102 Sermon Illustrations on Adultery

"Sexaholics Anonymous" is a program of recovery for those who want to stop their sexually self-destructive thinking and behavior. A (partial) list of warning signs pointing to sexual addiction:

1. Have you ever thought you needed help for your sexual thinking or behavior?

2. Do you feel it controls you?

3. Do you resort to it to escape or relieve anxiety?

4. Do you feel guilt, remorse or depression afterward?

5. Has your pursuit of sex become more compulsive?

6. Do you keep going from one relationship to another?

7. Do you turn to a lower environment when pursuing lust?

8. Have you ever been arrested for a sex-related offense?

Illustration - father was discriminated against by wealthy family. That family went broke; a son came to father asking for job. He gave it to him when he could have gotten revenge.

"I am convinced that forgiveness is one of the untapped - and least understood - sources of healing power. Essentially, it involves a decision to abandon the impulse to get even. Though the idea may seem passive to some, genuine forgiveness is a positive act that requires enormous spiritual strength."

Young man, Tom, was short-tempered, couldn't hold down jobs. Problem was an alcoholic father who had belittled boy in front of family and friends. Therapist got him to see reason for problem, but couldn't get him to soften his attitude toward others. His pastor suggested he forgive his dad. Together they knelt and prayed. Tom felt a remarkable newness and strength stir inside him. Saw dad next day. "Dad, last night I asked God to help me forgive you. I think maybe it worked." His father began to cry and embraced him. Remarkable transformation occurred over next several months. Got high marks in computer class, became a loving, gentle father. Therapist said he was more in charge of his emotions and his life.

Forgiveness involves a paradox. "It looks contradictory to our self-interest to let go of wrongs," says therapist Donald Hope, "but most of those who hurt us are people we are closest to - parents, siblings, spouses, friends. Trying to get even only leads to a vicious circle of retaliation. In the long run, forgiveness is the best choice for the forgiver - and the forgiven."

Greatest challenge to forgiveness is betrayal. Most difficult to forgive is marital infidelity. Nan, a Chicago lawyer, stunned to find Jack had a brief affair at a convention. She wanted a divorce. Friend told her to consider forgiveness. Nan was not very affectionate and had been absorbed in her career. Jack's affair may have been an attempt to get recognition as a person in his own right. She thought about it, tried to forgive Jack but couldn't find the words. Finally was able to talk about it. He responded with honesty and deep regret. Result was forgiveness and new happiness for both.

Not forgiving an infidelity frequently cause sexual problems, according to New York psychiatrist Avodah Offit. Unresolved anger and the desire for revenge are often expressed through impotence or lack of sexual desire. "Again and again, I find that forgiveness is a crucial milestone in the therapeutic process."

Pretend to forgive your mate. (Fake it.) Use nothing but warm words, praise, for a week. Atmosphere usually changes, dialogue can begin, leading to real forgiveness.

Examination - psychological and spiritual - is essential to forgiveness. Too many counselors urge forgiveness as a hasty cure-all, instead of exploring what has happened and why. Worse, they urge "forgive and forget," which is impossible. Forgiveness works best when the hurt person has had time to face anger, to recognize own contributions to the debacle and to realize the consequences of a refusal to forgive. Not forgiving can gnaw on a person - depriving of sleep, upsetting digestion, causing high blood pressure. But when we forgive, we often experience a gigantic turn-around, a cleansing that could be called rebirth.

Creative power of forgiveness - Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Jefferson defeated Adams in election, Adams took it personally. "You have turned me out! You have turned me out!" They didn't speak to each other for eleven years. Friends visited old, bitter Adams, who said, "I always loved Jefferson and I still love him." Friends told Jefferson, who told a mutual friend to tell Adams of his "affections." Adams responded with a letter, and they began the greatest correspondence in American history.

At its best, forgiveness is done for the very sake of those who have trespassed against us. Then we see forgiveness at its most powerful - renewing friendships, marriages and careers. Therapist Hope - "In ways I am only beginning to understand, forgiveness can make meaningful again the wisdom embedded in religious faith."

Eight-month pregnant woman finds out husband is having an affair. Both are Christians, as is the woman he is involved in. She feels she has suffered from the ultimate betrayal, but does not want to end up bitter. She decides to forgive and in a few years achieves it. In the end she is able to help other women who are going through divorces.

Sermon version:

Actor James Woods was asked why he did not take professional lessons. His answer: they are too artificial. Everyone knows how to act well by nature -- just look at people who cheat on their spouses.

Actual quote:

"Anybody who has cheated on their spouse - it's astounding how good people are at acting when they want to be."

Jack McDonald, an associate of the controversial Community Chapel and Bible Training Center near Seattle (Tacoma?), was found guilty of seducing Carol Edwards and thereby breaking up her 19 year marriage. The jury awarded damages of $200,000 to Edwards, but reduced the amount to $130,000 by holding that, in the jury's opinion, she was 35% to blame. In Sumner's opinion the pastor is 100% at fault for breaking his marriage vows. They are shepherds and guides.

[Is this the church that had "spiritual dancing"?]

Christians downplay romantic love, but it is important in life. The Bible not only speaks of ardent love between men and women, but presents God himself as a lover and his courting of creation as the Great Romance. However, romantic love can be immature or sick, it does not last forever, it does not have to be limited to particular people, it is not sufficient by itself (we need God for fulfillment.)

In heaven, love will surpass any relationship we have now. The value of the Song of Solomon is emphasized.

[see #18795 for full text]

The June 1990 issue of “Good Housekeeping” article called “Faithful Attraction” by Andrew Greeley (pp. 132-137) gives researched data that offers encouragement to faithfulness in marriage.

Unfaithfulness is no longer “chic.” 90% of respondents said they had had only one sexual partner for the duration of their present marriage. 60% described their marriage as “very happy” and 80% said they would marry the same person again.

10% of the marriages had some serious problems and 25% said it was not working as they would prefer. 77% said their spouse is kind and gentle; 76% said spouse is physically attractive; 64% said their spouse makes them feel important. These outlooks make marriage an enriching experience as God designed it to be.

