but at
least it would mean that she takes her sin seriously. So, is that it,
we're to encourage her to suffocate in her misery? Indeed not, we might
well urge her to find a wise and God-centred counsellor before whom she
could unburden her heart while she waits for the time when she believes
she can tell her husband.
With my hand on my heart I say that I believe the sinner's peace of mind matters!
But the sinner's peace of mind must not be made the primary thing that
matters! Some of us live with guilt and the pain that comes from secret
sin and we accept that under present circumstances that is part of the
price of sin. It isn't for nothing that a proverb says the way of the
sinner is hard. [Read of Arthur Dimmesdale in Hawthorne's, The Scarlet Letter.]
If some poor guilty soul is bearing a burden that can't be removed
except by placing horrendous burdens on others who are innocent he/she
will have to weigh the options and ask for God's sustaining grace.
James 5:16 says we are to confess our sins to one another. Well,
there's no arguing with James; but it isn't enough to quote James and
move on as if by quoting him we've understood him. If I commit adultery
with another man's wife I've sinned against him (and many others). Does
James 5:16 require me to tell that husband? I've sinned against him as
surely as I've sinned against my wife (and others) so does he have the
right to know and should I make amends to him by confession? Does it
matter if my co-sinner assures me with tears that my confession will
"destroy him" and the children? If my co-sinner assures me that their
marital union is more than a little shaky at present and that her sin
and mine would be the last straw and if she urged me to remain silent
until she and her husband were well over the fragile phase they were
going through due to illness of the children, financial pressures or
employment difficulties—this should be given very serious consideration
when working with James 5:16.
When James says "to one another" does he confine it only
to husbands and wives confessing to each other? Does he confine it only
to those we've immediately sinned against? Should we confess our sins
congregationally (even if they are known only to one or two people)? An
eldership I know of forbade a man to explicitly confess before the
assembly that he had committed adultery with a sister in that church.
Would James have been upset with those shepherds? If we think the
shepherds were wise can they be wise if they have skated around James
5:16? The man wanted to confess, they forbade him, did that violate
James 5:16? Why do you think they might have forbade him?
Who, exactly, is "one another"? And what are the
circumstances James envisages? Are we sure that that section of James is
speaking of what we might call "general confession"? Read it and see
what you think.
I may take this up again.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website,theabidingword.com.