One of the most unsettling episodes in Scripture comes right after the healing of Naaman in 2 Kings 5. Elisha, the prophet of God, refuses the lavish gifts that Naaman brings in gratitude for his healing. But Elisha’s servant Gehazi cannot resist. He runs after Naaman, takes some of the gifts for himself, and returns as if nothing happened. Elisha, as a prophet of the Lord, knows immediately what Gehazi has done. He confronts him, and Gehazi receives the leprosy of Naaman as a consequence for his actions. It is a sobering story of human desire gone astray and a reminder that God’s grace cannot be manipulated.
Gehazi’s sin was not just greed—though that certainly played a role. It was something more subtle and spiritually dangerous: he tried to turn God’s freely given grace into a personal mechanism, something he could manage, control, or profit from. Naaman’s healing was an act of divine mercy, an unmistakable sign that God moves according to His will and not human schemes. But Gehazi could not accept that reality. He wanted to take God’s miracle and make it serve his own ends. In that, he mirrors a very modern temptation: the idea that we can somehow manifest our desires into reality, that our focused intention, visualization, or spiritual “technique” can make God—or the universe—bend to our will.
Manifesting, in its modern sense, promises control. It suggests that if we align our thoughts, speak our desires boldly, or create the right mental or spiritual conditions, we can bring our hopes to life. It is spiritualized method: a way of trying to manage outcomes outside of God’s sovereignty. Like Gehazi, manifesting assumes that blessing can be directed, ordered, and earned, rather than received as a gift. And this is precisely what Scripture warns against. God does not respond to formulas or mental exercises; He responds to hearts that trust Him, submit to Him, and delight in His will.
One of the challenges for Christians today is that manifesting can be deceptively attractive. In a world of uncertainty, it offers an illusion of control. In a culture that prizes individual desire above all else, it presents a way to “claim” outcomes without surrendering to God. It is appealing because it promises immediate results, gives a sense of spiritual power, and allows people to feel like the architects of their own destiny. But this allure is precisely what makes it dangerous: it positions our desires as the authority, rather than God’s sovereignty.
The difference between manifesting and prayer could not be more stark. Prayer begins with God; manifesting begins with self. Prayer assumes that our desires must be shaped and purified by God; manifesting assumes they are inherently right. Prayer acknowledges God as the one who shapes reality; manifesting suggests we can. Prayer is relational and dependent; manifesting is transactional and self-reliant. Gehazi’s story exposes this danger beautifully: human desire left unchecked, whether in ancient Israel or modern culture, becomes the source of deception, greed, and ultimately judgment.
Scripture gives us a far healthier way to navigate our desires. Our hearts are deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9), and God calls us to submit them to Him. He reshapes our longings so that they align with His will, fulfilling them in ways that are far greater than we could ever imagine. Psalm 37:4 is not a promise that God will give us whatever we want; it is a promise that when we delight in Him, He will create desires in us that match His kingdom purposes. True blessing comes not from our control, but from communion with the God who holds all things in His hands.
Practically, this means that as followers of Christ we must resist the temptation to manipulate outcomes, stop treating our faith like a spiritual technique, and instead cultivate trust, patience, and obedience. Prayer, Scripture, worship, confession, and disciplined spiritual practices form the heart to recognize God’s work in our lives. Gehazi’s downfall is a cautionary tale: when we try to control God’s grace, we corrupt it. But when we trust Him, we receive His mercy and find freedom, peace, and joy that no amount of “manifesting” could ever produce.
The gospel invites us to live in this posture: to receive, not manufacture; to trust, not manipulate; to delight in God’s will, not in our own ability to bend reality. Gehazi’s story and the modern temptation of manifesting remind us that life with God is not about controlling His power, but about participating faithfully in His work. We do not manifest our future. We receive it. We do not create our destiny. We trust the One who holds it. And in that trust, we discover a peace and joy that is impossible to manufacture—but entirely real for those who follow Him.
Today is Reformation Day. October 31st is the day that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses, an open request to debate points of theology and abuse going on in the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. Here’s the thing…posts about today from both Protestants and Roman Catholics often talk about Martin Luther separating from the Church. Yet…that’s not the actual story.