Higher income (over $25,000) were more likely to be very happy, as does higher education. “Religion is by far the most powerful correlate of marriage attitudes and behavior yet discussed – and prayer is a more powerful predictor of marital satisfaction than frequency of sexual intercourse.”

32% of American spouses pray together often, and 75% who do so report their marriage is very happy (as opposed to 57% who don’t pray as often). Both regular church attendance and frequent religious retreats also relate positively to marital satisfaction. 76% of those who go to retreats (vs. 60% who do not) say they are very happy in their marriage. 70% of those who attend church regularly (as compared to 57% who don’t) are very happy.

The fact that prayer, church attendance, and an interest in the Lord’s work are a key for a happy home are not just preacher talk. They are solid facts that must not be ignored by any husband, wife, or young person.

Another observation of interest was that religiously mixed homes were less likely to say they were happily married by 7 percentage points. Such marriages showed more strain and conflicts over children, hurting the effectiveness of the relationship.

For thousands of years, adultery has been against the Law. This means that it has been popular for just as long. When Kinsey did his landmark study on sexual behavior back in the 50’s, he found that 25% of all married women had been unfaithful. Today it is estimated that 40% of them have been unfaithful, and 60% of the husbands. This means there is at least a 50 – 50 chance in any marriage that infidelity will occur.

With figures like these it is easy to see why adultery seems to be universal.

The best illustration of the futility of adultery I have found comes from Mademoiselle magazine, which is hardly a religious publication. The magazine traced the history of an affair of a young woman named Liz. After her divorce Liz met a man named Nathaniel, who was a social anthropologist, like she was. He was also married.

Liz wanted to have a relationship, but she didn't want to be suffocated, so they just saw each other on the side. Whenever they met it was always romantic, dramatic and exciting. But after a while Liz grew frustrated, because Nat always went home to a loving family. She pushed him for a deeper involvement, but he resisted. He was willing to give her a fun time, but nothing more.

Liz's affair was traced by her friend, Marcia Stamell, who wrote the article. In it she comments: Liz's affair with Nathaniel is fairly typical of the affairs I learned about. I expected them to be mature, pragmatic relationships, much more serene than the typical marriage. Instead, they are fantasy romances, descriptive by their definition. To develop, they require a kind of moral blindness."

#2455

*

Sermon in John series. Woman caught in adultery. John 8:1-11

========================

KILL ALL THE ADULTERERS!

========================

I. Saints vs. Sinners.

II. The setup.

A. Adultery usually not given death penalty by Jews.

B. Usually a only a set-up could accomplish this.

C. Using shame as a weapon.

III. Turning the tables.

IV. Discomfort with this passage.

A. America is in moral decline.

B. Can we deal with sin?

C. A little bit of shame can be a good thing.

V. Jesus is serious about sin.

A. Go and sin no more.

B. Cross is ultimate expression of shame.

VI. Jesus is even more serious about God's love.

A. Jesus loves sinners.

B. Love is our greatest (and least used) weapon.

Adultery by pastors is a big problem and churches are vexed in how to deal with it. A typical pattern is for pastor to be found out, confess with sorrow, be counseled for several months to a year, then be restored to another church (usually in another state). Many argue that a fallen pastor is more sensitive, caring and effective after being restored. However, Jesus was tempted in all points just as we are, yet it was his testing, not any failure, that made him strong.

Genuine forgiveness does not necessarily imply restoration to leadership, according to Kenneth Kantzer. Adultery is a great sin, and pastoral adultery is an even greater sin. There IS a difference between mental adultery and the physical act, though both will send us to hell. Matt 5:27f does not reduce adultery to the level of lust, it shows lust destroys the soul as surely as adultery. Sexual sins are against our own bodies (or entire personality) and harm others.

Pastors must be blameless, which means unassailable. Sexual sin by pastors often involves an abuse of their power and an attempt to control someone. 1 Tim 3:1-7 requires bishops to be "one-woman men." Historically the church has ousted fallen pastors. Hippolytus insisted on immediate removal from office. John Chrysostom (347-407) said, "The minister's shortcomings simply cannot be concealed. Even the most trivial soon get known."

Re-ordination may be possible in some cases. The Bible tells of several prominent leaders who had significant roles after their failures. Moses murdered, but it happened 40 years before his leadership began. David should have gotten the death penalty, but his family definitely suffered and never regained its stability. And as a harem-keeping potentate he is not a role model for NT shepherds. Peter did not sin "against the body" and it was not the kind of volitional and cavalier deception that is characteristic of adultery. [But isn't denial of Christ just as serious spiritually, if not more so?]

A fallen pastor made this plea to his fellow ministers:

"The question is character and integrity. Yours are shattered. I plead with you, face the issue now! God's grace does restore. There is hope. However, that requires a process, much time, and even more grace. Confess, step down. Become accountable. See the cleansing and healing you need. Do it this day, do it now!"

[article is followed by a related one from wife's perspective.]

FULL ARTICLE:

=============

ARTICLE: Why Adulterous Pastors Should Not Be Restored By R. Kent Hughes and John H. Armstrong

Repentance is not enough for returning fallen ministers to the pulpit.

"Genuine forgiveness does not necessarily imply restoration to leadership," former CT editor Kenneth Kantzer once wrote after the moral failure of several prominent evangelical leaders. Yet the impulse to link forgiveness with restoration to ministry remains strong. Here two pastor-theologians argue for the importance of keeping separate the restoration to the body of Christ and restoration to pastoral leadership.

The North American church is seriously vexed by the question, "What shall we do with an adulterous pastor?" Over the past decade, the church has been repeatedly staggered by revelations of immoral conduct by some of its most respected leaders. How do we respond to those who have sexually fallen and disgraced themselves, shamed their families, and debased their office?

The typical pattern goes like this: The pastor is accused and convicted of sexual sin. He confesses his sin, often with profound sorrow. His church or denominational superiors prescribe a few months, or often one year, in which time he is encouraged to obtain professional counsel. Then he is restored to his former office, sometimes in another location. He is commonly regarded as a "wounded healer," one who now knows what it means to fall, to experience the grace of God profoundly.

