The inescapable fact is that there is virtually no known human behavior that we call “sin” that is not also found among nonhuman animals. Even pride, proverbially the deadliest sin of all, is not absent.

—Daryl P. Domning, Evolution, Evil and Original Sin

Let love, and intoxication, and senseless passions, be removed from our choir. Burlesque singing is the boon companion of drunkenness. A night spent over drink invites drunkenness, rouses lust, and is audacious in deeds of shame. For if people occupy their time with pipes, and psalteries, and choirs, and dances, and Egyptian clapping of hands, and such disorderly frivolities, they become quite immodest and intractable, beat on cymbals and drums, and make a noise on instruments of delusion; for plainly such a banquet, as seems to me, is a theatre of drunkenness.

—Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor [c. 200 A.D.]

In many cases, these are seen as symptoms of spiritual sickness or deviations from being “in the center of the flock” rather than particular infractions. Why would a believer want to be involved with unbelieving friends, when there are like-minded believers to have fellowship with instead? When you hear music with a beat, shouldn’t that automatically seem uncomfortable and “foreign” to you? Why would a courting couple want to inflame lusts with physical contact when sex is unavailable until marriage? How could a believer vote for a Democrat who supports abortion and gays?

(1) authoritarianism;

(2) Christian asceticism;

(3) societal differentiation;

(4) keeping people within the fold;

(5) selective adherence to biblical edicts; and

(6) maintaining ample material for the forgiveness of sins to work with.

† We can belong to a labor union, “for we know that in many cases we must belong to a union to work. But this does not give us the right to support that which is wrong according to God’s Word. If a man votes for a strike, then he is supporting the union, and is rejecting the Word of God. We know that not all employers are honest. If you feel that your employer has done you wrong, go to him to discuss the matter. If it cannot be resolved, and you cannot bear it, you are free to leave. One should not fight evil with evil” (VOZ, 4/1978).

The Bible of course does not prohibit workers from declining to show up for work after a labor contract expires. But an authoritarian mindset looks on the union rabble with scorn.

Second, authoritarians seem to have an almost instinctive aversion to anything that might disrupt the established social order. Consider not just the content, but the underlying thought process behind these next three statements:

† “Some of the darts of the enemy in our time are ecumenism, humanism, atheism, abortion, evolution and homosexuality. The broad acceptance of such things in today’s world poses a great danger to the child of God of becoming complacent” (VOZ, 11/1990).

Laestadius was much the same:

Eino Rimpiläinen, writing in the December 1948 Siionin Lähetyslehti, gave a list of things one should avoid in order to go about “mortifying and crucifying the flesh”:

With this mentality, there is seemingly no end of things to be concerned about:

† “On the part of auto trips and outings we are instructed to avoid dangers where the undying soul can receive wounds. Even driving to the neighboring community for services and the fellowship after the services, should not become too important” (VOZ, 7/1979).

† “[T]emptations come into our homes in the form of the Internet, videos, and video games. We need to be ever vigilant in this area. A recent technology article stated that the area between video games and movies is going to blur. The videogame is going to look like a movie that the player directs, or tries to direct to an outcome. Certainly the content of the games is becoming increasingly dangerous for a believer’s faith life. The old saying that ‘it is good to walk in the middle of God’s kingdom’ is still true. Why bring things into our homes that are such a danger to us and our children?” (VOZ, 12/2005)

† “Will I allow [my children] to play fast games in which they do not control their vehicle but drive through the city being thrown against the walls of the buildings, sometimes rolling into ditches at the side of the highway? Will I let them shoot, punch, fall and destroy illustrated symbols like living beings? Is the background music reminiscent of rock music?” (VOZ, 3/2006).

In his view, clothes were “for nothing else than the covering of the body, for defence against excess of cold and intensity of heat, lest the inclemency of the air injure us.” Since the use of colors was “of no service against cold,” dyeing of clothes was also to be rejected. Indeed, he considered pretty much everything beyond covering up to be unnecessary superfluity, rejecting the

love of ornament, and dyeing of wool, and variety of colours, and fastidiousness about gems, and exquisite working of gold, and still more, of artificial hair and wreathed curls; and furthermore, of staining the eyes, and plucking out hairs, and painting with rouge and white lead, and dyeing of the hair, and the wicked arts that are employed in such deceptions.” [Ch. 11]

Poor old Clement would not have approved of Spandex, either. “For luxurious clothing, which cannot conceal the shape of the body, is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily, and adhering as it were to the flesh, receives its shape, and marks out the woman’s figure, so that the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, though not seeing the body itself” (Ch. 11).

It’s enough to make Antin Pieti’s concern about women’s wearing of hats seem quite reasonable:

† “It is not becoming for a woman to wear a hat, but rather a scarf, for a hat is an unnecessary and worldly vanity. Both men and women should put away worldly styles, even as the conscience teaches a Christian” (sermon published 1898 in Sanomia Siionista, from Kulla 1993, 84).

Boys seem to have much more limited fashion interests, and consequently, few restrictions. Mostly the concern is about long hair, which is frowned upon in males due to 1 Cor 11:14. Depictions of Jesus in church publications alternate between the classic long-haired look and collar-length hair.

Although girls routinely test the boundaries with unpigmented lip gloss and clear nail polish, cosmetics have long been unacceptable:

† “When people have followed the course of this world, they are even painted from the toenails to cheeks. It is not enough that their lips are red, but their toenails must also be red. The worldly people believe that when God created man according to his image his work of creation was otherwise complete, but it is lacking paint, and man must now finish it by using it. We don’t need to paint ourselves. As long as our conscience is washed in Jesus’ blood we certainly are acceptable and follow the creation of God. Paul speaks to the children of God that they should not follow the course of this world and fashion themselves according to this world so that they would drift from the love of God” (Lauri Taskila, Greetings of Peace, 8/1956).

† “The worldly styles and modes change but we cannot imitate them. Hippie-styled clothing, bikinis, etc. are not suitable for a child of God” (VOZ, 8/1974).

[W]e are forbidden so much as to witness shows of gladiators, lest we become partakers and abettors of murders. But neither may we see the other spectacles, lest our eyes and ears be defiled, participating in the utterances there sung. For if one should speak of cannibalism, in these spectacles the children of Thyestes and Tereus are eaten; and as for adultery, both in the case of men and of gods, whom they celebrate in elegant language for honours and prizes, this is made the subject of their dramas. But far be it from Christians to conceive any such deeds; for with them temperance dwells, self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed, chastity is guarded, iniquity exterminated, sin extirpated, righteousness exercised, law administered, worship performed, God acknowledged: truth governs, grace guards, peace screens them; the holy word guides, wisdom teaches, life directs, God reigns. [To Autolycus, Book 3, Ch. 15]

we find that that first word of David bears on this very sort of thing:  “Blessed,” he says, “is the man who has not gone into the assembly of the impious, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of scorners.” Though he seems to have predicted beforehand of that just man, that he took no part in the meetings and deliberations of the Jews, taking counsel about the slaying of our Lord, yet divine Scripture has ever far-reaching applications: after the immediate sense has been exhausted, in all directions it fortifies the practice of the religious life, so that here also you have an utterance which is not far from a plain interdicting of the shows. If he called those few Jews an assembly of the wicked, how much more will he so designate so vast a gathering of heathens! [Apologetic, The Shows, Ch. 3]

It’s been a way of keeping the faithful away from public entertainment ever since, however innocent the actual content might be. The next verse of Psalm 1 says that the blessed man who has separated himself from the world (the writer means entirely, not just at entertainment venues) will have his delight in God’s law and meditate on it day and night. Somehow, I don’t think that part gets much attention.

