The Burden of Hiding and Pretending

We Protestants have been known to react strongly to the view that a person must seek forgiveness from God via a priest. We hold strongly to the view that through Christ we have direct access to God and can confess our own sins directly (thank you very much!). While I agree with Protestant theology in this regard, the Bible does not permit us to overlook human-to-human confession totally. James 5:16 is clear that we are to confess our sins to one another. Yet few believers that I know practise this because they don't understand why we would want to do such a thing considering that it is not a means of obtaining divine forgiveness--not to mention a little embrassing perhaps!

I once read somewhere that in confession we "lay down the burden of hiding and pretending". I found this concept to be helpful in seeking to understand the nature of human-to-human confession. We all tend to want to insulate ourselves from vulnerability and pain and so are apt to hide our true selves from others. But if the church is truly to be marked by community, interpendence and trust, vulnerability is key. Without self-disclosure there cannot be authentic self-sharing. Further, the James passage tells us to confess in order that others might pray for us. In the context of a text dealing with the power of prayer to heal, God prescribes human-to-human confession. I guess that means that confession not only serves as a vehicle through which we share our true selves with others, but it is also a means of receiving personalized prayer specific to our needs.

I do believe the RCs are wrong about the need to go through a priest for absolution of sin. But I also believe Protestants that reject any form of human-to-human coinfession are missing out on a gift that God has given to His church to strengthen interpersonal relationships, and our relationship with God through intercessory prayer.

When Evil is called Good

I've been thinking a lot lately about the trend to call evil things "good" and good things "evil". It amazes me how much this happens, now that I'm looking for it more. News agencies are infamous for this in their coverage of war. Terrorist countries are constantly referred to as "victims" and "innocent", and conspiracy theories abound about the "real reasons" for why liberating forces enter such countries. My cousin even told me recently that he thinks Bush blew up the WTC and Pentagon himself just to make a few bucks on ammo. Please! While far from perfect, I'll side with Bush anyday over tyranny.

Then we have the constant barrage of live-in relationships portrayed on otherwise decent TV shows that slowly lull the viewer into believing that fornication is quite normal, acceptable and perhaps even better than marriage. When was the last time you saw a really cool TV star going out on a date with his wife, or telling his co-workers how awesome his marriage is? Instead, all the cool stars are sowing their seeds of love with anybody who is available.

Perhaps a more recent example is when Israel was portrayed as the bad guys for attacking a country that just stole some of their soldiers. I guess they should have just sat back and pursued more diplomatic means of getting their boys back from the Hezbollah thugs (who again were portrayed as frustrated liberators who had no other choice but to steal the soldiers). Or better yet, maybe they should have showed more "constraint" (another media term) by sending in two more soldiers armed with leaflets and riding in a Jeep to let the Lebanese know that they disappoved.

But I suppose this swapping of labels--called good evil and evil good--shouldn't really surprise me. The prophet Isaiah once wrote: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (5:20) As the world worsens, many will attempt to switch out the definition of goodness for the definition of evil and vice versa. My prayer is that followers of The Way won't be duped into such lunacy and instead will see evil for what it is.