While each situation must be handled with pastoral wisdom, and some fallen pastors indeed might someday be restored to leadership, we believe this increasingly common scenario is both biblically incorrect and profoundly harmful to the well-being of the fallen pastor, his marriage, and the church of Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus was tempted in all points just as we are, yet it was his testing, not any failure, that made him strong. If we do not think clearly, we may be subtly encouraging people to grievous sin so they might experience more grace and thus minister more effectively. Incredibly, in the present context, some are saying things that imply just this notion.

THE FORGIVENESS APPROACH

The commonly held view reasons that a repentant and forgiven minister who was previously qualified for pastoral office remains qualified on the basis of God's forgiveness. Was he qualified previously? Has he confessed his sin? Has God forgiven him? Then we must also.

This logic rests upon the unbiblical assumption that forgiveness of sin is equivalent to the "blamelessness" (or unimpeachable character) required of pastors in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. If this thesis is accepted, all God requires is that a fallen pastor be forgiven.

But this confuses the basis of our fellowship with Christ with public leadership and office in church. No one argues that the fallen minister cannot be forgiven. No one should argue that he cannot be brought back into the fellowship of Christ's visible church. But to forgive a fallen pastor and to restore him to membership in the church is much different than restoring him to the pastoral office.

The "forgiveness approach" is inadequate because it does not deal realistically with two facts: First, adultery is a great sin; and second, pastoral adultery is an even greater sin.

Oft-repeated fallacies sometimes achieve the status of received truth--such as the notion that there is no essential difference between mental adultery and the actual physical act (see Matt. 5:27-28; James 2:10). To the contrary, we believe, in concert with the historic interpretation of the church, that while lust, jealousy, pride, and hatred will send a person to hell as surely as their outward manifestations (adultery, fornication, and murder), the physical manifestations are greater sins because of the damage they do to both the person who sins and the ones sinned against.

Adultery is a great sin precisely because it breaks the covenant of marriage. It violates another's body. It may prove to be grounds for divorce. Mental adultery does none of this. Jesus' intention in Matthew 5:27-28 was not to reduce adultery to the level of lust, but to show that lust would destroy the soul as surely as adultery.

Likewise, compare the mental sin of hatred with the act of murder (see Matt. 5:21-22). In one the person who hates is harmed by the hatred, but in the other a life is taken. There is a difference!

Further, the immensity of adultery is seen in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, where the apostle Paul argues that sexual sin is "against one's own body." The context of this passage reveals that sexual sin is in a category of its own. Sexual relationships violate the union that exists between a man and woman wherein they become "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). It is the depth of this union, recognized by God with a covenant, that shows how profound its violation is in the light of eternity.

Charles Hodge wrote in the last century that 1 Corinthians 6 teaches that fornication "is altogether peculiar in its effects upon the body; not so much in its physical as in its moral and spiritual effects." Paul is telling the Corinthians that one's entire body and soul, hence all that a person is as a human personality, is involved in sexual relationship. Hence, profound damage results from such sin.

Hodge further says that adultery is a sin against one's own body because it is "incompatible...with the design of its creation, and with its immortal destiny." Contemporary New Testament scholar Gordon Fee writes in the same vein, "The unique nature of sexual sin is not so much that one sins against one's own self, but against one's own body as viewed in terms of its place in redemptive history" (emphasis ours).

Pastoral adultery, moreover, is an even greater sin. Why? Some sins are more damaging than others precisely because of who it is that commits them. As the Westminster Larger Catechism (Questions 150-51) reasons, persons who are eminent for their profession, gifts, and office are particularly serious offenders because of their influence upon others. This added seriousness is found in every case of a minister who commits adultery. Add to this James 3:1, which suggests that pastors will be held to stricter judgment, and we have a strong argument that pastoral adultery is an even graver sin than adultery in general.

The forgiveness approach, though appealed to by many today as a compassionate response to sexually fallen ministers, actually lacks compassion: it does not deal with the depth of the issue itself.

But why does adultery disqualify a minister from office?

THE BLAMELESS APPROACH

Straightforward explanations of what it is that qualifies one for pastoral ministry are given in several places in the Pastoral Epistles. 1 Timothy 4:12 provides a summary statement: "...set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." Titus 1:6 further adds, "An elder must be blameless ..." The Greek word here means "not to be laid hold of," or unassailable. William Hendriksen says of this blamelessness, "Enemies may bring all manner of accusations, but these charges are proved to be empty whenever fair methods of investigations are applied."

Adultery is not the only sin that disqualifies a minister from office, but it is one of the more visible and confusing sins plaguing the church in our time.

What is particularly troublesome about this sin today is the abuse of power that often attends it. Deep pain is brought to the sexual partner in a clergy affair, and even deeper pain to the minister's wife. The minister, given an honored office through which he is called to serve abused and vulnerable people, violates that very trust by becoming, himself, a violator.

Anglican Michael Peers, speaking at the Toronto Centre for the Family's symposium on sexual abuse by clergy, explains, "[This] is a deep-rooted and dark" problem, and it is often protected by the twin demons of "denial and control." Don Posterski writes, "When the power [of ministry] is used for sexual gratification it clearly constitutes the sexual abuse of power."

It saddens us that so few "fallen" leaders recognize the abuse of power inherent to pastoral adultery. And even fewer are willing to discuss the destruction of trust that their sins have effected. Many borrow psychotherapeutic concepts such as healing and recovery as rationales for returning to pastoral ministry, but with no genuine recognition of the pathology that manifests itself in the abuse of power.

The consensus of church history argues strongly that pastoral adultery disqualifies the minister. Lutheran historian Carl A. Volz categorically states in Pastoral Life and Practice in the Early Church that the church debarred pastors from public ministry "through moral lapse" and "heresy." He notes that ordination did not protect presbyters: what was conferred could be removed. The noted second-century presbyter, Hippolytus, powerfully assailed immorality among church leaders and insisted on their immediate removal from office. The early second-century document The Teaching of the Apostles states that the one who had been ordained but subsequently disobeyed God's Word should be disqualified, because the man had lied in taking his vows of loyalty and purity before Christ and his church. Such a violation of ordination vows was seen as an egregious breach of the third commandment.