This 1980 writing (one of two that I quote out of chronological sequence in this sub-section) shows how Psalm 1:1 continued to be stressed in the same fashion many decades later:

† “We do not desire to be where people are ‘living it up.’ We do not want to sit where the scorners sit” (By Faith, 109).

† “Satan might say that there are many wholesome programs on television, so what can it hurt if you purchase a television for your home and only watch those kinds of programs?” (VOZ, 10/2009).

Ubiquitous Internet access has made unimaginable filth readily available at the press of a few keys or mouse clicks, and watching online videos is popular. The “slippery slope” of allowing some programming to be available has been turned into a cliff. Set up an Internet connection, and it’s all there at your fingertips.

The gradual acceptance of video has been accompanied by its own unwritten and complex system of rules, which seem to be followed to a greater extent in the LLC than the SRK. No “entertainment style” videos involving drama or actors (real or animated), except documentaries, and those are preferably of a historical or “National Geographic” nature. No sporting events because they are not watched on television or in person, though listening to audio play-by-play is acceptable on the radio (and, presumably, online as well).

† “A mighty shower of accusations and ridicule comes upon Zion these days because television with its brainwashing programs is not accepted as furniture for a Christian home. The Christians have been labeled as enemies of culture and enlightenment because they do not approve for their nourishment that which kills the spirit” (Reinikainen 1969, 42).

Around 2008, I had an amusing experience with the question of whether to allow my grade-school daughters to participate in a field trip to a classical music concert, something that would have been rejected out of hand during my childhood. Finally, after my wife and I made a private parental decision that depriving the girls of a beautiful and innocent cultural experience made no sense at all, they went, and returned to tell that all of their peers from church were present, too.

The aversion to seemingly anything entertaining has gone to extremes that even many Conservatives will find a bit nonsensical nowdays, especially those more culturally minded in the SRK. Decades ago, “instructional films in any form,” going to a place “where music is played,” and “too free, unlimited radio listening” were problematic:

† “Using the shelter provided in the statutes of the elementary schools, a believing teacher does not use television or instructional films in any form in elementary school teaching functions. This practice is also observed according to the spirit of Christianity in other educational institutions” (Position Paper of 1978 Teachers and Speakers Meeting, Finland, from VOZ, 11/1980).

† “Even roller skating or ice skating at a rink where music is played is not a place for a Christian, whether it is a school class party or otherwise. One may try and justify the music by saying: music is played to drown out the loud noise of the skates, but this is not so. This is the voice of the devil speaking. The music here, too, gets under the feet and in the body. Before one is even aware of it, one is listening to the music and unconsciously moving with the music. When one finally becomes aware of the effect of what the music has done to the feet and body, it is easier to ignore the conscience and enjoy the music” (VOZ, 2/1978).

† “Too free, unlimited radio listening can defile the conscience little by little. When the desire is born, it is like a parasite, it has to be fed. Judgment of what is proper disappears. Radio programs can be compared to television and theater on the part of sound. A certain kind of radio program of this kind can become so important it can even keep [one] from going to services. Even in this matter it is important to take heed of oneself first and then of the children. Radio music, as background music, when doing lessons, is not necessary. The effectiveness of studying will suffer one part of the attention is on the music. It is good to remember that the enemy is afraid of silence” (VOZ, 7/1979).

† “In school one must sometimes refuse to participate in those teachings which are not fitting for a believer. In the name of learning, even such material is brought into schooling that does nothing but nourish the lusts and desires of the corrupted part of our nature. Such are, for example, theatrical presentations, many motion picture presentations and television courses, dances and concerts” (By Faith, 104).

A more recent quote seems to indicate that loud volume is part of the problem:

† “The world screams and shouts with its loud music and modes of entertainment, but the Good Shepherd speaks quietly and with meekness in our hearts warning of the dangers that are ever near. We want to keep that quiet voice and shut out the worldly temptations, so that the good seed would have good soil in our heart to grow” (VOZ, 5/2005).

Perhaps attending a nice quiet Chopin piano performance would be better? Nope. Despite the lack of recent writings on the subject, and some very nice classical music performances offered occasionally at church in a few LLC congregations, those scornful concert hall seats are still widely considered off-limits.

Music in general is a continuous source of pastoral hand-wringing:

† “As the tool of the enemy of souls music can awaken the lowest and most shameful human instincts. God’s children have always rejected the music of this world which embodies ungodly life. It’s clear to see that rock, heavy metal, hip-hop, rap, and country music war against faith and good conscience and for that reason are rejected by believers. Performers of such music with the aid of synchronized lighting and other technology have enraptured and made huge crowds of people wild over their music. Their followers emulate their behavior, hair and clothing styles, morals, and values. . . . In recent years, performers and music producers have released products which combine different forms of music together: serious and light, religious and secular, patriotic and country, children’s music and rock, classical and rock, etc. The danger in such music is more difficult to see, because the enemy disguises it at times with good words or in other cases with an innocent or familiar melody. But when one considers such music more carefully, we see that it draws us closer to the world and away from the path to heaven” (VOZ, 8/2008).

† “the reading of the fiction books of this world, especially mystery and historical novels. I kept lolling myself into the spirit of permissiveness by saying it wasn’t such a big sin. Slyly Satan’s web was pulling me to live more and more in the world of unreality, the imaginations these stories effected. The truth is that the novels of this world are as garbage cans, even the little good in them is tainted, all just food to tickle the flesh. If in the early days of Christianity, the elect saw fit to make a bonfire and burn their books [Acts 19:9], how much more reason have we to shun the fictional publications of these last times” (VOZ, 4/1975).

I recall being the subject of concern in my youth regarding my Archie (kissing and dating) and Sgt. Fury’s Howling Commandos (war violence) comic books. One LLC friend recalls being told not to read Louis L’Amour in the late 1970s, but another–the son of a preacher–said there was never any concern about that. (Those innocuous little Westerns were certainly popular with the kids I grew up with.) There has always been concern about foul language and explicit sex scenes in books, but it seems to have little impact on what many people actually wind up reading nowadays.

† “In our homes as well as in school, we want to avoid reading the ‘best-seller’ types of paperbacks you usually see offered for sale in drug stores, supermarkets, and discount houses. I would venture to say, that almost 100% of those titles are ‘trashy,’ if not altogether pornographic. My guess is that many of these books would qualify for that famous fire that the Christians once kindled at Ephesus! . . . The ‘best-seller’ book industry is a shameful and shameless racket! It will sink to any level in its search for profits, it is just like the ‘Pop Music’ industry today–riddled with graft, corruption, and drug abuse. The ‘bosses’ of the industry promote what will sell millions of books, therefore, the authors, so-called, pour out volume after volume of the vilest drivel, copy that appeals to the lowest and most prurient instincts of man. The typical ‘best-seller’ usually contains violence, bestiality, brutality, and perverted sex, all described in the most lurid detail. In short, what these books represent is simply another form of pornography. As Christians, we cannot buy and read these in good conscience. They war violently against everything we believe in, and hold dear and precious in this life. And not only this, but in purchasing this trash we support the very people who are with this industry destroying the very fabric of decency in our land” (VOZ, 3/1982).

† “We want to keep our feet clean of the world’s false teachings of self-righteousness and idol worship. We do not want to worship false idols such as worldly musicians or movie stars, sports stars, the wealthy business-world icons, or the religious stars of self-righteousness, who gather man’s praise to themselves, as hundreds of thousands of people gather to cheer and praise them” (VOZ, 7/2006).