The Early Church was seen as a part of the ongoing Jewish faith and practice. Jewish believers in Jesus still met in Synagogues, went to the Temple, and continued in their cultural and religious adherence to the faith, not also fulfilled through the Resurrected Christ. It was not the Christians who ‘split off’ from the rest. They understood they were the fulfillment of the law, now with Gentiles grafted in, and would continue to do so. But just a few years following the close of the New Testament Canon, we see in history the complete separation of the Christian and the Jewish faith. This separation was primarily instigated by the now templeless Jewish worshipers. The desire was not to be separate, but to let God’s people know that all they had been hoping and praying for was now here, and has been fulfilled.
Later on in history after the Reformation we see in the life of John Wesley, who, while remaining an Anglican priest his whole life, faced severe distrust from the State Church because of His Gospel centered and transformational preaching, and the Methodist movement was officially separated almost directly following his death. While this likely would have happened eventually, his desire was not to start a new church movement, but instead to reform and recenter the Anglican Church around the transforming nature and work of the Gospel.
And just a few generations later we see this again with B.T. Roberts in western New York in the late 1800’s. The preaching of the Gospel, and of holiness led the at the time lukewarm Methodist Episcopal church to defrock Roberts and other clergy, leading to the Free Methodist Church being formed in 1860. Again, not a desired separation, but a forced one by those not thrilled about the convictional lives and preaching of Roberts and his compatriots.
This now brings us back to Martin Luther in 1615. Luther did not desire separation, he did not desire to form a new movement, or be anything other than a part of the Church. And yet, he didn’t have any choice. He was forced out by a Papal Bull that excommunicated him. But when Luther nailed the theses to the Church door on October 31, 1615, it was not to start a new church, but to address the abuses and accretions in the Church of that day. And that is the true spirit of the Reformation. Not a desire for schism or control, but the desire, but to see the Church return to the Gospel, and to see abuses remedied.
This was the continued desire of the Magisterial Reformers, which has sadly been overshadowed in large part by the ideas of the radical reformation that almost wholly rejects the premises of reform established by Luther himself.
So the call to the Church today is to continue reforming. But not to just make changes or “get rid of tradition”, but to remain rooted in the Gospel, and the traditions that God has given and established through His Church, and continue spreading the Kingdom until He returns.
Less than a month ago the first woman was appointed to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury. This decision has thrown the Anglican world into a fury of activity and debate as to what to do next. As an outsider of the Anglican Communion it has been fascinating to watch those inside the Anglican movement discuss, debate and make plans for the future from here. The questions and debates brought up because of this appointment are challenging and important.
For many Anglicans, the appointment of Sarah Mullalley represents a foundational theological problem purely on the issue of the ordination of women. Myself, as someone in the Methodist movement overall which originated in Anglicanism, and the Free Methodist Church specifically has a long history of stalwart orthodoxy while also allowing for and advocating for the ordination of women. That being said, it is a point of deep contention within the Anglican world, with some Provinces (national or semi-national) and Dioceses (similar to a conference or district) have differing positions on the issue. With the Anglican Church in North America (ANCA) varying from within on the issue. All of that being said, the new appointment has thrust the debate to the forefront of the conversation, with even more intense vigor.
My contribution to this discussion (as much as it is worth not being formally Anglican) is not to take issue with the appointment of a woman, but with the particular individual who has been appointed. I, like those in my tradition and denomination, uphold women’s ordination to the ministry. Seeing it as the fulfillment of God calling all humanity to be proclaimers and ministers of His Gospel. This is rooted in an Edenic and Kingdom ideal and principle that the divisions and contentions between the sexes are ultimately healed and restored in the coming of Christ’s Kingdom on earth through His Church. I won’t be making the full case for women’s ordination here. It is something I have done in other places, and there are those who do it more regularly than me, such as Marg Mowczko.
My primary issue with the new Archbishop is her overall theological and moral framework and outlook. Sadly, over the decades in the Church of England (CoE), as it has been in Canada and the USA (which led to the creation of the ACNA) has been a quick march away from Biblically foundational truths, particularly surrounding gender, marriage and abortion. These issues in particular are where the new Archbishop to be sadly is deficient in all. Sarah Mullally regardless of her being a man or a woman is not fit to lead the CoE, or act as head of the Anglican Communion purely on the basis of her theological positions that are contrary to the Biblical foundations of not just the Anglican expression as laid out in the 39 Articles of Religion, but that are also found in Scripture.