The same views were held by the Protestant Reformers. Calvin, in The Register of the Company of Pastors, prescribes: "In order to obviate all scandals of conduct it will be needful to have a form of discipline for ministers...to which all are to submit themselves. This will help ensure that the minister is treated with respect and the Word of God is not brought into dishonor and scorn by the evil fame of ministers. Moreover, as discipline will be imposed on him who merits it, so also there will be no need to suppress slanders and false reports that may unjustly be uttered against those who are innocent."

As has been established, the office requires the minister to be "blameless." There can be no doubt that 1 Timothy 3:1-7 requires, among other qualities, that the episkopos (or overseer of the church) be a "one-woman man," that is, a man of moral purity whose wife is his only sexual partner. He is required to be a man who keeps the covenant of God and keeps his "marriage bed pure" (Heb. 13:4). Paul stressed to the church in Ephesus, where sexual sin was common among pagan unbelievers, there should not be "even a hint of sexual immorality" in the church (Eph. 5:3).

Tragically, covenant breaking of this type places a lasting reproach on the fallen minister, and this will have long-term consequences. Wise Solomon gave it wistful expression: "But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away" (Prov. 6:32-33, NIV).

One of the troubling questions often raised regarding this matter of being "blameless" is this: Is the public knowledge of the sin the issue in the minister being blameless, or is there something in the nature of the sin itself that makes blamelessness a deeper matter than public knowledge? To put it bluntly, can the man become blameless by moving to another community and church and starting over? Here, it is often argued, others will not know of his past failure.

But a change in geography will not diminish the blame, because the sin is so dynamically disintegrative. As such, it will likely come to light again, as John Chrysostom, the early church bishop (347-407) explained: "The minister's shortcomings simply cannot be concealed. Even the most trivial soon get known."

Perhaps some might eventually become qualified to return again to pastoral office, perhaps after being ordained again. And it cannot be exegetically proven that a fallen minister can never be restored to office. But this does not argue against the flow of our understanding, for the vital question the church faces in our time is not what might happen in exceptional cases, but rather, how can we protect and help the woman or women sinned against by the minister? How can we minister to the pastor's wife and children, those most sinned against in this lapse? What can be done to preserve the church spiritually and morally? What are we to do to help this minister begin the long ordeal of sorting out his devastated life?

Adultery establishes that the fallen minister is not able to serve with integrity. The issue is not usefulness to the church or giftedness in the pulpit. To have stood before the flock, leading them in holy worship week after week, preaching the Word of God as his servant, and yet to have been committing adultery reveals a massively toxic character flaw that poisons all of life. One fallen minister, many years after his own failure, writes: "In my case, moral failure was the sin which was visible to the church. There were, much to my chagrin, other issues which were perhaps more heinous to God than that which was visible to man. It takes time to root these out and replace them with godly characteristics."

Sober warning has been given in 1 Corinthians 9:25-27, where the apostle Paul argues that the lack of diligent restraint of the flesh may lead one into apostasy. This danger needs to be weighed carefully in dealing with pastors who have fallen. Consider how subtly sexual sin permeates the whole human personality--whether illicit sex is used to feed a person's sense of power, need for affection, self-image, sense of desirability and attractiveness, hedonistic drive, or all of these--and you will sense the danger here. We sincerely believe that remaining in public ministry will in some cases foster deeper self-deception, leading men to eternal ruin in the final day.

WHAT THEN SHALL WE DO?

The fallen minister who confesses sin, seeks God's grace, and desires to remain in fellowship with the church of Christ, must be welcomed and received as any fallen Christian. He must be forgiven as Jesus commands (Matt. 18:22). But forgiveness and restoration to the fellowship of the church does not mean the former minister now meets the qualifications for holding the office of pastor/elder.

The church is not to punish the repenting man who has fallen. But refusing to return him to the role of pastoral ministry is not punishment. To remove a fallen minister is to honor Christ's holy standards; it is to follow the wise counsel and pattern of leaders over the centuries; it is to protect the man himself and his family; and it is to guard the church body, loved so dearly by the Chief Shepherd.

The Bible tells of several prominent fallen leaders who had significant roles after their failure. Moses, David, and Peter immediately come to mind. But we must not rush to employ these three examples in discussing morally fallen pastors. Consider several important matters: (1) Moses' sin of murder came 40 years before his leadership began, and he spent a virtual lifetime in the desert following this serious fall. (2) David's sin would have brought the death penalty to anyone else. Further, he was a Middle Eastern, harem-keeping potentate, not a domestic role model for New Testament shepherds. Remember also that his kingdom and family never knew peace after his moral turpitude--his throne never regained its former stability. (3) Peter's sin was serious, but it was not "against the body" (1 Cor. 6:18), and while it was a character sin, it was not the kind of volitional and cavalier deception that is characteristic of adultery. Neither was it premeditated, prolonged, or repeated in darkness.

We conclude with the wise plea and rationale of a fallen anonymous minister to his fellow servants who have fallen: "The question is character and integrity. Yours are shattered. I plead with you, face the issue now! God's grace does restore. There is hope. However, that requires a process, much time, and even more grace. Confess, step down. Become accountable. Seek the cleansing and healing you need. Do it this day, do it now!"

********************

R. Kent Hughes is pastor of College Church in Wheaton, Illinois, and author of numerous books, including "Are Evangelicals Born Again?" (Crossway). John H. Armstrong is director of Reformation & Revival Ministries and author of "Can Fallen Pastors Be Restored? The Church's Response to Sexual Misconduct" (Moody), which expands on the ideas in this article.