† “The rise of open homosexuality and broader acceptance of it in our time has been preceded by a decline of moral and godly life in our society. The sexual revolution of the 1960s, made possible by the development of effective birth control methods and their acceptance and widespread use, led to the loosening of norms governing heterosexual behavior in our society,” which homosexuals have also sought. “In this environment, God’s children truly feel discouraged and vexed like Lot, who dwelt in the wicked city of Sodom on the eve of its destruction. God did not forget Lot but delivered him from temptation and from the destruction that fell upon the ungodly. He will also protect and deliver His children in these evil times” (VOZ, 7/2009).

† “the drunkard’s favorite god” and “the devil’s shit, for the devil teaches people to ruin God’s grain and to make it harmful to body and soul. The people who drink it become animals” (from Hepokoski 2002a, 25).

† “Everyone knows that dancing is more than exercise. In dancing the ungodly satisfies worldly lusts and desires. Often the dancers are drunk. Also often the music is as the shrieking of the devil” (VOZ, 4/1974).

During one sermon I heard years ago, the preacher came across a description of dancing by God’s people while reading from some Old Testament text. The preacher hastily added that what had been going on was surely good, wholesome dancing. I wonder what that would have looked like, since I had to be excused from even square dancing lessons in grade school. (Not that I minded!)

† “[T]he preaching of God’s kingdom is a teaching of unconditional temperance. Beginning with Laestadius, not even moderate drinking has been accepted” (1968, 18).

† “Drunkenness seals entry to God’s Kingdom . . . The standard of living Christianity has always been unconditional abstention. The enemy of the soul has always tried to widen the door to permissiveness of sin. Currently a specially tempting beer (lower alcoholic content) is available in every village shop. Many have weakened in this respect and given the enemy the little finger, thinking; one bottle won’t hurt. Nevertheless it hurts insomuch that it is a beginning to disobedience, the consequence of which is spiritual death” (Einari Lepistö, presentation given at Nivala, Finland, 1973).

† Statements from Scriptures “clearly state that drinking, drunkenness and defending of drinking is sin before God! . . . Let us be frankly and adamantly opposed to drinking in any form or circumstance! It is a shameful sin which has corrupted too many people already” (VOZ, 1/1978).

† “It remains well understood among us that alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs are poisons to the body but even greater poisons to the undying soul. The seriousness of these sins cannot be overstated. Alcoholic and drug induced intoxications remove faith, and if one should die in that condition, the testimony would be sorrowful as only everlasting destruction awaits.”

Again, though, the Bible is not entirely consistent. Proverbs 31 has a certain King Lemuel advising that princes and kings should not drink. But then he says, “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more” (Proverbs 31:6-7).

when we are no longer engaged in more serious readings. Then also the air becomes colder than it is during the day; so that the failing natural warmth requires to be nourished by the introduction of heat. But even then it must only be a little wine that is to be used; for we must not go on to intemperate potations. Those who are already advanced in life may partake more cheerfully of the draught, to warm by the harmless medicine of the vine the chill of age, which the decay of time has produced. For old men’s passions are not, for the most part, stirred to such agitation as to drive them to the shipwreck of drunkenness. [The Instructor, Book 2, Ch. 2]

Much of what we are seeing in this section are “sins of the flesh” or “the left.” There are also sins of “the right” to be concerned about, especially for the older believer who isn’t as tempted by wine, women, and song (or, in my generation, sex, drugs, and rock ’n roll). Thus the “narrow way” is defined on both sides, and there is plenty of guilt available for everyone:

† “Narrow is the way, dangers are so great on both sides that there is a possibility of perishing. It is grace of grace that the heavenly Father has posted the road to heaven on both sides, even to the very end. Along the way there comes not a single situation where the Holy Spirit does not give counsel. In God’s kingdom there is in operation continually words of gospel and reproof unless the heavenly Father leads me to His counsel I, wretched one, would soon stray. There are admonitions against these dangers on the left and on the right. . . . The left hand signs show the dangers of the liberty of the flesh. There the sign reads: ‘For if ye live after the flesh ye must die.’. . . In the same manner is posted the right: ‘Beware and take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees. Beware of false godliness, be it of whatever nature. Beware of spiritual filth.’ . . . The signs are so close together that they form a narrow alley for us to proceed along. The Lord Jesus has trod it with unblemished steps, and although the way is narrow, its destination is an open heaven” (Havas [1936], 59).

† “What is most sorrowful is when even a Christian, although struggling, falls also into the sin of hypocrisy. This may become evident in the disappearance of open brotherly relations. Good is spoken to the face, evil behind the back” (Reinikainen 1969, 78).

There is no shortage of hypocrisy going on within the church. Altemeyer proposes that “fundamentalist Protestantism may directly promote hypocrisy among its members through one of its major theological principles: that if one accepts Jesus as a personal savior and asks for the forgiveness of one’s sins, one will be saved” (2006, 133, emphasis added). Sunday after Sunday, Conservative preachers ask their congregations to forgive them for failing to do good for their neighbors or confess their faith, but their behavior remains unchanged. In one LLC congregation where I have numerous contacts (and probably others where I don’t), a sizable percentage of the young people maintain worldly lifestyles while sitting piously in church every Sunday. The love of Christ is preached and lofty claims are made about the closeness of the brothers and sisters in faith, but I have found the reality to be quite different.

† “The sin of covetousness is very prevalent in the world today. Man strives for and seeks great possessions. This craving is never satisfied” (VOZ, 7/1999).

† “In our Christianity, we think that gambling games in any form are not suitable for the believer” (Päivämies No. 4, 2007).

† “Sins unto death” are “sins which, when one falls into them, remove faith and the person goes out of the kingdom of God” (By Faith, 57).

So, my correspondent concludes, removing faith from a Christian always requires one’s own personal decision. To give up his faith, he must state that he no longer has any need for salvation and reconciliation, which is in Christ alone. Thinking that salvation and reconciliation is only 99% up to Christ and leaving 1% up to himself will remove faith. The Christian’s heart or spiritual status has to rely on Christ even amid temptations. Keeping faith and good conscience (through faith) is always an act of God, which is expressed as a sincere will of the person to put the ultimate trust in Christ for his salvation.

† “given occasion to ponder, are there in living Christianity so uncomprehending, not to say, so ignorant of the Word of God, that such a question can be raised.” He concluded his article by saying, “May even the one who asked such a question believe even such thoughts forgiven in the holy name and precious blood of Jesus” (from Greetings of Peace, 2/1950).

The Society claims that it has done all the research about various religions for us, so that we should not waste our valuable time doing research on our own. Especially forbidden was any literature that was critical of the Watchtower Society. [Wilson 2002, 106]

The Churches of Christ have no idea what other churches teach, and they have no interest in finding out. With an attitude of being the “one true church,” there is no need to know what anyone else might be doing. As a rule, their children do not participate in non-CoC vacation Bible schools, and their adults shun any community revival or ecumenical outreach efforts offered by other faiths. It is as if they feel that an open dialogue with other faiths might cause the discovery of error, and any admission of error is completely alien to a Pharisee. [Simpson 2009, 82]

[The workers] warn people against Christian books and publications saying they are published by the “Enemy” [Lewis 2004, 229]

Mormon culture makes a very conscious effort to teach children to believe in a specific version of reality, and it warns them about the dangers of contrary beliefs and ideas. All cultures with beliefs and practices that differ greatly from Mormon culture are said to be wrong and misguided at best, and inspired by Satan at worst. [Worthy 2008, 13]

† “In these times there are inventions of clubs or clubs and hobbies for all ages. For children day clubs, young people have the clubs for their age group, and the elderly have silver clubs. If believers are leaders and the spirit in the club is preserved in a healthy foundation, then the Christian can be a partaker. But so often these type of clubs are occasions to sit where the scorners sit. There is always the danger that the corruption of wrong doctrines and the secret filth of self-righteousness slowly corrupts and the conscience becomes dimmed. The advice of the word of God is to avoid that which corrupts” (VOZ, 8/1978).

