102 Sermon Illustrations on Adultery

In Rome for the first five hundred and twenty years of the Republic there had not been a single divorce; but now under the Empire, as it has been put, divorce was a matter of caprice. As Seneca said, “Women were married to be divorced and divorced to be married.” In Rome the years were identified by the names of the consuls; but it was said that fashionable ladies identified the years by the names of their husbands. Juvenal quotes an instance of a woman who had eight husbands in five years. Morality was dead.

In Greece immorality had always been quite blatant. Long ago Demosthenes had written: “We keep prostitutes for pleasure; we keep mistresses for the day-to-day needs of the body; we keep wives for the begetting of children and for faithful guardianship of our homes.” So long as a man supported his wife and family there was no shame whatsoever in extramarital relationships.

Vera Czermak, of Prague, Czechoslovakia, doscovered her husband was cheating on her. She contemplated both murder and suicide. Choosing the latter, she leaped out of a third-story window. She suffered only minor injuries, however, because she landed on her husband on the street below, killing him.

- {Lookout}

Just as a hidden iceberg destroyed the Titanic after the crew had ignored multiple warnings, lives and ministries of pastors and other church staff are being destroyed at a remarkable rate by sexual infidelity, the president of the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board warns. Robert E. Reccord is author of the book "Beneath the Surface: Steering Clear of the Dangers That Could Leave You Shipwrecked," published by the Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Reccord cited survey statistics from the book "Men's Secret Wars" by Patrick Means that indicated 64 percent of pastors or church staff struggled with sexual addiction or compulsion. Twenty-five percent admitted to having sexual intercourse with someone besides their wife while married, and after they had accepted Christ. Another 14 percent admitted some form of sexual contact short of intercourse.

Reccord told of a difficult conversation he had several years ago with a friend in the ministry who had fallen because of adultery. He asked him, "What in the world were you doing? Didn't you hear the alarm bells going off?" There was a long silence, Reccord said, then the man answered, "Oh Bob, I did hear the alarms. I heard the alarms plainly. But when I heard the alarms I decided to disconnect the wires."

There is a repeatable pattern that often occurs with many kinds of sin, a pattern that first appeared in the Garden of Eden, Reccord said. First, Eve questioned whether God really said it was wrong. Then she contradicted God, rationalizing that he really didn't have her best interests at heart when he told her not to eat of the fruit.

"I find that the only time I'm really open to saying, 'Did God really say?' is when I believe God isn't giving me his best. I think he's holding back something from me," Reccord said.

He told how Joseph and David from Scripture reacted differently when faced with sexual temptation, Joseph from Potiphar's wife and David from Bathsheba.

While David overestimated his strength and yielded to temptation, Reccord said, Joseph recognized his own weakness and fled immediately at the first signs. Some of the highest-profile leaders fall hard precisely because they think, like David, that they are invulnerable.

"Just as much as [Satan] attacks at your weakest point, he also attacks you at what you think is your strongest point," Reccord said, later adding that life-altering sin can happen remarkably quickly. "There is not a person in this room that is not one step from stupid at any given moment."

Reccord also noted the importance of every Christian leader having someone to whom he is accountable, someone who will ask him the hard questions about his personal life and thoughts. He noted research which found little in common among more than 200 fallen ministers except two things: all no longer had a regular quiet time in fellowship with God, and none had made themselves accountable to a person or group.

"Nobody takes accountability from you," he said. "You've got to give accountability. You've got to go to someone and say, 'I need your help.'"

Reccord also pointed to God's warning through Moses in Deuteronomy of the dangers of turning toward false gods.

"The minute you start looking to something or someone to provide what only God can provide, you are worshiping other gods," he said.

*

It was on Saturday morning, Jan. 3, 2004, when I confessed to my dear wife Betty that I had committed adultery -- a seven-month affair with one of her best friends. She fell to her knees in disbelief. It was as if I had reached inside her heart and ripped it out. The pain was almost unbearable. Life had reached its darkest day for me -- it was truly the worst day of my life. Immediately, life had changed, and everything began to take a different direction for us as we tried to somehow deal with this dreadful situation I had caused.

For almost 26 years, I had been the senior pastor of a Tidewater, Virginia, church. We loved our people, and most all of our friends and a lot of our family members were in some way connected to that ministry. On that same evening I called a special deacons meeting and confessed to them my affair. Most of them wept in disbelief. I told them that the next day I would go before my congregation and come clean with them also. I did and also resigned. The news spread like lightning throughout the city and surrounding areas. The guilt and shame was overwhelming for me. The thought crossed my mind that death would have been a welcomed event. I had disappointed and broken trust with so many people.