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazines

Sermon in Ten Commandments series. "Do not commit adultery." Exod 20:14

=============

GREENER GRASS

=============

I. The fun sin.

A. There's nothing new under the sun.

B. Is adultery universal or rare?

II. Attacking the foundations.

A. Marriage is a covenant, a mutual promise before God.

B. Adultery breaks that bond.

C. Adultery is a great sin.

III. Causes of adultery.

A. Uncertain standards.

B. Unrestrained sexuality.

C. Unfulfilled desires.

D. Undisciplined lifestyles.

IV. Five practical steps for protecting your marriage.

A. If single, only marry a Christian. 2 Cor 6:14

B. Center your married life on Christ.

C. Make your spouse a priority.

D. Meet your partner's sexual needs.

E. Avoid relationships that might tempt you.

V. Adultery is not the unpardonable sin.

A. God's grace is greater than your sin.

B. God wants to liberate us.

The current debate over what happened to Bathsheba forces us to think deeper about motives and power.

________

As a kid growing up in the church, I certainly heard a lot about Jesus. But just short of the Savior, I heard countless stories about King David: stories of bravery, courage, power, trust, risk, battle, war, triumph, and conquest.

Christians have always recognized David’s brokenness to an extent, particularly his pursuit of Bathsheba, which has typically been considered (and decried as) adultery. Lately, there has been quite the debate over what exactly happened between David and Bathsheba, and whether it should be characterized as rape.

This is not a new conversation, which is always important to remember in our age of hot takes. Denny Burk, Boyce College professor and president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, points to a journal article by Alexander Abasili that addressed this question in detail in 2011, years before the scrutiny of the #MeToo movement.

Not all interest in this issue is a result of current cultural pressure or capitulation; there is a legitimate, significant question over how we understand David in this story.

I agree with Abasili’s analysis that the story doesn’t include the details that seem to be specific to instances of a Hebrew understanding of rape — namely, the use of direct physical force and the victim crying out in anguish for help. And yet, the story of David and Bathsheba appears to many modern readers, including me, to meet contemporary definitions of rape.

So how should we think of it? Did David indeed rape Bathsheba? And why does it matter that we, as Christians, get this right today?

Jesus Expands the Law

While Abasili establishes that the David and Bathsheba story does not meet the criteria of rape detailed in biblical law, Old Testament professor David Lamb previously wrote for Christianity Today describing a basic argument that David was guilty of “power rape rather than adultery” since Bathsheba had no choice.

But the question is not just a matter of whether we go by the Old Testament laws or our own modern ones. Scripture itself points us to a deeper look at the heart behind David’s behavior.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ doesn’t diminish the impact of the law, he expands and intensifies it: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).

According to a basic reading of Old Testament law, looking upon a woman with lustful intent doesn’t meet the criteria of adultery. But, when we read the command against adultery through the lens of Christ’s instructions on the law, we find that looking upon someone who is not one’s spouse with lustful intent is, and has always been, adultery.

Jesus moves the focus from the details of the law to the intent and motivation of the heart. And Jesus doesn’t just do this with adultery. He does it every time he discusses the law.

If we approached the Old Testament law on rape the same way that Jesus addresses various aspects of the law, we would have to look beyond the explicit details enumerated in the law code and ask: What is happening in David’s heart and mind when it comes to Bathsheba?

Thinking of the question this way, the defense that David’s actions don’t meet the criteria for rape weakens considerably, and in fact, misses the point.

A Prophet’s Rebuke

Using the basic hermeneutical principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture, we find further context regarding David’s motivations just a few paragraphs away, in 2 Samuel 12, when he is rebuked by Nathan the prophet.

Nathan describes an imbalance of power between a rich man and a poor man, where the poor man had one precious lamb that he loved dearly, like a child, and the rich man took the poor man’s sole lamb to prepare for a guest (a way to accrue further social capital by hosting this guest well) because he had no pity.

Nathan tells him, “You are the man!” in the story, and then expands on David’s self-condemnation: God made you King, he delivered you, he gave you all that you have, and this wasn’t enough. You stole, you exploited, you killed, and you did it “secretly” for selfish gain. Even according to David and Nathan, David’s sin isn’t merely that he slept with Bathsheba, but that he did so in a way mired by his exploitation of power, deception, and self-gain. The power imbalance is clearly called out.

Nathan goes on to describe the fate of Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah: “You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites” (2 Sam. 12:9).

Nathan uses conquering language that positions David as a murderer, the one who “struck down” and “killed him.” And yet, we know that Uriah didn’t die by David’s own sword, but by proxy after being sent to the front lines. While his actions would not constitute murder according to the detailed terms set out in the Old Testament, we absolutely see him as responsible for his death.

When the issue is whether David murdered Uriah, readers generally feel free to expand how the Old Testament murder law should be read. But when we ask whether David raped Bathsheba, then some readers push back demanding precision around what the law says explicitly about rape.

Both Jesus and Nathan’s focus on the intent and motives of the heart give us good reason to look beyond the letter of the law. The story of David and Bathsheba is not a story of adultery or an affair, but one where a powerful man is sexually exploiting a vulnerable woman and is willing to use coercive power to call her to his chamber and cover up his actions.

Our Defense of David

Perhaps more intriguing than determining David’s motives is our own determination to spare him from disrepute. We don’t want David to be a rapist. We actually find it easier to stomach him being a murderer of a man than an abuser of a woman.

And, if the preponderance of sermons is any indication, Christians have historically been willing to slut-shame Bathsheba to keep any stink (beyond adultery) off of David. It’s nonsensical, particularly because in Scripture, Bathsheba is never accused, indicted, or even maligned in any way for what happened.

David, though, is not just another figure in the Bible. He is the “man after God’s own heart,” championed both as a heroic figure for young boys in Sunday school and the subject of Christian studies on manhood and masculinity.

The phrase we so often associate with the biblical king is not a blanket endorsement for David’s example, nor the idea that he represents what it means to be like God as a man. It means that David was God’s chosen man as king of Israel. John Woodhouse says this phrase “is talking about the place the man has in God’s heart rather than the place God has in the man’s heart.”

Scripture is full of broken people, and King David, for all his virtues, is a broken man. So why has this particular story become such a contentious one for us? I’m convinced that we don’t want David to be a rapist because we don’t want to reckon with the sin of abusive power.

If David was merely a weak man who fell prey to a tempting woman on a lonely night, then we don’t have to grapple with the far more insidious reality: David was one of many (mostly men) throughout history who used their power for sexual exploitation. He leveraged his position as king to have an innocent man killed after using his power to summon and sexually exploit that innocent man’s wife.

