As we all know, part of growing in the Orthodox faith is learning to fight temptations. One of the ways of learning to fight those temptations is to admit a temptation that you have had. Usually, those are admitted to a spiritual father, but Scripture also talks about confessing our sins one to another. That self-revelation, that self-humiliation can form part of a process of learning to grow more and more into the image of Christ. I realize that not all temptations are sins since if you successfully resist temptation, you have not sinned. But, some temptations can be sinful if you start to carry them out.
Normally, the person who admits a temptation that is not carried out is lauded. Normally, the person who begins to carry out a temptation, but stops before it goes to completion is forgiven upon confession and is not considered to be guilty of the sin that they were tempted to commit. For instance, let us say you are tempted to shoplift something, then actually go to the store with thoughts to shoplift, but do not follow through and shoplift but rather step out of the store. The store security people will not stop you. You will not be considered guilty of shoplifting. However, you need to go to your father confessor, or some mental health professional, to discern what steps you need to take in order to better control that temptation.
Recently the actor Liam Neeson admitted in an interview that during a terrible time in his life he was so distraught by an attack by a black man upon a friend that he went out upon the streets looking for a black man to beat up in retaliation for the attack on his friend. He admitted that to say that he had a weakness that almost led him to do something wrong. He looked back on that event and was appropriately disgusted. He knew he was wrong and has not repeated that event. But, of utmost importance is that he did not carry out any attack on anyone. Something inside of him stopped him and did not let him follow the temptation through to its end.
In normal Christian theology, we would have been shocked at his admission but would have also breathed a sigh of relief that he did not carry through on the temptation. We would have commended Liam both for his honesty and for enough self-control that he did not carry through on the temptation. Because that was various years ago and because he has no further history or events of that type, we would have considered what he confessed to be a one-time event not reflective of the mature Liam.
Oddly enough, it appears that it would have been better for Liam to confess that he had been a crack addict. Perhaps he should have confessed that when he was young and poor he had a tendency to shoplift sweets. If only he had admitted that he was having multiple affairs at the same time, he might have been forgiven. But no, he had a thought that was admittedly horrible, a thought that he could have carried out to fruition but did not. He was able to stop himself. But, he picked the wrong sin by which to be tempted. Apparently, this was a sin so bad that to be even tempted by it is sufficient for you to be ostracized and to never be forgiven, even if you have never followed through and committed that sin.
The sin of racism should not be minimized. But we are not talking about the sin of racism. Liam never followed through on the temptation. There is zero evidence that Liam has ever acted on any racism. More than that, his admission of the temptation fits right into the mold that we wish to encourage in Christians. Confess your weaknesses that God may begin to change them. Is not one of the pop secular sayings that in order to change a problem we must first admit that we have a problem? Liam followed all the correct Christian and secular steps, but something went wrong.
These are not normal times. Liam was immediately ostracized and treated as though he were and had been a life-long racist who had disguised his true identity. Despite the fact that he had not carried through on his temptation he was not lauded but pilloried for apparently having crossed some imaginary line that made him now unemployable, not-salvageable, and essentially unfit to relate to his fellow human beings. Despite the fact that there is no repeat incident of this type in his life, and despite the fact that he himself looks back with horror on this one event in his life, he must be punished without rhyme or reason.
Yes, I have read all the arguments. They are weak at best. Every one of them argues that his admission of temptation somehow points to an indelible mark upon his soul that is so deeply carved that we must fear that it will break out again at any time. Some try to argue that trite argument (used by various parties of various types of beliefs) that his wording was not quite right. This usually means little, since most parties of this type will never find any wording to be adequate. All of them agree that there can be no forgiveness and that Liam’s punishment must be so extreme that he will be blacklisted and bankrupted. I wonder what they would have demanded had he actually carried through on his temptation?
The bottom line is that there is bad logic, bad ethics, and bad morality being used in the crafting of the arguments against Liam. Were the logic that was used against him to be used against all who are tempted but do not actually follow through on the temptation, then no one would have gainful employment nor would anyone be able to be part of any moral circle of friends. If the exclusionary line is drawn back at the level of temptation, then all of us are excluded from humanity and its social relations.
But, I suspect that what the Liam experience has taught most of the country is that we need to keep our mouths shut and never admit to any temptation. We need to hide our pasts beneath an iron cover and hope that none will discover that past. We must never begin to make any mistakes, starting in grade school. Actually, we may need to never have been tempted. Oddly enough, it is to argue that we must be saints from the time we were born. All of us would have had to be born by immaculate conception in order to have any hope under today’s standards of opprobrium. Again, let me remind you. We are not talking about people who actually committed an unethical or immoral act. We are talking about people who were merely tempted, started to act, but never actually committed the sin of which they were tempted.
This is the America in which we currently live. Lord, have mercy.
This, despite Mark Wahlberg actually committed a hate crime and continuing to work.
True, for Christians admitting temptation is laudable but context is everything, even in a Christian environment. Can’t admit everything to everybody. The choir director admitting to the parish his to lustful temptations involving the deacon’s wife, I mean…Especially if the deacon and his wife are going through a rough patch. Not sure they need to know that now or ever.
That would change things too. Deacon probably wouldn’t have much to say to the choir director and wouldn’t want him anywhere near his wife.
To be fair to Liam, honestly? most people would have the same reaction. You hurt one of mine I’ll go for one of yours. Bit this is more than about revenge passions, we know that.
I understand going after the PC police for stifling an honest confession of a temptation, but what did he hope to gain with that mea culpa? Why did he say anything? Was he talking with other white men admitting to why they see as racist or violent tendencies. Cool, that confession probably helped them know they weren’t alone. Guilt gone and now they can come up with strategies for dealing with their stuff. But that’s not for the public. Moving on.
Admitting it to black folks, however, is just plain upsetting. Survival and history automatically kick in. So many black folks have been killed for reasons like that, for whimful passions.. Black folks already know folks want to hurt them (and can easily get away with it along with a trip to Chi’lantro’s on the way to jail,too)
That kind of confession doesn’t help black folks at all, don’t need to know that, it’s stressful, so who was it for? Wrong audience, poor context.
He repents, fine but if he isn’t doing anything to make sure it doesn’t happen again that just makes him another threatening white man.
So he was just clearing his conscious?Did he want black folks to pity him and assuage his guilt? What did he want?
Admitting temptations can be humbling and good, but it’s gotta benefit the audience, not scare or scandalize them. In other words, the confessor has to know exactly why is he telling this audience this temptation. When it doesn’t benefit the audience, then I gotta wonder about the motives. It just becomes too much information.
No, his career shouldn’t be trashed and tanked. He doesn’t need to be boycotted or spit on, etc., but he can’t be surprised if black folks are cool on him now.