And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fœtus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it. [Ch. 35]

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed. [Apologetic, Apology, Ch. 9]

Tertullian appreciated the ethical nuances of medical issues, however. Despite condemning abortion in the above quote, he provides the following gruesome description of late-term abortion as being undertaken “sometimes by a cruel necessity”:

[W]hilst yet in the womb, an infant is put to death, when lying awry in the orifice of the womb he impedes parturition, and kills his mother, if he is not to die himself.  Accordingly, among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fœtus is extracted by a violent delivery. [Apologetic, The Soul’s Testimony, Ch. 25]

Tertullian’s acknowledgment of “cruel necessity” seems to value the life of the mother over that of the fetus. Caesarean sections were performed in ancient times, starting hundreds of years before Tertullian, but to save the life of the child with the understanding that the mother would face certain death.

† “[A]ssisted suicide is contrary to God’s Word. It breaks the fifth commandment; it is murder. . . . [E]ven in an extreme case, when a person lives but is left in a vegetative state, God has a reason for this, though we may not understand. Many have experienced that God doesn’t give us greater trials that we can handle, and He give strength to bear the trials we receive. Truly, it is God’s decision when our lives are to end” (VOZ, 8/2000).

† “People have forgotten that God is the Creator and upholder of all, Lord over life and death. God alone has the power to create life and take it away. Man, in his pride, can begin to think that he is in control of his own life. Man attempts to take these matters of life and death into his own hands. This includes decisions regarding life and death themselves. This manifests itself, for example, in the prevention of conception, the termination of pregnancy, some kinds of gene manipulation, efforts to clone humans, and euthanasia. . . . God has not given authority to man to control life. Even in our time of great scientific and medical advances, God is the Lord over life and death” (VOZ, 1/2009).

For the forgiveness of sins begins in baptism and remains with us all the way to death, until we arise from the dead, and leads us into life eternal. So we live continually under the remission of sins.

—Martin Luther, from Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther

† “After the law has been fully explained and preached, we must then preach the gospel and faith powerfully. If we do not use the keys of loosing, as well as the keys of binding, prisoners cannot be freed. And are we not to preach redemption to prisoners, freedom to the oppressed, and restoring of sight to the blind?” (from Kulla 1985, 177)

† “God is not as merciful as the sorrowless and grace-thieves think. God requires true penitence and repentance before He opens up His merciful heart. God requires living faith before he can forgive sins” (Laestadius, First Rogation Day sermon [1859]; Fourth Postilla, 85).

† “There are a lot of people in this world who say they believe in God. There are a lot of people in this world who study the Bible daily. But when you bring up this very portion of the Scripture that we have read this evening to their attention, they very vehemently deny that this means that the preaching of the gospel was left in the hands of man.” Why, he challenged, “did Jesus then tell these first disciples after He had given them the Holy Spirit that ‘whosoever sins you remit they are remitted.’ If there is one such person in our midst who doesn’t believe, I would like to have you get up and answer that question now based on scriptures that what backing do you have for not believing the truth of God?”

Robert M. Price, a scholar of both the Bible and evangelical Christianity, has told me that modern evangelicals completely disregard this passage, finding it contrary to their widely held belief that one is saved through a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” He finds such a belief ill-founded, and has some regard for the Conservative view about personal absolution. But he also thinks that Wisuri “is overstating the case: few if any evangelicals anymore deny that God has left the preaching of the gospel in the hands of man. (Some old Calvinists did, opposing missions for that reason.)” Where Wisuri has a point, Dr. Price believes, is that those same evangelists “take this passage to mean merely that Christ has given us the job of preaching the gospel, and that if we do, and someone accepts it, their sins will be remitted, not by the evangelist but by God.” He calls that “a side-stepping of the force of the verse, which seems to intend that the apostles and their successors shall absolve sins as they see fit.”

† “God’s mission command goes forth from generation to generation. At its core, for we who live and believe in New Testament times, is the forgiveness of sins in the name and blood of Jesus. This is the most important teaching and learning, the most important giving and receiving. It is the greatest blessing we, and our children, can own” (VOZ, 2/2001).

A presentation at the SRK’s 2006 Summer Services discusses John 20:20-23:

† “Many people believe that they can confess their sins privately to God through prayer and that God, himself, will forgive their sins. . . . But God does not justify sinners privately, rather He sends the owners of the office of remission to preach the gospel of forgiveness to the penitent sinner” (Uljas 2000, 74).

† “In many churches of this world, it is proclaimed that man can pray to God and be forgiven his sins and become saved. This is not according to God’s Word. Man needs to become humble as a little child and believe his sins forgiven in the gospel preached in the name and blood of Jesus and take up the cross and follow Him. Many times Jesus preached this saving word and there were many who were offended, saying that ‘who can forgive sin but God?’ In Matthew is recorded, ‘But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins’” (VOZ, 8/2004).

† “Only childhood christians, who have remained in the covenant of baptism repenting of their sins and faults, they have not forsaken the Kingdom of God through unbelief, they have always remained in the Father’s home. But not as the older brother (Luke 15:29-30) who felt he had never broken the Father’s command and therefore did not need forgiveness, of the Father he only demands payment for the faithfulness and work. But the right children of the Father live in the knowledge of their sinfulness and failings, and for that reason need the forgiveness of sins, even though they have not walked on the paths of sin together with the ungodly world. From childhood, they have had life in the Father’s home through the grace of forgiveness in Jesus’ blood. And they live in the same experiences and in the same grace as they who have returned as prodigal sons from the journey in the world through the narrow gate into the Kingdom of God, to the Father’s home” (Leonard Typpö [1868-1922], from Greetings of Peace, 9/1956).

† “Jesus alone, do you not perceive, fellow-pilgrim, Jesus alone is our salvation. And for that reason we desire to walk leaning upon the pilgrim-staff, the forgiveness of sins, that we might not soil our raiment in the cesspools of the world. I bid you farewell my friends in America and everywhere, with these words: Sins are forgiven us in Jesus blood through faith” (Matti Suo [1861-1927], from Greetings of Peace, 8/1950).

† Christian parents and children “have this consolation that there they have this altar of grace in their midst to which they can gather. And when each one needs, they can come and ask for blessing and forgiveness and they can forgive each other their sins. Now in our read text, we have an example of this. When the Apostle Paul had come again to visit at Timothy’s home and he had greeted young Timothy with God’s Peace, the young Christian boy had been timid to confess his faith. And the apostle Paul had said, ‘Well, what’s the trouble, Timothy? Why do you hesitate to confess your faith?’ Timothy broke into tears, and he said, ‘I don’t know whether I have the right to call myself a Christian anymore because I have committed sin and I have a bad conscience.’ And the old apostle . . . began to talk to him and say, ‘Well, Timothy, confess your sin, there is forgiveness in God’s Kingdom.’ And when Timothy opened his heart and conscience to speak the trouble that had wounded his conscience, we read of how the Apostle Paul extended his hand in blessing upon Timothy to bless him in Jesus’ name and to forgive him in Jesus’ blood, so that Timothy’s tears changed to joy, and again this young boy felt happy, that now again I have a good conscience cleansed in the blood of Jesus. My sins are forgiven and I am a child of God’”

† “It is not enough when at one time a person has been helped into faith, for salvation. We need to be preserved in faith until the end of our journey. We still need men and women like Barnabas [Acts 11:23] who preach faith in our surroundings” (Siionin Lähetyslehti, 1979).