Is it any wonder that this great evil has largely remained unexplored in David’s story when the majority of those entrusted with telling the story stands to profit from not pointing it out? When we get to the story of David and Bathsheba the ones who would benefit most from sitting under the sobering impact of the story are those who are responsible for the telling. The spiritual leaders in our churches, mostly male pastors, must be willing to tell the story the way it is written: as an indictment of the spiritual abuse of power for exploitation. They must measure their life and the culture of leadership in their church in its scales.

We have to consider that we may have misread this story in a major way. Our misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what happened with David and Bathsheba may result in a truncated understanding of God’s good vision of power and sex, just when we so desperately need a holy vision for these things.

Perhaps the story of David isn’t just a cool story about giants defeated and battles won, but also a cautionary tale about the way that power can corrupt even the noble. And that the same power that a king had earlier used to defend the vulnerable could be turned to exploit the vulnerable.

The story of David and Bathsheba is an invitation to all of us, but particularly those in place of spiritual authority and leadership, to consider if we are making use of God’s gift in the way he intended. Power is a gift from God, but the temptation to use it for our own selfish gain is ever-present and endlessly enticing. Those entrusted with power must look to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, as the paradigm for faithful practice of power.

He, who possessed everything by right, surrendered it all for love. Christ, to whom the whole world belonged, approached the vulnerable with care and honor. Christ used his power to dignify the vulnerable and defend the shamed. What will we do with the power we’ve been given?

________

Kyle Worley planted and serves as one of the pastors at Mosaic Church in Richardson, Texas.

Relationships can survive adultery and be healed.

1) Choose to end the immoral relationship.

2) Begin the long grieving process.

3) Make a good repentance.

4) Sort out reasons for your failure.

5) Call a support network together and tell the truth.

6) Decide whether to tell your spouse.

7) Accept God's redeeming grace.

8) Go softly, walk humbly.

(From a description of services offered by the Alibi Agency Ltd., a company based in Lancashire, England. The Alibi Agency donates a portion of its profits to charities benefiting children from broken homes [to assuage their guilt at their tacky business, no doubt - Holwick].)

Many of us have occasion to stray from our long-term partners, to dally in a brief sexual relationship with a third party. But with modern communications, it has become increasingly difficult to do so without risk of detection. Public knowledge of such a relationship can put an incredible strain on all parties concerned: family life, the home, the business, and your children's welfare can all be put on the line.

The Alibi Agency was established to provide a way out of this situation. By handling "alibis" for you, we can help protect your loved ones from undue anxiety, ensuring the financial security and stability of a long-term relationship.

We offer a full and professional alibi service: We'll send invitations for corporate events, seminars, or sporting events to your home, then telephone you or your wife to confirm bookings. If someone tries to contact you, our receptionists will take the call as a hotel receptionist, for example, or a golf-club secretary. We will let the caller hear us try to page you, then offer to take a message when you can't be found. If we know where you are, we can even ring you while the caller is on hold, then patch the call through as if it were to your "room." We also take care of payments for hotels, meals, or gifts, then bill your credit card for car repairs or software purchases.

Most sexual affairs are inconsequential to your long-term relationships. Our aim is to provide total peace of mind for you and your family.

Sermon in 1 Thessalonians series. 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8

CAN YOU CONTROL YOURSELF?

=========================

I. Dilemma of sexuality.

II. What is the world coming to?

A. We live in a "sexual revolution."

B. There is nothing new under the sun.

III. Christians have always been different.

A. Your sexual morality is an expression of your spirituality.

B. Yet even many Christians are changing.

IV. God's standards for sex.

A. Sexuality is good.

B. Sexuality has boundaries.

C. Sexuality must be as broad as Christian freedom.

V. Getting control again.

A. Put God first. 1 Th 4:2

B. Avoid immorality and tempting situations. 1 Th 4:3

C. Control your body, don't let it control you. 1 Th 4:4

D. Don't hurt others. 1 Th 4:6

VI. Sex carries consequences.

DEAR ANN LANDERS: I am 41. For 20 years, I worked as a bank teller and never had a problem. Two years ago, the bank began hiring its first male tellers. Twice a week, I worked alone with "Bob" until the drive-in window closed. Bob was nice, good-looking, neat and a pleasure to work with. The teller area is small, and we got to know each other pretty well. Before long, he told me that his marriage was miserable and he had no feelings for his wife. The next night, after closing, Bob suddenly embraced me, said I was the most exciting woman he had ever met and promised to divorce his wife if I would let him make love to me. Even though I had a good husband and two lovely children, I gave in. Our affair went on for several months, and Bob said it was the happiest time of his life. We agreed that we would divorce our mates and get married. I asked my husband for a divorce. He was stunned but said, "All right, if that's what you want." When I asked Bob if he had talked to his wife, he said, "I'm afraid you've taken this fling too seriously." Within weeks, Bob got another job and left the bank without so much as a goodbye. I was in shock and heartsick. I begged my husband to forgive me, and thank God he did. I'm not asking for advice, Ann. I just want businesses to know what can happen when they create situations where men and women work closely together in isolation. --Naive in Missouri.

DEAR MISSOURI: Don't blame "businesses." It was your failure to conduct yourself in a mature and responsible manner that caused the mess. Temptation is often the test of what we are made of. Sorry your lesson was such a painful one, but consider yourself lucky you have a forgiving husband.

They are like a woman who, only recently retired from a brilliant career as a personal secretary, was frightened that her health was deteriorating so quickly. Suffering severe migraine headaches, terrible fits of depression, and fainting spells, she found no relief in anything her series of doctors could prescribe. They concluded there was nothing physically wrong with her. Finally, her doctor, unable to help her, sent her to her minister. After several appointments with her minister, the truth emerged. Her symptoms had their source in an affair she had thirty-five years earlier. The man was the manager of her company, a husband and father of two children. The liaison went on for six years and was never discovered. They got away with it, they thought. But a third of a century later, in the quiet of her retirement, from out of the depths of her conscience crawled the consequences of her indulgence. For thirty-five years, she had hidden an ulcer of guilt that she would let no one see, even herself, Now her body was feeling the punishment."