She has expressly made her position on marriage and abortion clear in the past, demonstrating that it continues to line up with the progressive voices in the Church of England that continue to chip away at the solid truths that it was established on during the Reformation into nothing more than a secularized state church that rather than proclaiming the Gospel, seeks to equivocate on the issues of the day by collapsing at the feet of pandering words and wholly un-Biblical expressions of love that affirm rather than speak truth.
For myself, I am thankful that as a Free Methodist I have Bishops that I can trust. Are they perfect, no. But they have continued to demonstrate their submission to the Word of God, and holding fast to the faith once delivered to the saints.
In response to all of this, GAFCON, which was established itself in 2008 as a clear and Biblical voice to the insanity of liberalizing Anglicanism in the West has now just put themselves forward not as a conservative alternative to the Anglican Communion headed up by Canterbury, but as THE Worldwide Anglican Communion that represents the voice and interest of that tradition worldwide. With it, a majority of Anglicans worldwide, most represented in the global south in Africa, South America and South-east Asia will effectively reduce the historic Anglican Communion to a shell of its former self.
This move, while certainly sad to see in one sense, also seems to be the only option. The pretences and precepts that before allowed differences among the variety of perspectives in the Communion are being totally shorn away, making it clear that there is only one path forward. “Progress at all costs.”
May this be a warning to all followers of Christ in any tradition. Yes, we are to contextualize the sharing of the Gospel to our age and culture. What we are not to do is pervert and fold to the voice of the age, exchanging the truth of God for the shallow pool that is the temporal approval from culture. The Gospel calls for transformation of us into His image, not the other way around.
When one studies Church history as a Protestant there are one of two avenues to approach it. The first is that of the magisterial reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and others who saw the ongoing move of the Church as good, with the need to reform and adapt to the issues being presented to maintain the fidelity and effectiveness of Christ’s Kingdom on earth. The second approach likewise stems from the reformation from characters like Zwingli, and others of the radical reformation that saw the medieval church as wholly apostate and unfaithful, having been that way some few generations after the close of the book of Acts, and it is their job to bring the Church back to the true apostolic practice of the Christian faith.
I used to be a part of that latter group. I was unequivocally taught that while there is always a faithful remnant, the Church really got back on track with Martin Luther in the 16th Century, and while things have not always been done correctly, we have the true and best version of the faith. These tendencies are particularly found in low-church Reformed circles, anabaptist, baptist and non-denomination evangelicalism. Anything traditional is viewed with suspicion as being “too Catholic” (Roman Catholic), and generally there is a HUGE knowledge gap between the book of Acts and Martin Luther, because frankly there’s not much worth knowing until the church was saved by Luther. The problem with this mentality is that in its desire to be faithful, it ends up throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and ultimately rejects what the reformers sought to do.
To actually be Protestant—and not restorationist—means recovering what the Reformers themselves knew in their bones: that the faith of the apostles was never lost, but preserved, guarded, and handed down through the centuries by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Protestant Reformation was never meant to erase history, but to redeem it—to scrape off the corrosion of error and neglect so that the gold of the Gospel could shine once again.
Modern Protestants often forget this. We imagine that the Reformation was about starting over, about “getting back to the Bible” as though no one in fifteen hundred years had ever read it rightly. But that’s not how Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, or any of the magisterial Reformers saw their work. They saw themselves as continuing the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church—reforming her where she had strayed, but never abandoning her. They were heirs of the Fathers, not orphans. Their vision of reformation was renewal within the story of God’s people, not rebellion against it.
When you actually read the Reformers, you see how deeply they drew from the well of patristic theology. Luther was steeped in Augustine; Calvin filled his Institutes with quotations from Chrysostom, Basil, and the early councils. Cranmer built the Book of Common Prayer on the bones of ancient liturgies, purified and translated for the English people. These men saw no contradiction between Scripture and the Church’s historical witness; they believed that the same Spirit who inspired the Word also preserved its faithful interpretation through the ages.
That conviction stands in sharp contrast to the restorationist impulse that dominates much of modern evangelicalism. Restorationism assumes that the Church fell off the rails almost immediately after the apostles died—that by the second or third century, Christianity was already hopelessly compromised. It views history not as a story of God’s faithfulness, but as a long night of corruption and error until “we” finally rediscovered the truth. Its posture toward the past is suspicion, not gratitude.