† “Once believing, daily repentance is also needful, though it is different from the repentance from unbelief. It is daily recognizing the need for and care of the Gospel. Admitting before God that I am but filthy rags, and accepting the rich love and care of the Heavenly Father, through His kingdom here on earth. Daily one can believe that sins are forgiven in Jesus’ name and precious blood” (VOZ, 12/1999).

† “the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to his disciples. All believers in Jesus, who have received the Holy Spirit, now have power and authority to remit and retain sins in the name of Jesus, that is, in accordance with his command on his behalf. He knew man and realized that the human wretch, stripped naked by the fall into sin, no longer retained any ability to free himself from his bonds by his own efforts. This recognition of helplessness becomes evident even to man himself when his conscience awakens. Until then, a person may imagine that he can free himself from the bonds of sin in some way other than through the keys of remission. Whoever thinks thus reveals that he has not yet become sufficiently pressured in his conscience after all, for he rejects the aid offered by Heaven and also remains so bold as to demand of God that aid be given in another way, determined by man himself. The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven have been lost many times, but the Holy Spirit of God has always fetched them anew from their hiding place for the use of Christ’s congregation, for the Lord of the congregation himself has promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his congregation” (from Hepokoski 2002b, 5).

The words have no power unless they are spoken by someone with the Holy Spirit:

† The proclamation of the forgiveness of sins by “an unbeliever, or [by] anyone without the Holy Spirit, will not open heaven for anyone, regardless of how piously and verbatim it is proclaimed even as in God’s congregation” (Taskila 1961, 10).

† “There is much gospel in our time which does not free anyone from sin nor does it bring about anything but misguidance. When the Spirit of God is lacking from the proclaimer, then the proclamation is a mere jingle of words that does not heal anyone” (VOZ, 4/1974).

Two separate propositions in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession seem to indicate that the reformers would not have been concerned about the proclaimer’s spiritual state. One proposition is that absolution is a sacrament: “[M]ost people in our churches frequently use the Sacraments (Absolution and the Lord’s Supper) during the year” (Article 11; McCain 2005, 156); “Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution (which is the Sacrament of Repentance) are truly Sacraments” (Article 13; McCain 2005, 184). The other is that

the Sacraments [being] administered by the unworthy does not detract from the Sacraments’ power. Because of the call of the Church, the unworthy still represent the person of Christ and do not represent their own persons, as Christ testifies, “The one who hears you hears Me” (Luke 10:16). (Even Judas was sent to preach.) When they offer God’s Word, when they offer the Sacraments, they offer them in the stead and place of Christ. Those words of Christ teach us not to be offended by the unworthiness of the ministers. [Articles 7 & 8; McCain 2005, 148]

Was absolution a sacrament or not? If it was, as most of Osiander’s colleagues believed, what did this mean for its proper use? Could it be applied with equal validity and efficacy to crowds and to individuals? Given that most believed the individual encounter between pastor and confessant was to be preferred, how could one compel attendance at private confession if forgiveness could also be obtained through general absolution, a sermon, or a simple word of encouragement from a fellow Christian? Were the latter two also in some way sacramental? If so, what was unique about private absolution? Finally, what was the relationship between divine and human agency in confession, between God’s Word and the confessor’s words, between God’s Word and the confessant’s faith? [Rittgers 2004, 217]

† “This office was not received only by those disciples of Jesus to whom He gave it himself; it has been received by all who have themselves believed the sermon of the forgiveness of sins. Man is truly unfit for this duty, but God has made His child fit for it” (Uljas 2000, 39).

From those disciples–somehow, over the course of 2,000 years of inconsistent church history–the true believers received it in turn. So, when Jesus said, “I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” he

† “speaks to Peter and the disciples, but includes all believers, even up to this day. Even though Jesus has physically left this Earth, the power of the forgiveness of sins is still here among the believers” (VOZ, 9/2008).

It seems clear to me that the “faith to faith” idea is a doctrinal cousin to the claims of apostolic succession that are made by many Christian groups. We got this (with a hundred intervening generations) from the apostles, so you need to come to us:

[U]nder the surface, it did not take long for succeeding generations . . . to devise the idea of an inherited “apostolic authority,” even though the apostles themselves had never claimed to hand on any such authority. Nevertheless, these would-be leaders claimed that they themselves were the true successors of these first apostles and therefore should exercise the same authority they declared that those apostles had exercised. [Cox 2009, 88]

This quote refers to “the children of God in one accord” proclaiming the absolution to someone:

† “In the Kingdom of God, that blessed family of God, even you children have experienced this truth” that in Jesus’ name and blood there is forgiveness of sin. “It is not strange to you when at the services of God’s children, the speaker brothers preach the Gospel word” that sins are forgiven. “And someone whose heart longs and yearns for the gospel receives the strength to ask: ‘May I believe my sins forgiven,’ and the children of God in one accord pronounce: ‘Sister, or Brother, believe your sins forgiven in the name and blood of Jesus’” (Ruben Alajoki, sermon given 1973).

† “although you respect Christianity, yet as long as you are outside of the Kingdom of God, in your unbelief, you are the enemy of the Lord Jesus.” Later, he said: “[P]erhaps you are one who practices religion, but who have never been blessed from the Kingdom of God. You have never been blessed for the forgiveness of your sins in the name and blood of Jesus by men who have the Holy Ghost. And therefore you have never felt how sweet the Lord is to the sinner. He forgives him all his blood-red sins. If you are not [a partaker] of this blessing, beg to become [a] partaker. You did well when you came to these services. We rejoice already of this, for the word of God is powerful to open even your understanding and awaken your conscience. And we would have a great desire to bless you with this blessing in Jesus’ name. You are welcome to come for a personal conversation with us concerning these matters pertaining to the salvation of your soul, of your very personal and perhaps very smarting matters. And you have leave to begin to complain over your troubles from the bench [where] you are sitting. Here around you is a flock of witnesses, of whom the Apostle writes, that when it is near, then it is a good time to put away sin and burden, repent of sin. The whole flock will proclaim your sins all forgiven to you. You will be blessed with this everlasting gospel. And even you will become a new creature in Christ.”

I recall most of the sermons preached up until the 1990s containing both a proclamation to believers of the forgiveness of sins and an urging of repentance to any unbelieving audience members, with the implication that the general blessing would not effect their conversion. That has largely been replaced by the preacher simply making the proclamation that the unbeliever can also, if he desires to accept it, believe in the forgiveness of his sins. Although the quoted portion of Hakso’s sermon makes it appear that he is following the older practice, he actually goes on to tell his unbelieving hearer to “permit yourself to be blessed with this gospel. Even I as a weak servant of Christ desire in this sermon intended for all, [to] preach your sins forgiven to you.” But he follows that up by expressing certainty that the convert will feel the desire to ask for absolution personally:

Our doctrine-father Luther says that we are allowed to believe the gospel from the general preachings. But we know that if someone receives power to believe from the general preaching, he does not remain a Christian who does not confess his faith. But he will certainly begin to say to others, what [a] miracle occurred to me, when even I [a] wretched sinner had my blood-red sins forgiven. He begins to confess his faith. And brothers and sisters, we have experienced, that when God is given to awaken the conscience, you feel the desire to ask personally, is it true that so great a sinner as I am, can believe my sins forgiven? And still, as in the days of the Apostolic church and congregation, the children of God laid their hands upon the repentant sinner and proclaimed the forgiveness of sins personally. And in this way we receive power to believe that the gospel means just me. And this is not a doctrine discovered by the Laestadians. But as the Apostle writes of the doctrine of the Lord Jesus, he says that it also includes the laying on of hands.