In Forgive and Forget, Lewis Smedes tells the parable of the Magic Eyes. Fouke was a righteous baker and Hilda was his wife. He was cold, she was warm. He caught her in the act of adultery and forgave her ... or so it seemed. Nursed a quiet hate. Each time he felt it an angel would drop a pebble in his heart. Eventually he became so tired and weighted down that he cried out for deliverance. Angel appeared. He could make the pebbles go away, but Fouke would need to use the “magic eyes.” He would have to see Hilda not as the person who hurt him but as a weak woman who needed him. “How do I get them?” Fouke asked. “Merely ask and it will be given,” said the angel. “Each time you look at Hilda with your new eyes I will lift one pebble from your heart.” Angel kept his word. Took some time but Fouke's heart changed and he became a new man!

“THE MAGIC EYES”

by Lewis Smedes

Forgive and Forget (Harper and Row, 1984).

pp. xii-xv.

In the village of Faken in innermost Friesland there lived a long thin baker named Fouke, a righteous man, with a long thin chin and a long thin nose. Fouke was so upright that he seemed to spray righteousness from his thin lips over everyone who came near him; so the people of Faken preferred to stay away.

Fouke's wife, Hilda, was short and round, her arms were round, her bosom was round, her rump was round. Hilda did not keep people at bay with righteousness; her soft roundness seemed to invite them instead to come close to her in order to share the warm cheer of her open heart. Hilda respected her husband, and loved him too, as much as he allowed her; but her heart ached for something more from him than his worthy righteousness. And there, in the bed of her need lay the seed of sadness.

One morning, having worked since dawn to knead his dough for the ovens, Fouke came home and found a stranger in his bedroom lying on Hilda's round bosom. Hilda's adultery soon became the talk of the tavern and the scandal of the Faken congregation. Everyone assumed that Fouke would cast Hilda out of his house, so righteous was he. But he surprised everyone by keeping Hilda as his wife, saying he forgave her as the Good Book said he should.

In his heart of hearts, however, Fouke could not forgive Hilda for bringing shame to his name. Whenever he thought about her, his feelings toward her were angry and hard; he despised her as if she were a common whore. When it came right down to it, he hated her for betraying him after he had been so good and so faithful a husband to her. He only pretended to forgive Hilda so that he could punish her with his righteous mercy.

But Fouke's fakery did not sit well in heaven. So each time that Fouke would feel his secret hate toward Hilda, an angel came to him and dropped a small pebble, hardly the size of a shirt button, into Fouke's heart. Each time a pebble dropped, Fouke would feel a stab of pain like the pain he felt from the moment he came on Hilda feeding her hungry heart from a stranger's larder. Thus he hated her the more; his hate brought him pain and his pain made him hate.

The pebbles multiplied. And Fouke's heart grew very heavy with the weight of them, so heavy that the top half of his body bent forward so far that he had to strain his neck upward in order to see straight ahead. Weary with hurt, Fouke began to wish he were dead.

One night the angel who dropped the pebbles into his heart came to Fouke and told him how he could be healed of his hurt. There was one cure and one cure alone, he said, for the hurt of a wounded heart. Fouke would need the miracle of the magic eyes. He would need eyes that could look back to the beginning of his hurt and see his Hilda, not as a wife who betrayed him, but as a weak woman who needed him. Only a new way of looking at things through the magic eyes could heal the hurt flowing from the wounds of yesterday.

Fouke protested. “Nothing can change the past,” he said. “Hilda is guilty, a fact that not even an angel can change.” “Yes, poor hurting man, you are right,” the angel said. “You cannot change the past, you can only heal the hurt that comes to you from the past. And you can heal it only with the vision of the magic eyes.”

“And how can I get your magic eyes?” pouted Fouke. “Only ask, desiring as you ask, and they will be given you. And each time you see Hilda through your new eyes, one pebble will be lifted from your aching heart.”

Fouke could not ask at once, for he had grown to love his hatred. But the pain of his heart finally drove him to want and to ask for the magic eyes that the angel had promised. So he asked. And the angel gave.

Soon Hilda began to change in front of Fouke's eyes, wonderfully and mysteriously. He began to see her as a needy woman who loved him instead of a wicked woman who betrayed him. The angel kept his promise; he lifted the pebbles from Fouke's heart, one by one, though it took a long time to take them all away. Fouke gradually felt his heart grow lighter; he began to walk straight again, and somehow his nose and his chin seemed less thin and sharp than before. He invited Hilda to come into his heart again, and she came, and together they began again a journey into their second season of humble joy.

*

When two people have settled in their minds that "We are going to love each other"; and they take those vows before God and witnesses, then that puts an end to the practice of comparing. From that day on they are never again to compare. Each is to say, "The whole of my affection is given to my partner, and I will not allow myself to think romantically about another." (David Mains)

"Sex is like a great river that is rich and deep and good as long as it stays within its proper channel. The

moment a river overflows its banks, it becomes destructive, and the moment sex overflows its God-given banks, it too becomes destructive" (Richard Foster, Money, Sex & Power , p. 109).

Bob Russell, in his book TAKE COMFORT, tells about a friend of his who saw a wrecked car being towed away. The front end was smashed in. On the back was a bumper sticker that read: "Don't Bother Me; I'm Having a Sexual Fantasy." We need to understand that when we get involved in a fantasy it invariably ends up in wrecked lives. (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Pub., 1991, p. 119).

Hear and heed the "alarm of God," Robert E. Reccord counseled students at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Reccord, president of the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board, recounted the tragic story of a close friend in the ministry who ignored God's warnings against sin and participated in an extra-marital affair.

"I just had to ask him why?" Reccord said. "Did he not hear the alarms ringing? Had he not heard God's warning of what was happening? My friend's response came after a long moment of silence... 'Yes, Bob, I heard the alarm, but I decided to disconnect the wires.'"

In his message Reccord contrasted two men in Scripture who came face to face with temptation: Joseph and David.