But such thinking is historically false and spiritually dangerous. It cuts the believer off from the communion of saints, leaving each generation to reconstruct Christianity on its own terms. It treats the Holy Spirit as though He took a sabbatical for 1,400 years, only to return in the 16th century or, worse, in a 19th-century revival meeting. That’s not faithfulness to Scripture—it’s arrogance cloaked in piety.
Thomas Oden, one of the most important theologians of the 20th century, saw this clearly. After decades as a progressive theologian chasing modern trends, he underwent what he called a “paleo-orthodox” conversion—a return to the consensual tradition of the early Church. Oden realized that genuine renewal comes not from innovation but from remembrance. He argued that the Church’s future depends on recovering her ancient consensus, what he called “the great cloud of witnesses” of the first five centuries.
Oden’s rediscovery of the Fathers was not mere academic nostalgia; it was a spiritual awakening. He came to see that the early Church’s theology was not speculative philosophy but lived wisdom—the fruit of prayer, persecution, and pastoral care. These were men and women who wrestled with heresy, hammered out the creeds, and preserved the integrity of the Gospel under immense pressure. They gave us the vocabulary of Christian faith: Trinity, Incarnation, grace, and salvation. To ignore them is to amputate ourselves from our own theological bloodstream.
The Reformers understood this instinctively. Calvin wrote, “If we wish to provide in the best way for the consciences of men, we must go back to the ancient Church.” Luther affirmed that he taught nothing new but “the same faith that Augustine and the Fathers held.” Cranmer’s Anglican liturgy drew directly from patristic sources such as the Didache, Chrysostom, and the Gelasian Sacramentary. They didn’t imagine a sharp divide between the apostolic and the catholic; they saw themselves as faithful heirs of both.
By contrast, restorationism tries to make every believer an apostle and every church a new Jerusalem. It erases history, treating the Church as a failed experiment that must be rebooted from scratch. The result is a dizzying array of “New Testament” churches, each claiming to have recaptured the primitive faith, yet all differing on baptism, the Lord’s Supper, authority, and even the Gospel itself. What was once meant to restore unity ends up multiplying division.
True Protestantism offers a different way. It stands with Scripture as the final authority, but never apart from the Church’s living memory. It reforms what has been corrupted but keeps what is good, refusing both blind traditionalism and reckless innovation. It honors the Fathers as witnesses to how the early Church lived, prayed, and understood the Word of God. It confesses that the Spirit who inspired Scripture is the same Spirit who preserved its meaning through the generations.
Thomas Oden put it simply: “The next reformation will be a recovery of memory.” That is the call of genuine Protestantism—to remember who we are, to recover the faith that formed us, to recognize that the Church is not a modern invention but an ancient household. If the Reformers could say with confidence that they stood in continuity with the Fathers, can we?
To be Protestant, rightly understood, is to be reformed and rooted—to be biblical and historical—to be evangelical and catholic. It means confessing the faith of the Nicene Creed without embarrassment, praying words shaped by centuries of saints, and reading Scripture through the same lenses worn by those who first received it. It means recognizing that tradition, when purified by the Word, is not our enemy but our inheritance.
Our age does not need another “new” version of Christianity. It needs a remembering Church—a Protestantism that knows its Fathers, honors its Reformers, and lives its faith as part of the one Body that stretches across time and space. That kind of Protestantism is not a protest of rebellion, but a protest of witness: a bearing forth of the ancient Gospel in every generation, until the Lord returns.
Over my lifetime I have seen many different types of Church leadership styles come and go, in and out of vogue. Most of them have been focused on the leadership qualities and abilities that one possesses, and how do we develop them further for use in the church setting. This from the get go makes sense. We need competent people who can lead teams and congregations for the growth of the Kingdom. This has been especially true since the explosion of Church programs in churches since the 70’s and 80’s. At the same time, we have also started to see cracks along the edges. The turnover rate in the pastoral ministry is higher than ever, with only 1 in 10 pastors who actually retire while still in the job, and 42% of pastors in the US considering leaving the ministry annually. That is staggering!. What has happened? I don’t think it’s an issue with the overall calling that people have to the ministry. That’s never been the issue.
What I have been increasingly convinced of is that we have unduly repackaged the role of a pastor. The pattern of Scripture shows that the pastor fulfills a role that is more akin to a priest, where in our Westernized context have transformed this priestly calling into that of a CEO type leader of an organization. Think of the difference between cattle driving and sheep herding. Recovering this priestly identity is not nostalgia or an attempt to be “traditional.” It’s essential for the health, witness, and formation of the Church.