Within seven days of my confession, at the invitation of Pastor Johnny Hunt, Betty and I pulled into the parking lot of First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia, to enter the City of Refuge, a ministry for pastors and full-time Christian workers who have been burnt out, forced out, or have struggled with some addiction or immorality. For 17 months, Betty and I received intense counseling and encouragement, which started a new journey of trust, transparency and vulnerability in our lives. In addition to that, the sweet people at First Baptist loved on us and offered us grace, safety and love like we had never experienced in our entire lives. We were loved unconditionally. It was during that time that my dear wife offered me unconditional grace, forgiveness, love and renewed trust. Our marriage and our home environment slowly became truly a place of genuine love, openness and transparency.

The above is only a thumbnail of my 12-year journey, and I share it openly because pastors and church leaders (as well as laymen) are struggling with addictions and sexual sins. The fallout is at epidemic levels. We hear about it almost weekly, and there is very little help offered for pastors and churches who are experiencing such adversities.

I am a blessed and grateful man who realizes that God has strategically placed people and circumstances in my journey to help me understand what biblical grace is all about. My mess has become my message. I never want to forget the pain and disillusionment that I caused my wife, my family, my church and my friends; however, my past no longer defines me. My vision and desire are to see the entire body of Christ understand grace, spiritual freedom, and healthy living out of our identity in Jesus Christ as mature Christ followers.

______

EDITOR’S NOTE: For more information about City of Refuge go to http://www.fbcw.org/community/city-of-refuge/.

T.A. Powell is assistant professor at Liberty University Online, School of Divinity. This article first appeared in the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia’s missions magazine, Proclaimer (www.sbcv.org/proclaimer).

The first divorce directly related to the September 11th terrorist attacks has been filed in New York. It appears a guy with an office on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center spent the morning at his girlfriend's apartment with his phone turned off. He wasn't watching TV either. When he turned his phone back on at about 11 a.m., it rang immediately. It was his hysterical wife - "Are you OK? Where are you?" He said, "What do you mean? I'm in my office, of course!"

[I could not pin down the source. The snippet appeared to be torn from a newspaper and photographed but didn't look totally real. Could be an urban legend. 7/12/02 from Snopes Rumor Research: it is fake but still funny.]

*

Adultery

A third-grade Sunday school teacher was uneasy about the day's lesson: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." By way of introduction, she asked, "Would someone please explain what adultery means?"

A young sage answered matter-of-factly, "Adultery is when a kid lies about his age."

-Jonathan R.Mutchler Blaine, Washington

Budgets

The bad news: the average American has just $83.42 in the bank.

The good news: The average American is $4.6 trillion richer than the U.S. government.

-Hope Health Letter (2/96)

Communication

A woman answered the knock at her door and found a destitute man. He wanted to earn money by doing odd jobs, so she asked, "Can you paint?"

"Yes," he said. "I'm a pretty good painter."

"Well, here's a gallon of green paint and a brush. Go behind the house and you'll see a porch that needs repainting. Be very careful. When you're done, I'll look it over and pay you what it's worth."

It wasn't more than an hour before he knocked again. "All finished," he reported with a smile.

"Did you do a good job?" she asked.

"Yes. But lady, there's one thing I'd like to point out to you. That's not a Porsche back there. That's a Mercedes."

The message we send is not always the message that's received.

-Bruce Thielemann Preaching Today

Being president is like running a cemetery: you've got a lot of people under you, and nobody's listening.

-Bill Clinton

Someone told me that a commencement speaker is like the body at an Irish wake. They need you in order to have a party, but nobody expects you to say very much.

-Anthony Lake National Security Adviser, commencement speaker at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Family

Isn't this nice? We're a typical nuclear family. Yeah. . .one meltdown after another.

-Tribune Media Services

Honesty

A troubled man sought counsel from a therapist: "Doctor, everyone calls me a liar."

"Oh, come on now," said the counselor. "I can't believe that."

-The Light (Issue 11)

Golf - Taking Action

A golfer's errant shot ended up on an ant hill. He squared up, took a big swing--and missed. Thousands of innocent ants were killed. The hacker took another swing--and missed again. Another wave of ants was destroyed. Panic-stricken insects scurried everywhere.

One ant finally took charge. "Follow me," he cried with authority. Another ant yelled, "But where are we going?"

He pointed to the Titleist golf ball sitting in front of them. "There. If we don't get on the ball, we're going to die!"

