Secrecy ... Is It Sinful?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Staphlobob

Puritan Board Sophomore
The above question arise in connection to the formation of the new church - Redeemer Christian Congregation - that I will soon pastor. Those who began this venture consisted of a small handful of people from my previous church, St. Andrew Lutheran. Consisting mostly of those who faithfully attended Bible study year after year, they became uniformly convinced of the unfaithfulness of the denomination (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – ELCA) to which their congregation belonged.

Consequently they began talking together, sharing concerns among themselves. While their prayer was that the ELCA would reform, they also understood that this might not happen. Over the years they individually came to the conclusion that remaining in the ELCA was no longer a possibility. Seeking direction as to where else they might worship, they began meeting off-campus. Their original intent was to search for a new church, not begin one. However, it was within this context that they eventually realized they were called to remain together for prayer, study, worship, ministry and support – in other words, to be the Body of Christ.

So Redeemer Christian Congregation was finally formed.

When St. Andrew Lutheran, the previous congregation, began to discover what these people were doing, they responded with anger and accusations. The issue that kept coming up over and over was that of secrecy: Why were they meeting clandestinely? Why didn’t they just come forward and openly say what they were planning and allow the rest of the congregation to make up their minds? One person commented that they seemed like a group of schoolgirls forming a clique.

So I ask: Was this unethical? Was it sinful?

The answer is: It depends. Secrecy itself is not the primary issue. Rather the motivation for secrecy is what should concern us. After all, I meet with people for pastoral counseling and promise confidentiality – secrecy – as a biblical and ethical norm. (Proverbs 11:13; 20:19) Such secrecy is certainly not wrong but, on the contrary, quite necessary.

So the question really is: WHY was it done? If the purpose was to deliberately hurt and cause division, then it definitely was sinful. Was it truly a clique that was developing? If so, then sin is the only possible answer. (e.g., Psalm 63:11)

On the other hand, if there were different reasons, different motivations, then the answer may have to be to the contrary.

As always we must look to God’s Word to provide us with answers that are rooted in His will. First of all the principle …

Jesus Practiced Secrecy
This should be rather obvious to us. For instance, when Jesus came down the Mount of Transfiguration He strictly charged His disciples not to speak of what they’d witnessed while up there; at least not until the proper time. (Mark 9:9; Matthew 17:9)

But secrecy in Jesus can be found in other moments of His ministry as well. For instance, in Bethsaida Jesus healed the blind man and commands him to tell no one of what happened. (Mark 8:26) And this is only one example of a number of times when our Lord enjoined such silence. (Matthew 8:4; 16:20; Mark 7:36; 8:30; Luke 5:14; 8:56)

Why would He do such a thing? Why would He personally desire secrecy and command it of others? The answer seems to lie in coming to grips with understanding the word “kairos” – time. Or perhaps it’s better understood as “timing.” Jesus knew there was a proper moment, a “ripe time” (kairos) for His mission, His ministry, His Person, to be revealed. Any revelation prior to this moment could be disastrous – not for Him, but for those whom He came to save. Bad timing could result in misunderstandings that might involve conceiving of Jesus as a military savior come to throw out the Romans; or a king whose royalty is merely human. The result of His apprehension is what is popularly known as “The Messianic Secret.”

Furthermore we know that Jesus practiced secrecy with and among His own disciples. For instance in the Transfiguration mentioned above (Mark 9:1-9) it is only Peter, James and John who accompany Him up the mount.

Also, after delivering the Parable of the Soils publicly to the crowds, only when Jesus is alone with the Twelve does He reveal the meaning of that parable (Mark 4:10-20). Some things were (and still are) meant only for the understanding of His elect people.

If secrecy in itself is unethical, if it is a sin, then we must accuse our Lord Jesus of sin. Obviously this is cannot be done.

Given the volatility of the environment of St. Andrew Lutheran Church - the deep and angry divisions between the biblically orthodox vs. the liberal heterodox - I could not see anyone standing up publicly and announcing the formation of a new congregation, inviting anyone who is willing to come and join. That would have been insanity. Furthermore, it would have caused deeper and more hurtful divisions to occur.

Were the people who formed Redeemer Christian Congregation instead waiting for the proper moment to reveal themselves? I can only conclude that this is the reason for their secrecy. Not to hurt others, but to await the kairos, the ripe time.
Secondly, the application …

Secrecy and the Early Church
Another legitimate reason for secrecy is the threat of danger. One can think of the Danish who, during World War II, hid Jews in their homes to protect them from the Nazis. Was such secrecy unethical? A sin? Perhaps it was. But if so it was committed only within the context of choosing between a lesser evil (lying) and a greater evil (turning Jews over to the Nazis).

The principle is the same when we think of the early church that suffered terribly at the hands of various Roman emperors, e.g., Nero and Domitian. Very often, to simply acknowledge that one was a Christian was tantamount to asking for execution. Perhaps some adults might wish this for themselves, but what about the children? Furthermore, what about the survivability of the church? If all were martyred, there could be no future generations of Christians

Hence secrecy was the default mode of the early Christians; a way of insuring the Gospel continued into the future. Consequently such secret symbols as the “ixthus” (the “fish” acrostic) were used by Christians to identify themselves to other believers. Only those believers who knew the symbols, or the right words, were trusted with highly sensitive information that might well lead to the death of other Christians, e. g, when and where to gather for worship; where disciples lived, etc.

Of course it cannot be denied that such secrecy had a negative side. It seems that non-Christians who were not privy to the worship services of these early Christians, yet knew the saints were gathering, began to spread rumors of cannibalism (“eat my flesh, drink my blood”). It seems that one of the reasons Justin Martyr’s wrote his “Apologetics” was because of such accusations against Christians.

Was there a threat of danger in the present situation with the formation of Redeemer Christian Congregation? Physically, no but spiritually … yes! Most of those who formed the core of Redeemer Christian Congregation were, for months (if not years) before subject to intense emotional distress. They were the recipients of direct insults, deliberate snubs, and vicious gossip (which seemed to be consistently leaked to cause hurt) long before they ever decided to meet off-campus.

The heterodox within the congregation, who generally hold the reins of power, seemed unwilling to allow any criticism of, or dissent from, the policies of the ELCA. Consequently, rather than stand upon Scripture to make their case, they resorted to verbal, emotional, and spiritual assault. The impact of such sustained attacks could be nothing short of devastating.
Given such a situation I find it difficult to criticize and condemn the desire (need?) to meet clandestinely for discussion, mutual support and protection.

Conclusion
Secrecy certainly can be wrong and sinful. But that need not always be the case. There are legitimate uses for it; uses that serve to protect others as well as one’s own self.

Furthermore we can prove that Jesus routinely practiced secrecy in His own lifetime. And the early church was forced to engage in it.

Again, the issue revolves around motivation. Perhaps those who started up Redeemer Christian Congregation were not as wise or discerning as they should have been, but that in itself does not constitute intentional sin. (We are all foolish and lack sufficient wisdom at various times. Hence our joy at God’s being merciful and gracious towards us.) Perhaps the worst we can say is that if there was a lack of wisdom, it reveals not so much sinfulness but insufficient reflection.

Or perhaps we might even say that if there is a lack of deliberate sin in this situation, it was due to the absence of worldly “subtleness” (Genesis 3:1).

Therefore, knowing the motivations of those involved, one must rule out willful sin and the desire to cause harm. As far as I can tell, the difference is discerning between deceit (which is designed to harm and so is sinful), and secrecy with a desire to protect.

The former is to be avoided at all costs.

The latter to be steered clear of … if at all possible.

In the future, let us try not to confuse secrecy with dishonesty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top