I understand the general trepidation in talking about the pastor being a priest. It is usually grounded in a skepticism of, and desire to not have appearances of things that could be considered “Roman Catholic”. Yet, in that desire, those of us in the Evangelical world have unduly separated ourselves from the riches of what the historic Church has understood to be true and in line with Scripture. With that in mind,
Shepherding – Jesus said to Peter: “Feed my sheep… Tend my sheep… Feed my sheep.” – John 21:15–17
Shepherding is relational, incarnational, and sacrificial. It’s not about delegating tasks, but entering deeply into the life of the flock. Often in our contemporary era the idea of successfully leading a church is by gauging the number of programs that are offered, and how many people are attending those programs. This, as a measure of success, is able to chart the growth or decline of a ministry solely on the number of people participating in it. Often, “discipleship” is focused on making a pathway where someone comes to church, believes, starts getting more involved, starts giving financially, and then volunteers their time. While these are all good things, the focus is on the programmatic nature of their involvement, and the success of their discipleship is gauged off involvement in said programs.
Rather, pastors as priests are called to shepherding. Instead of driving people to programs, the role is all about being with the flock as they go about their lives. Just as a shepherd would live with the sheep in the field, the pastor is called to be in and about the flock in the normal rhythms of life, not shut-up in an office planning the next worship extravaganza or coordinating the next program.
Teaching – Pastors guard truth and call people to holiness: “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” – 2 Timothy 4:2
Of all the tasks and roles that a pastor is to fulfill, teaching and preaching are the ones that go without question. We can never remove the teaching importance of the pastor from a priestly understanding. In the Old and New Testaments, it was incumbent upon those in leadership in the Temple or Early Church to teach God’s Words and ways to His people. The role of preaching and teaching must of course never be removed, but it should be put in its proper place alongside the other roles that the pastor as priest fulfills. What has generally happened in the last half century, particularly in Western Christianity is the simplification of preaching into something that is no more than inspiration and platitudes. That must be rectified to return the permanence of solid preaching that correctly conveys the purpose and will of God to His people through His Word.
Intercession – The pastor stands between God and the people—not as a barrier, but as a bridge. Paul urges Timothy, “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people” (1 Timothy 2:1). This is not mere sentiment; it is a priestly calling. The pastor’s intercession is an act of love, lifting the names and needs of the flock before the throne of grace. Prayer is one of the last vestiges of the priestly ministry that has remained intact in much of the Evangelical world. Yet even here, something has been lost. The modern trend toward purely extemporaneous prayer has, at times, replaced the deep rhythm and form of a life steeped in prayer. Historically, the priestly pattern of prayer was not spontaneous alone but structured—rooted in the “Daily Office,” where morning and evening prayers wove together Scripture, intercession, and thanksgiving for all people. This rhythm trained the heart to carry the congregation into the presence of God continually, not just reactively. The pastor’s intercession is not a task to check off but a vocation to inhabit—an ongoing participation in Christ’s own ministry of prayer for His Church.
Sacramental Ministry – In a sacramental vision of ministry, the pastor becomes a steward of the mysteries of God. Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution are not symbolic niceties but tangible means through which Christ gives Himself to His people. As Paul writes, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16). The sacraments are where heaven touches earth, where the grace of God is not only declared but embodied. The pastor’s role in administering them is not about power or prestige but service—serving as Christ’s hands extended, offering grace that is not their own to give but His alone. In Free Methodist and broader evangelical contexts, we must recover this sacramental imagination: to see baptism not as a public statement of faith alone but as a moment of new creation; to see communion not merely as a memorial but as a mysterious participation in Christ’s body and blood; to see confession and absolution as the embrace of the Father to the prodigal. The sacramental ministry is where the Word becomes flesh again and again in the life of the Church.
Living Sacrifice – If the pastor’s ministry is priestly, then their life must also be sacrificial. Paul writes, “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). The pastor’s calling is not simply to lead worship but to become worship—to live a life that mirrors Christ’s own self-giving love. Ministry, at its heart, is poured-out living. Paul describes his own life this way: “I am poured out as a drink offering” (Philippians 2:17). This is not a romantic image; it is the gritty reality of discipleship. The priestly pastor embodies a life of surrender, of holiness offered to God for the sake of others. Every sermon prepared, every bedside prayer whispered, every unseen act of service becomes part of that offering. In a world that prizes comfort, efficiency, and personal fulfillment, the pastor is called to a different pattern—the pattern of the cross. To be a living sacrifice is to allow one’s own life to become the altar where the love of Christ is made visible.