Copyright(c) 1996 by Christianity Today, Inc./LEADERSHIP journal

Summer 1996 Vol.XVII, No.3, Page 71

CBS television's award-winning comedy "Everybody Loves Raymond" features a fairly typical Hollywood portrayal of the contemporary man. The lead character, played by comedian Ray Romano, sneaks around in order to play golf with his friends, sometimes tricking his wife much like a child seeking to avoid discipline. When not passively begging for sex or privileges from his wife, the character is whining for food from his mother, who lives next door.

Hollywood executives, however, are admitting that this portrait of a man devoid of the respect of his wife and children is skewed and unfair. They are ready, they say, to restore masculinity, honor and empowerment to sitcom husbands and dads.

And they're going to do so by making them adulterers.

The New York Times reports that HBO's new program, "The Mind of a Married Man," features the next wave in sitcom fathers. Unlike Raymond, who "has to listen to his wife's complaints about his sexual technique," the new cadre of TV husbands will balance time with wife and children with "taking a flirtatious co-worker out for what could be more than an innocent lunch" (Craig Tomashoff, "A Few Brave Husbands Have Sex on Their Minds," Sept. 22, 2002).

The Times notes that the adultery angle will correct the passivity of male characters since "these new sex-driven husbands seem more like equal partners in their relationships, rather than buffoons who are just there for comic relief." As one actor complains, "The dumb husband is not a true character, and I think it sends the wrong message." The new line of faithless and straying husbands, however, "will be less hapless and more sexually focused."

The television producers tell The Times that the integration of adulterous activities in situation comedies will show that these husbands and dads "seem to live in a world closer to the one we real husbands know." The men will not be cringing before their wives, but will "maintain their independence and sexuality."

After all, one producer notes, "A married man at 40 isn't all that different from a guy who is 17."

Really?

The new twist on sitcom families tells us more about the world of the nation's media elites than it does about the state of "real" American families. It also demonstrates the bankruptcy of the culture's swing between overlapping dangers -- seeing men as parasitic obstructions to feminist utopia and seeing women as sexual products for predatory men.

The bickering and mistrustful world of "Everybody Loves Raymond" is, indeed, miserable. At the same time, those who have observed adulterous men growing older, sometimes seeming oblivious to the wreckage of families left behind them, know that nothing is more pathetic. And nothing is less masculine.

But there is another way.

Scripture reveals a pattern of leadership in which men lovingly sacrifice everything for the protection and guardianship of their wives and children, a trust that starts with the rejection of the deadly lure of infidelity (Proverbs 6:20-29). A wife who trusts and respects her husband doesn't then treat him like a child, perhaps first of all because both of them recognize the obvious difference between a husband and "a guy who is 17." The husband doesn't plan deceptive schemes for golfing weekends because he would more often rather play miniature golf with his wife and children. The husband doesn't find his "empowerment" in the cheap allure of an adulteress, but in loving his wife and seeing his children grow in grace and godliness.

That's what the Scriptures call the "real world" -- the way families were designed from the dawn of creation. Maybe it is time to turn off the sitcoms and pray for the producers.

_________________

Russell D. Moore teaches Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and serves as executive director of the seminary's Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement.

*

«The leader’s material is “em-braced” by these braces; excluded from handouts.»

The Christian and the Decalogue — Sex — Exodus 20:14

2 I am Jehovah thy God, … 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. — ASV

«I shall admit to you frankly that this is a subject where I have a very low comfort level — and I suspect that I am not alone. » I could have entitle this “The Christian and the Decalogue — Family (or Fidelity or Faithfulness, etc.)” but that would have sidestepped a number of issues with which the Bible deals.« So, at the risk of being accused of sensationalism, I have entitled it as above.»

Our culture today is obsessed with sex. It dominates the media, entertainment, and people’s conversation. Sigmund Freud and his disciples make it the dominant factor of the arts, of literature and of human action. Hedonism considers sexual fulfilment as a main purpose of life. On the other hand, some Christians consider sex to be the source of all sin and the original sin as sexual in nature. So the only holy life has been seen by them as the celibate life of the hermit, the monk, and the nun. But the Bible, while recognizing the reality of sex, does not centre life around it; rather, the Christian living a life by faith, subordinates it to his relationship with God.