It is a far cry from what was practiced when Luther came on the scene. The “monastic ideal” then was only “several confessions per year.” Most people confessed during Holy Week, perhaps on a few other occasions throughout the year, before being married, and “whenever they were facing the possibility of death owing to sickness, childbirth, or dangerous travel” (Rittgers 2004, 26-27).

† “I would greet you, dear fellow traveler on Life’s Way with the word of encouragement. Do not give up your most precious faith. Believe still, as a sinner, that in the name and precious blood of the Friend of sinners, even your sins are all forgiven” (Paul Heideman, Greetings of Peace, 10/1942).

† “Proclaim yet for awhile, you angels of the Lord of Hosts, the gospel, whose very core is the forgiveness of sins! You people of the Lord who suffer from your sinfulness, believe even now your sins forgiven in Jesus’ name and holy blood!” (Taskila 1961, 4).

In the early days of the Voice of Zion, there were many such direct proclamations of absolution to the reader:

† “Dear Reader! You may even now believe all your sins, your failings, your fears, forgiven in Jesus’ name and shed blood. ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world!’ Even your sins are taken away, they are cleansed and removed as far as the east is from the west” (VOZ, 1/1980).

From what I recall, these written proclamations were not understood as applying to outsiders. Certainly nobody expected someone to show up in church and be treated as a “believer” by virtue of having read the church newspaper.

It was even common for authors to lament their sinfulness and ask for forgiveness in their articles. A response would appear below each such article reading something like this: “You can believe your sins forgiven in Jesus’ name and blood. –The editors.” It surely stretches the credulity of even the most pious reader to imagine an author spending months awaiting the issue of the Voice of Zion to arrive that contains the response to his request and the assurance that, yes, his sins are indeed forgiven.

Thou shalt confess thy sins. Thou shalt not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light.

—The Epistle of Barnabus [c. 100 A.D.]

† “the severe pains of conscience compel a sinner, who is penitent and willing to repent, to make an open confession of sins in the presence of some Christians, who may be many or few in number; and this open confession of sins is made to ease a burdened conscience” (VCW, 89).

He wrote that it

† would be “pure nonsense” for a Communion participant not to be “obliged to confess his willful sins, which he actually has committed, but only in a general way to confess himself to be sinful. . . . What is so hard about becoming saved? The minister testifies sins forgiven every Sunday to shameless sinners, who continue to love their bosom sins. The minister does not require that everyone who signs up for Communion must make known his condition of soul. He requires no true confession of sin, but only the general, hypocritical confession of sin.” In such case, “only a few Communion participants will make their confession of sin for the whole congregation” (VCW, 125).

Such “pure nonsense” is the norm now; it would surprise most Conservatives to hear that there ever was such a thing as a pre-sacramental examination, which goes back to Luther’s time (“No one is admitted to the Sacrament without first being examined,” Augsburg Confession, Article 24; McCain 2005, 47). As discussed below, general absolution is now proclaimed to all before Communion, usually multiple times.

† “Certainly on the way of a Christian there have been sins which he has not had strength to bring to light. The Holy Spirit has reminded for years and perhaps decades. We the servants in the word have experienced this that perhaps even a graying elder may have brought to light sins of his youth, confessed them and had them forgiven. The questions, however, have often risen: oh, why didn’t I release myself of those burdens before? Why carry these for years and years? . . . But I would advise you brothers and sisters as a servant of God in these admonishments, do not burden yourself with those nominal things, whether they are sins that have happened in youth, in middle age or old age. Here in the kingdom of God there is such freedom that one can speak of these to a confessor father or mother” (Lauri Hakso, sermon printed in VOZ, 6/1976).

† “It is never an easy matter to repent of sins for the flesh fights against the Spirit. But sin has a name, and those named sins will not go away without our speaking of them to a dear brother or sister. We are assured that we can freely go to a dear one and open our heart. But those sins that have affected the congregation of God are to be repented of before the congregation; otherwise we will not receive freedom” (VOZ, 10/1978).

† “much confusion and wrong understanding has come about amongst the Christians when from confession a merit unto salvation is made. The truth is still this that nothing comes before the righteousness of faith. Our only salvation is through Christ Jesus, for through faith we have become righteous. But also when confession is left out, then one has also gone astray in understanding. For it is through the Holy Spirit of God which has come to dwell in our hearts that we are instructed to put away sin. We can never underestimate the confession of sins, for in order to keep faith and good conscience and preserve Jesus as the only true reason of our salvation, we confess and put sin away. . . . Confession is a grace privilege for those of us in faith to remain in faith. It ensures unto us that those sins are forgiven in the blood of Jesus. It is not just that by confession we become saved, but rather confession is a fruit of living faith.”

So, even though it was not a “merit unto salvation,” it was a “fruit of living faith.” In other words, you’d better be doing it regardless.

† “If one has so much pride [that] one does not want to reveal to the other Christians the sinfulness inside, one is only deceiving ones’ own self. In order to attain that heavenly home, it will be revealed eventually, so one should not hold back for how else can one be cleansed from all defilement.”

If David’s “conscience had accused him without Nathan’s reminder,” Laestadius said in his Fourth Rogation sermon of 1859, “then he could have made a secret repentance, although a secret repentance cannot succeed for the reason that the sins are covered, not with God’s grace, but with the devil’s honor. But when Nathan came to accuse him, he had to confess his sins, for by this accusation his honor was broken and then the spirit of God was able to effect true penitence” (Fourth Postilla, 230).

† “[I]t is a blessed fact that each one of us has been given guides who lovingly lead us and counsel us to put sin away even by name” (VOZ, 11/1979).

† The “confessor father” to whom a person turns “proclaims all sins forgiven in Jesus’ name and blood. The confessor father must not tell anyone about the forgiven matters. If two or more children of God have been overtaken in the same sin, they cannot become freed of it by absolving each other. Then another Christian–not involved in the matter–is needed to proclaim absolution. Sometimes, the sin may be of such nature that it should be confessed before the congregation. Then all the children of God know that the open and public offense has been openly mended” (By Faith, 91).

In the past 20 years, the official line has remained that confession is important, even to the point of the devil being the source of reluctance to use it:

† “When sin presses, the devil preaches that this is a most difficult matter to put away; no one has done such a great sin. Or, he wants to cheapen the grace of God by saying that this is such a small matter that it does not need to be cared for; it would sound foolish to confess such a small matter. I am sure that the psalm writer experienced these kinds of attacks by the devil, but holding faith precious, he emboldens to care for these matters. We also have permission to pray that strength and boldness would be given to us. We know and can be assured that the Heavenly Father hears these prayers and even provides those heavenly escorts, confessor fathers and mothers, so that we can drink from the fountain of grace and be cleansed in the name and blood of Jesus” (VOZ, 7/1990).

† Some “who are living in the permissiveness of sin on occasion defend themselves by claiming that they have no need to take care of the matters. It suffices their consciences to hear the general preaching of the gospel. This is, of course, possible, but it requires, as Luther says, a ‘strong and firm faith.’ Luther then asks, ‘But how many have such a strong faith?’ When the fruits of the flesh prevail in the lives of those that make these claims, their claims seem especially empty” (Jon Bloomquist, presentation given 1998).