True pastoral authority is not rooted in charisma, charm, or organizational success—it is grounded in ordination under Christ and expressed through faithfulness in ministry. Peter exhorts pastors to “shepherd the flock of God… not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2–3). The authority of the pastor is not managerial but sacramental; it is not seized but received. It comes through the laying on of hands, through a calling that is both divine and communal, confirmed by the Church and commissioned by Christ Himself. In a culture that often measures leadership by visibility, influence, or metrics, the pastor’s authority is quiet, cruciform, and deeply relational. It is the authority of the towel and basin, not the throne and scepter. The pastor’s task is not to control but to care, not to command but to cultivate holiness in the people of God. When the Church recovers this vision of authority as humble participation in Christ’s own shepherding, pastoral leadership ceases to be a performance and becomes once again a vocation of love—faithful, steady, and shaped by the cross.
Authority is cruciform, sacrificial, and relational—not transactional.
Dimension
Pastor as CEO / Org‑Leader
Pastor as Priest under Christ
Identity
Manager, strategist
Mediator, shepherd, steward of grace
Primary Task
Growth, outreach
Spiritual nourishment, holiness, sacramental life
Metrics of Success
Attendance, budget
Faithfulness, spiritual fruit
Preaching
Relevant, motivational
Proclaiming Word, truth, repentance
Worship & Sacrament
Optional
Central, formative
Care
Programmatic
Personal, incarnational
Authority
Skill-based
Call & ordination under Christ
Goal
Performance
Holiness & participation in Christ
Recovering the pastoral priesthood reshapes churches, leaders, and congregations:
Formation over Platform: Investment in pastoral holiness, not only skill.
Intercession & Spiritual Care: Deeply entering into the spiritual life of the congregation.
Authority as Servanthood: Leadership is given, not grasped.
Holiness over Popularity: Sometimes speaking truth is unpopular—but faithful.
Church as Temple, Not Corporation: Visible sanctity and grace, not just programs.
When the Church recovers the language and practice of the priesthood… we begin to see people not as consumers of religion but as participants in the mystery of Christ. Pastors, the call is urgent. Will we embrace a role as priests of God’s household, stewards of the mysteries of Christ, bearers of the flock to God? Or will we settle for being managers of institutions, administrators of programs, or performers for applause?
Christ said to Peter:
“Feed my sheep.” – John 21:17
It’s not about building organizations. It’s about bearing God to His people, and His people to God. That is priestly ministry. That is true pastoral leadership.
Evangelical Christianity has rightly emphasized that forgiveness is grounded in the once-for-all atoning work of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:10–14), received by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9). Yet Scripture and the historic Christian tradition alike reveal that the means by which this grace transforms believers are not purely internal or private. Confession—verbal, relational, and restorative—stands as one of the chief practices through which the gospel is embodied in the life of the Church.
For many Protestants, the very idea of confession evokes imagery of Roman Catholic practice: a believer entering a confessional booth, disclosing sins to a priest, and receiving absolution. This often triggers skepticism: “We only have one mediator—Christ—and only God can forgive sin!” Such a reaction is understandable, especially in light of historical abuses. Yet beneath this instinct lies an incomplete picture of what confession truly is and how it functions in Scripture and the Church’s life.
One of the key differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic understandings of confession lies in the theology of the sacraments. Roman Catholicism recognizes seven sacraments, including penance, whereas most Protestant traditions affirm only two—Baptism and the Eucharist—as dominical sacraments, instituted directly by Christ. However, this need not exclude other practices from being understood as sacramental—that is, as outward signs that convey inward grace—even if they are not sacraments in the strictest sense.
A sacrament may be defined as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, instituted by Christ himself, whereby God works effectively to convey and confirm that grace to the believer. Rooted in Augustine’s classic definition (De Catechizandis Rudibus 26.50) and received through the Anglican formularies (Article XXV of the Thirty-Nine Articles), this understanding was embraced and expanded by John Wesley. Wesley described the sacraments as “means of grace”—channels through which the Holy Spirit works to awaken, justify, and sanctify believers (cf. Sermon 16, The Means of Grace).