A. But Who designed sex? God. And what is its character and purpose?

1. Genesis 1:27–28« the propagation of the species»

2. and some say that this is its sole purpose and to add to this any thought of enjoyment is to turn love into lust; that this is a doubtful interpretation of Scripture is evidenced by

a. the word used in the Bible to describe having sexual relationships is ________« (know)» as in Genesis 4:1; this is a very common word in the Old Testament and includes such ideas as

(A) Learn to ________« (know) »

(B) to gain __________________« (knowledge)»

(C) to ________« (know) »by experience

(D) to be ____________________« (acquainted, as in Exodus 1:8, there arose a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph)»

(E) and in the ultimate sense is how God __________ «(knows)» us completely (Psalm 139:4)

(F) being kindred to the use of this word in describing what takes place between a husband and a wife in this physical act; that of the most intimate and deepest knowledge, the one of the other

(G) finally: this is the same word used to describe in the New Testament the intimate relationship between Christ and His Church (as Ephesians 4:13, Philippians 3:10, 2 Peter 3:18), with marriage itself being an analogy of that union (the church as Christ’s bride)

b. also, we find that this physical act

(A) Genesis 2:24–25 «has an aspect transcending the merely physical into a union of two people; it is an exclusive relationship of unity: physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual»

(B) 1 Corinthians 6:15–18 «this union exists even if there is no marital relationship; and the enduring nature of such an illicit union is totally incompatible with union with Christ»

(C) so that for men and women, spiritual creatures, this has a meaning and purpose which differs from that for all the other living creatures that God made

c. The Song of Solomon

(A) is frequently interpreted as being solely allegorical, depicting the relation between ____________« (Christ)» and the __________« (church)»

(B) but the primary meaning of this book is very evident as in it are expressed, by the bridegroom and the bride in turn, in the frankest sexual terms, words of endearment and admiration of the other’s physical endowments, strength, and beauty

B. So, we would maintain that marriage, with sexual intimacy as an integral part, was intended by God to be a fulfilling human relationship which mirrored that relationship intended between God and His people

1. so we have the astounding command of God to _________ «(Hosea)» to take Gomer, a ____________, «(harlot)» to be his wife to represent what ____________ «(Israel)» was like before God «(Hosea’s treatment of his wife was to survive all of her infidelities as an illustration of how God’s faithful love to Israel went on despite all of their unfaithfulness)»

2. hence, what are God’s “feelings” about marriage

a. Proverbs 5:18 «(it is intended to be an enduring, enjoyable relationship)»

b. Malachi 2:14–15 «(it is a covenant relationship, akin to God’s covenant relationship with His people; to break this covenant is a sin against the other person, as well as against God who has joined them together — note that in one sense marriage is a legal contract without religious implication; priests in the Old Testament and pastors in the New do not appear to have solemnized marriages, this being done by the families involved; only later did the church take over such increasing legal control of its “members” with the rise of “church law”)»

c. Malachi 2:16 «(He hates divorce, “putting away”)»

d. Matthew 19:5–6 «(no human authority nor counsellor should legitimatize anything other than its being an enduring relationship between and a man and a woman — with the exception of adultery itself, Matthew 5:32)»

e. Hebrews 13:4 «(sex has a pure role within marriage but is utterly condemned outside it)»

C. Thus, for the Christian, living a life under faith by grace (as opposed to the pre-conversion life under sin by the law)

1. we see that it is unquestioned that this life will

a. be enduringly ________________ to the marriage relationship« (faithful)»

b. abandon all forms of sexual __________________« (immorality)»

2. that an unmarried life is neither a goal of high spiritual purpose nor measure of rejection or shame; Jesus taught that there are a number of reasons that God may choose to have a person live in this state (Matthew 19:10–12).

3. but couples will also engage in the positive actions that will make their marriage the God-intended joyous relationship; what are some of the things that should be evidenced in the marriage relationship as found in Ephesians 5:21–33