† Regarding public confession, “matters are corrected as to the extent that offense has been caused. In private confession, matters may come out that we correct more broadly. The gospel preached by the confessor-father conveys the power of forgiveness to correct the matters. This takes place when, for example, one has caused an offense against another person or the government” (Uljas 2000, 90).

† “While it is true that the general gospel [absolution proclaimed without confession, e.g., during services] promises the forgiveness of all sins, the common experience of God’s children is that their faith is so weak that they have needed private confession and its absolution” (Markus Korpi, presentation given 2003).

Perhaps there is something self-perpetuating about the need that Korpi mentions? When people are told from childhood that “one does not receive peace and freedom” of particular sins without confession (as Uljas generalizes in the quote above, based solely on his own experience), is it any wonder that such winds up being “the common experience”? It seems a bit like Laestadius’s observation that children arriving at confirmation school “are somewhat in a state of innocence; they do not know of any difference between good and evil. They must therefore be awakened to recognize their own corrupt nature; they must through their own experience become convinced that all people are naturally the children of wrath” (VCW, 72).

† “The grace-privilege to confess even of ‘name-sins’ and the acknowledgment of our overall corrupt nature are part of our life as a child of God. Confession is a grace-gift that blunts the accusations of the enemy of souls. How fortunate we are that we can go to a fellow believer at any time and speak of the wounds of sin” (VOZ, 2/2009).

the penitent makes so much of these trifles that he is not able really to give heed to the thing of chief importance, namely, the desire for a better life. He is compelled to tax his memory with such a mass of details, and so to fill his heart with the business of rightly expressing his cares and anxieties, while seeking out forgotten sins or a way of confessing them, that he entirely loses the present pangs of conscience, and the whole profit and salutary effect of confession. When he is absolved, therefore, he rejoices not so much because he is absolved, as because he has freed himself once for all from the wretched worry of confession; for what he has been seeking has been not the absolution, but rather the end of the laborious nuisance of confessing. [PE 1, 91]

He certainly had mixed feelings about private confession. Luther said it was where “God’s word and absolution are spoken privately and individually to each believer for the forgiveness of his sins.” In his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, he considered it “a precious, useful thing for souls,” but added the caveat, “as long as no one is driven to it with laws and commandments but sinners are left free to make use of it, each according to his own need, when and where he wishes” (Lull 2005, 66; translation checked against WA 26, 507). And in his Table Talk, he looked back on the “many conflicts of the conscience” in which “we have been ensnared, confounded, and captivated under popedom, saying, “If we would but consider the tyranny of auricular confession, one of the least things we have escaped from, we could not show ourselves sufficiently thankful to God for loosing us out of that one snare” (§288).

we are so far from being able to know or confess all the mortal sins that even our good works are damnable and mortal, if God were to judge with strictness, and not receive them with forgiving mercy. If, therefore, all mortal sins are to be confessed, it can be done in a brief word, by saying at once, “Behold all that I am, my life, all that I do and say, is such that it is mortal and damnable.” [p. 89]

Fundamentalism is not well-known for its claims to have imperfect knowledge and prophecies that will pass away. Nor are fundamentalists well-known for their openness, humility, or love toward those who disagree with them.

—Conrad Hyers, The Comic Vision

† “When Prophet Nathan in God’s name rebuked [David] of his ungodly life, he did not become offended as do many at the present time who become angry when they are rebuked but he received pangs of conscience when he allowed the Spirit of God to chastise him by the mouth of the prophet. Through this deep penitence, into which David fell because of this chastisement, his heart became ready to receive grace and the forgiveness of sins” (Laestadius, Fourth Rogation Day Morning sermon [1854]; Fourth Postilla, 223-24).

“Approximately 15 percent of evangelical churches practice church discipline,” according to Joyce. “[H]undreds of congregants in fundamentalist Baptist and other evangelical churches have been excommunicated or shunned for misdeeds ranging from drunkenness, adultery, refusal to honor church elders, gossiping, and sowing disharmony” (2009, 212).

The leadership of the SRK-Laestadianism which consisted mostly of lay preachers began to see the unity and purity of the Kingdom increasingly threatened by harmful outside influences and lax discipline inside. It became a necessity to root out these influences and those who kept disseminating them. [Ketola 2010, 5]

Just a few decades after Heikki Jussila’s 1948 criticism of the New Awakening, his words began to apply to his own Conservative Laestadianism: “There was no peace, but so many ‘revelations of the spirit’ that the Word of God could not be preached in peace” (p. 84).

† “Sin affects sore spots in the members of Christ’s Body. Speedy care is always necessary, so that a member [of the congregation] doesn’t need to be cut off. The instructions for care have been given by the Holy Spirit. Sickness is to be avoided but in care of sicknesses the help comes by way of individuals or at the center for care aided by the congregation of God. First the brother is to be reproved by one. Then with two or three witnesses present if the brother is not obedient to this reproof. Last of all the congregation decides the matter of the brother. The Church Law of Christ is particularly necessary at the end times” (VOZ, 5/1974).

Those accused of such spiritual sickness

had to step in front of the whole congregation where they had to listen to the charges made against them. The whole congregation, not just those acting as chairmen, could join in making accusations. The accused then had the chance to repent and receive forgiveness. If they did or could not do this in the right way, and this often meant using very specific words and phrases, they could be expelled from the congregation and thus from the Kingdom of God. [Ketola 2010, 5-6]

Understandably, these “events were traumatic for many accused. Many of them were old people who could not understand that they had done anything wrong. Many tried to repent immediately just to be spared further pain and humiliation but this was not possible because the leaders wanted to be certain that the accused really understood what they have done wrong” (p. 6). If they were unsuccessful, they were “bound.” Then they were considered “pagans and publicans” and refused “membership in the association,” as the 1971 Päivämies article instructs.

† “Even if some grounds have been sought to appeal to authorities, God does not take care of matters with the help of the police, but His manner of caretaking is different. Of home teachers, the most unerring one is the Holy Spirit, which always reveals God’s own and uses as its support the Bible message. Always, when the condition of heart has been repaired from the faults of the fall, the ‘sound of the bell has changed.’ No longer would one frighten such with the police, but even to such is preached repentance and forgiveness of sins. When the vessel is cleansed from within, it becomes clean even from the outside! Surely we would not be like those who in temporal and especially in spiritual matters, would be zealous or anxious to give the matter to the police if something should happen. The possibility for correction is small, especially in that matter, which to us is the most important. Speaking in connection with one’s own falls, accusations, use of authorities, are especially serious symptoms and a first sign of a deep falling away and of hardening” (Päivämies, 1974).

Members were encouraged not to take offense, but to submit to the congregational meetings as acts of love:

† “Sister or brother, if you have found yourself in that place that the congregation has had to rebuke you, do not be offended. Don’t let the old Adam take hold of your heart, although it would hurt it. Your brothers and sisters have only one good intention, and it is that you would inherit eternal life. Although the words of instructions feel unloving and hard to you,, nevertheless, the intention is to bring you to repentance” (Päivämies, 1974).

But concern for the one being rebuked certainly was not the only motivation, as Peter Nevala makes clear in this article from the July 1974 Voice of Zion:

† “When some serious defilement of flesh and spirit appears in the congregation which has ‘moved stones from their place,’ not many members of the congregation can be found who have not taken a stand in the matter. These sayings and opinions, which have not moved those concerned from the true foundation of faith and doctrine, are ‘swept away.’ First they cause only discord and dissension in the congregation, but if uncared for, they cause different spirit and heresy. Therefore the commandment was: first sweep the house, that is, let the loose litter be removed, so that on account of these the healthy would not be condemned as defiled.”