"One man stood tall and one man fell flat," Reccord said, directing attention to Genesis 39 where Joseph refused temptation, even though Joseph's master's wife pursued and wrongly accused him. On the other hand, in Samuel 11, David was in the wrong place at the wrong time and embraced sin.

"One recognized his weakness; the other overestimated his strength," Reccord said. "Joseph understood there is an innate weakness in every one of us ... but David was probably one who would have said, 'This will never be a problem for me.'"

For those flirting with the possibility of an affair, Reccord recapped some consequences of immorality as stated by Chuck Swindoll.

"If you fall morally in ministry, your mate will experience betrayal, shame and rejection, and no amount of repentance will ever take it fully away," Reccord recounted. "Second, your mate can never say again that you are the model of fidelity, for suspicion will always lurk in the back of his or her mind. Your escapades may introduce into your marriage something you never expected, that is, sexually transmitted disease. Fourth, the total devastation of your sinful actions on your children will be immeasurable. Their growth, innocence, trust, and healthy outlook on life will be severely and permanently damaged. The heartache -- fifth -- that you cause your parents, family and peers will be indescribable."

Reccord also pointed out that Joseph used his authority responsibly whereas David irresponsibly abused his authority.

"The responsible use of authority always comes from solid accountability," Reccord said, challenging Southeastern students to find an accountability partner who will ask hard questions. "Have you had lustful thoughts about anybody other than your [spouse] in the last week? Have you been tempted to do any unethical thing with your finances and are you tithing to the Lord? Are you working to stay physically fit? Are you spending quality and quantity time with your family or your spouse? Is your thought life clean? Have you lied to me about any one of the other answers?"

Noting that Joseph "placed a guard on his heart" while David "left his heart unguarded," Reccord cited Proverbs 4:23, "[G]uard your heart for out of it will come the issues of your life."

Failure to guard one's heart results in disobedience, Reccord said. "The heart begins to drift, obedience begins to lag, and then we look to something or someone to fill whatever God should fill himself," he said. "That's how affairs happen ... someone starts taking the place that only God can fill."

Most importantly in looking to these two men, "one man fled and one man stayed," Reccord said.

Referring to James 1:15, which states, "[A]fter desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and sin when its fully grown gives birth to death," Reccord identified the pattern of sin. "It means that when I give in to temptation, there's part of me that dies. There's a part of me that becomes insensitive to the warning sounds of the alarm of God. That's the dangerous thing."

Reccord encouraged the seminarians to do what Job did in Job 31:1, to make a "covenant with my eyes to the Lord that I will never look lustfully after a young woman."

"I just want to remind you that [sin] comes in such subtle ways," Reccord added, referencing magazines such as the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated and even the Victoria Secret catalogue, which can become a lure to pornography.

Offering three points of counsel, Reccord said, "Make sure there is no area in your life that he's not Lord of and there's no sin in your life that you haven't confessed. Number two, resist the devil, and he will flee from you. But make sure you're prepared to do it before the temptation comes. Third, come near to God, and he will come near to you.

"Stay close and you'll stay clean, but drift away, and you won't," Reccord said. "[W]hen the alarm sounds, I beg you, I beg you ... please don't disconnect the wires, but listen to the alarm and get out of there!"

_____________________

Thompson is a newswriter at Southeastern Seminary.

*

Latimer was raised to the bishopric of Worcester in the reign of Henry VIII. It was the custom of those days for each of the bishops to make presents to the King on New Year's Day. Latimer went with the rest of his brethren to make the usual offering; but, instead of a purse of gold, he presented the King with a New Testament, in which was a leaf doubled down to this passage:

“Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4}

“Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children.” - 2 Peter 2:14

-- Walter Baxendale

Researchers in Sweden recently announced what makes men good “husband material.” The key, they say, lies not in his religion, his morals, or even how much he loves his potential spouse — it’s how much he has in common with rodents.

A team at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm studied “552 pairs of male twins enrolled in Sweden’s ongoing Twin and Offspring Study.” The subjects “were currently in a relationship that had lasted at least five years.” Researchers then used tests, and interviewed the subjects’ spouses where possible, to assess the subjects’ ability to “bond and commit.”

The subjects were also tested for variants in what is known as the “vasopressin 1a gene.” Vasopressin is a peptide hormone thought to be “associated with species-typical patterns of social behavior” in many mammals.

Their “main finding,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, was that there was an association between a particular gene variant and the ability to form “strong bonds” with their partners. They found that men carrying a variant called “334” scored “especially low” on a test called the “Partner Bonding Scale.” Translation: They find it harder to be faithful.

Not only that — women married to men with this variant scored “lower ... on levels of marital quality” than women married to men without it.

What prompted the researcher to look for a correlation between the variant and fidelity? The behavior and neurochemistry of rodents — specifically voles, better known to Discovery Channel fans as “owl chow.”

According to lead researcher Hasse Walum, “studies in voles have shown that the hormone vasopressin is released in the brain of males during mating.” Voles with higher levels of vasopressin are more likely to “stick around and mingle with the female after” a sexual encounter.

As Dave Barry might write, I’m not making this up.

Walum said that the gene variant cannot “with any real accuracy be used to predict how someone will behave in a future relationship.” And Dr. John Lucas of Cornell told the Washington Post, it was “unlikely to be a single gene [at work]” in male bonding. Instead, it was “likely to be multiple genes that are expressed incompletely and interact with the environment . . .”

Genes, environment — what’s missing from the list? That’s right — religion, morality, virtue, culture. It’s difficult to imagine a better example of what’s known as “biological determinism.” It’s the idea behind Lucas telling the Post that “genes help drive much of human behavior” and that “the individual palette of emotions and behaviors” is “probably ‘hard-wired’ by our genetics.”

While he and others acknowledge a role for training, it’s too little, too late. In a culture that believes biology is destiny, telling people that something like fidelity is genetically driven is tantamount to calling it “optional.”

But the apostle Paul, with his “thorn in the flesh,” knew that what was good had little to do what came “naturally.”

It was a lesson that Christianity helped teach the West — that is, until the West decided that men were little more than animals — in this case, owl chow.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]