Scripturally, these means are grounded in Christ’s own commands: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19) and “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). The sacraments are therefore both divine acts and human responses—signs of covenantal grace that unite the Church to Christ and to one another.
At its most basic, a sacrament is an avenue of divine grace for the believer who approaches in faith. In the Anglican tradition, two sacraments—Baptism and the Eucharist—are recognized as instituted by Christ, while five additional “sacraments of the Church” (confirmation, ordination, marriage, penance, and unction) are regarded as sacramental practices that, while not dominical, still convey grace as means of grace. Through this framework, confession (or penance) can rightly be seen as a vital part of Christian life—biblically grounded and pastorally fruitful—without elevating it beyond the authority of Scripture.
Why, then, emphasize confession in particular? Because of all the “sacraments of the Church,” it is the only one largely absent from Evangelical practice. Marriage is universally observed; ordination and the laying on of hands continue in various forms; prayer for the sick remains common; and church membership often functions analogously to confirmation. Yet confession—or Penance and Reconciliation—is virtually without an equivalent in most Evangelical contexts. While believers are encouraged to confess sins privately to God or occasionally to one another in accountability settings, these practices often lack the theological depth, consistency, and pastoral intentionality that historic confession embodies. Recovering a form of confession rooted in Scripture and Wesleyan spirituality could therefore restore an essential dimension of the Church’s ministry of healing and holiness.
In Scripture, confession and repentance are rarely private matters. Sin has both a vertical dimension (against God) and a horizontal one (against others and the covenant community). For this reason, biblical confession almost always involves both acknowledgment before God and accountability or restitution before others.
In the Old Testament, confession was typically public and tied to tangible acts of repentance. Leviticus 5:5–6 commands that “when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty… they must confess in what way they have sinned,” followed by a guilt offering to make atonement. Numbers 5:6–7 likewise directs that when one wrongs another, “they must confess the sin they have committed” and “make full restitution for the wrong, adding a fifth of the value to it.” Confession here is both verbal and restorative—it seeks to repair relationships and restore justice.
Public confession also marked Israel’s communal life. In Ezra 10:1, Ezra prays, “We have been unfaithful,” prompting the people to gather and confess together. Similarly, Nehemiah 9:2–3 depicts the people standing and confessing “their sins and the sins of their ancestors.” Repentance in these contexts is not merely individual but corporate—acknowledging that sin damages the whole covenant community.
This pattern continues into the New Testament. John the Baptist’s ministry of repentance included open confession: “They were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matthew 3:6). James instructs believers, “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16), emphasizing both mutual accountability and the healing power of truth-telling.
Restitution also remains integral to repentance. When Zacchaeus encounters Jesus, his faith expresses itself through reparation: “If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold” (Luke 19:8). Jesus affirms this as genuine repentance, declaring, “Today salvation has come to this house.” Repentance, then, is never merely inward—it manifests in transformed behavior and restored relationships.
Even the Lord’s Prayer ties divine forgiveness to human reconciliation: “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” (Matthew 6:12). Our reconciliation with God is inseparable from our reconciliation with one another.
Thus, biblically, confession is not a private transaction between the sinner and God alone. It is a relational act—rooted in community, expressed through words and deeds, and often requiring public acknowledgment and restitution. The grace of forgiveness is never cheap or isolated; it calls us into restored fellowship with both God and neighbor, embodying the gospel’s ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18–19).
Confession to another believer is a powerful act of humility and healing (James 5:16). Yet confession to an ordained pastor carries a distinct biblical and ecclesial significance, recognizing the Church as the appointed instrument through which Christ ministers reconciliation. Throughout Scripture, God’s forgiveness is declared through authorized representatives—prophets, priests, and ultimately the apostles—to whom Christ entrusted the authority of forgiveness: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven” (John 20:23; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:18–20).
The pastor, as a steward of Word and Sacrament, stands not as a private confidant but as a public servant of Christ and his Church—entrusted to declare absolution, offer pastoral counsel, and guide the work of restitution in the name of the gospel. Confession before a pastor thus anchors repentance in the visible life of the Church, guards against self-deception, and assures the penitent that forgiveness is not merely a feeling but a divine reality—announced through Christ’s ordained minister.
Attached here is the PDF of this entire article, along with confessional rubrics and guidelines for privacy and legal requirements.