† “If we ask forgiveness for hard feelings and do not bring up the reasons, the root of bitterness is left untouched and is waiting for the next occasion to come up. It is necessary that we put our flesh to shame, and in so doing we receive power from the Holy Spirit to resist falling back into the same condition” (VOZ, 7/1974).

When the subject’s request for forgiveness (often repeated desperately and tearfully) was not granted by the end of the meeting, the congregation would exercise the “binding key”:

† The third step in the Church Law of Christ, “which is given only to the Church of God or the kingdom of God, is then the highest tribunal upon this earth. Its decision is final. The church of God alone can use this binding key; and if man does not hear the Church of God, he has been bound in his sins because of his disobedience to the instructions of the Word and the Spirit of God that speaks in and through the congregation (church). Jesus has said, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’ Then such a one is no longer a child of God and is not greeted with God’s Peace. But if after he has been bound by the congregation he should become penitent of his sins and wants to repent of them, then the children of God are always ready to forgive him his sins and use the key of loosening. Each individual Christian has the authority to use the key of loosening to forgive the penitent sinner his sins, but the fruits of his repentance will also lead him to make repentance before the congregation which has bound him” (VOZ, 8/1976).

† “The congregation of God knowing how great a danger there is that the individual Christian may fall, has cared for her members with wholesome grace, using even the keys of binding as well as the keys of loosening. We are thankful to God even for this caretaking” (Päivämies No. 6, 1978).

That act of binding is something I personally witnessed several times as a youth. It is quite unforgettable to see people ask the congregation for forgiveness at a meeting held concerning their spiritual affairs and receive only cold silence as a response. Sometimes they would sit gamely at their table at the front of the church while the meeting continued to the bitter end, often late into the night. And sometimes they would reach their breaking point and storm out of the building, ending the meeting of their own accord. I saw it go either way. Both outcomes were heartbreaking to the subjects as well as the congregation members who sincerely believed that the soul of their brother or sister hung in the balance that night.

† “True humility is known by this, that the faulty one does not pull concealment over himself, nor does he squirm before the truth of God, but upon falling into error acknowledges the fall as his own; without defensive speeches or seeking alleviating circumstances, submits himself to repentance of that which causes sorrow in the congregation of God. Having received the forgiveness of sins, he remains believing and enjoying the peace and freedom brought by the forgiveness as a child of God. When the heart is not right, the repentance made today is undone tomorrow and the situation is worse than before. One sign yet, that the heart did not thaw of its pride, is this, that a bitter heart remains toward the caretakers. If weaknesses are found in the caretakers, it does not help to grumble behind the back.” One should approach them directly and “say where the ‘shoe is pinching.’” (VOZ, 5/1979).

“The Board!,” I recall a loved one intoning with exaggerated somberness in a discussion about all the “caretaking” that the church’s local board of trustees was zealously carrying out. Grumbling behind the back of the church elders was the only possible relief. To approach them with concerns about their activities carried the very real danger of seeming unrepentant and becoming subject to yet another meeting. Instead, for a couple of years to come, the public face remained one of compliance and thankfulness for the opportunity of correction.

† “I have been able to sit at the meetings and have been able to see how this mother has taken care of even the children of God here. Allow yourself to be cared for, dear brothers and sisters; it does not matter one bit if your pride is scuffed” (Lenna Pellikka, sermon given 1979).

† “Here in America, and also in Canada and there in Finland, I have met many believers who in their hearts praise God, and even with their mouths say, ‘The children of God came and corrected me. If God in His love would not have approached me through His Kingdom, I would have perished, deceived by the enemy’” (Voitto Savela, sermon given 1980).

By the early 1980s, the caretaking meetings had stopped, with one exception of which I’m aware, a meeting that I witnessed in the late 1980s. I am now ashamed to admit that, as a hot-headed and excessively devout youth, I helped instigate the proceedings. One happy outcome of the whole unpleasant affair was that I developed a strong rapport with one of the individuals who had been the subject of concern (misplaced, on my part). He was an intelligent, independent-minded individual who has now, to my sadness, passed away. And there’s no doubt that his faith was of utmost importance to him until the very end of his life.

Though the practice of congregation-wide caretaking meetings ceased, the concept remained important, at least for a while:

† “Generally, we find rebuking another person to be an unpleasant task and are often reluctant and timid to do so. A healthy timidity rises from the knowledge and understanding of our own poorness. But we must also acknowledge that there are other factors that may cause us to be timid and sometimes even negligent. For example, we may fear that we will start an argument, be rejected, lose a friend, or even make an enemy. Sometimes we may simply be lazy and indifferent. Such fears rise from our flesh and our darkened reason. God’s Word, however, teaches us that when we ignore a brother’s sin we both hate him and share in his guilt [Lev 19:17]. Proverbs teach that ‘open rebuke is better than secret love’ and that he that rebukes another will afterward be more favored than someone who has merely flattered him [Prov. 27:5; 28:23]. In the so-called ‘church law of Christ’ [Mt l8:15-17], Jesus teaches that when our brother sins against us, we should discuss the matter with him alone, one on one. If our brother does not hear us, Jesus says to take ‘one or two more,’ and if he still will not hear, Jesus says ‘tell it unto the church.’ If the offending brother refuses to hear the church, then he is no longer to be regarded a brother in faith. Then the keys of binding are used” (Don Lahti, presentation given 1997).

A healthy timidity finally took hold, which sometimes raised concerns that things were moving too far in the opposite direction:

† “To be your brother’s keeper means approaching the fallen one in a gentle, humble manner. We should not be harsh, yelling, or judging. We are being helpful, not nosy. It’s good to speak of matters pertaining to faith life. Sometimes it is very difficult for the fallen one to talk about his sin, or even want to admit to it. As our brother’s keeper, we need to remember this and approach them privately. A gentle reminder can be enough, you don’t need to reprimand. It’s important to show concern; when a friend has strayed, help him” (VOZ, 1999).

† “Jesus says, ‘If thy brother shall trespass against thee.’ First of all, the context is between brothers or sisters in faith. Secondly, the action in question is a trespass, a sin, or an offense. Thirdly, the sin has personally offended. The context is typically clear: we know who are believers and who are not. The second and third points may be ambiguous. It may not be quite clear to us whether the action is a sin or an offense, or whether it was personally against us. Nevertheless, if something disturbs us, and has [broken the] love between believers, go and initiate a discussion in which these two questions can be clarified” (VOZ, 10/2005).

However, the authentic text probably supported the earlier understanding that the “Church Law” was not just for offenses “between brothers or sisters in faith,” but for sin generally. The earliest manuscripts do not include the words “against you” after “If your brother sins, . . . .” Ironically, the Conservative preachers of the 1970s who conducted hundreds of caretaking meetings about sins and “false spirits” rather than mere personal offenses were probably aware of only the (likely) inauthentic “against you” reading from the 1776 Finnish version and the KJV. But when there are witches to be hunted, textual nuances don’t seem to be a major consideration.

Though the “Church Law” never makes it to the third stage of congregational action anymore, the idea of rebuke remains important:

† “[A] characteristic of Christian love is to rebuke of sin when necessary. God’s Word teaches that this is a correct love. A believer rebukes those whom he loves just as God corrects those whom he loves” (VOZ, 8/2006).