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

~~~~~~~~~~

This set of lessons was inspired by part II of “Ethics of Decision” by George W. Forell, The Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1955 (Library of Congress 55-7767).

Key Bible Verse: Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge ... those who commit adultery (Hebrews 13:4). Bonus Reading: Proverbs 7:6–27

A Christian salesman friend was attending a dealers' convention in New York City. On a free evening he was waiting for a car with others to see some of the city's sights. But he got into the wrong car. These salesmen were not headed for the tourist attractions but for a famous swinging bar. Before my friend knew his mistake, they were on the way with no turning back.

Upon entering the bar, each man was immediately joined by a girl who took him by the arm and led him to a table. His girl was saucy, pert, and dressed seductively.

“As the evening continued, the temptation was like a steamroller,” he told me later. “This girl was luscious. I had all I could do to keep from grabbing her and taking her to one of the back rooms. But the thing that held me and protected me — the only thing — was that before I had left home, I had told my wife that I was hers alone, and that regardless of any enticements, we belonged to each other and we would be praying for each other.”

At the time of temptation there is too much emotion. His decision made ahead of time, and confirmed at the time of temptation, was what saved him.

-- J. Allan Petersen in The Myth of the Greener Grass

Thought to Apply: A safe male has already made up his mind about his sexual ethics. -- Stan Thornburg

_________

Adapted from The Myth of the Greener Grass (Tyndale, 1983, 1991); Copyright © 2003 by the author or Christianity Today International/Men of Integrity magazine.

*

The history of Bible printing may not usually be considered the source of riveting stories, but there is one from the early editions of the old Authorized Bible, the King James Version. In 1631 printer Robert Barker made a small, but costly, error producing one of the most scandalous Bibles of all times. In Exodus 20:14, when type setting the Seventh Commandment, he accidentally forget the little word “not” so that the negative command became positive: “thou shalt commit adultery.”

This error went out on the market and soon became known as the “Wicked Bible.” They were soon discovered and promptly destroyed. Barker was fined £300, a huge sum in those days. Surviving copies of this Bible are among the most valued among book collectors; I’m not sure if because of their rarity or that they confirm the desires of so many people.

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

Version by Roddy Chestnut:

In 1623, Baker [should be 1631 and Barker] and Lukas published a Bible in England since called "The Wicked Bible." It has been called that because the little word "not" was omitted in the 7th commandment: "Thou shalt commit adultery." The printers were heavily fined and the whole edition was destroyed.

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

From http://www.catholicapologetics.net/wicked_bible.htm

The quality and methods of printing in the seventeenth century were rather primitive in comparison to today. This led to many printing errors in these early books, although they are not theological or translational mistakes, they are still is worth a smile, and worthy of noting. King Charles I ordered 1,000 Bibles from an English printer named Robert Barker. Only after the Bibles were delivered did anyone notice a serious mistake. In one of the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:14], a very small word was forgotten by the printers. The word “not”. This changed the 7th commandment to say “Thou shalt commit adultery”!

King Charles was not amused by the “Wicked Bible,” as the infamous printing mistake was called. He ordered the Bibles recalled and destroyed, took away Barker's license to print Bibles and fined him 300 pounds [a lifetime's wages in those days]. Barker was out of business. Only 11 are left today.

*

On average across the United States, about 5 percent to 10 percent of people who have DNA tested for various reasons are not really the sons or daughters of the person they had thought of as dad, scientists say.

As I was checking out of my hotel, my host said, “Ron, did you turn in your key?” I was sure he had been talking to my wife. See, she's the one who gets to mail all those keys back. I've been known to own a hotel key collection. You know, everybody needs a hobby - right? Some people collect stamps, some collect coins - you get the idea. It's not really my intention to walk off with hotel keys, but all too often I end up taking what I never meant to take, and I didn't even know I was taking it.

I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about “Four-Way Theft.”

Our word for today from the Word of God comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:3; some revealing words for people who are living in a sex-saturated culture. Let's face it, it's everywhere. And here is some insight from the inventor of sex on the invisible tragedy that takes place when people have sex premaritally or extramaritally. Here's what He says. “It is God's will that you should be sanctified, that you should avoid sexual immorality. Each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable. Not in passionate lust like the heathen who do not know God. And in this matter, none should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins.”

Notice here it says first of all that it's God's will that we keep pure. This is a destiny thing we're dealing with. God says, “I want you to be sanctified,” which means kept special - not diminished by sex with anyone but your lifetime partner. He says the way to do that is to “avoid sexual immorality.” In other words, don't be anywhere near where you could mess this up. And then he says you do it by controlling your own body. Don't let your body, don't let your mind get to a point where your passions are controlling you. Then there's this sudden tack about not wronging or taking advantage of your brother. What's this about? Well, obviously there's a third person being hurt when two people are physically involved outside of marriage. What's happening is really four-way theft.

First, sex outside of marriage boundaries hurts you, and then it hurts your partner. You're robbing yourselves of the enjoyment of sex that is guilt free and regret free and judgment free inside marriage. This unique love gift is no longer unique because you've given it to someone else, which in turn robs two other people - both your future partners, or both of your present partners if you're married.

Four-way theft: four people, two of them innocent parties, lose what could be so special because someone couldn't control their hormones. In reality it's utter selfishness, probably masquerading in the name of love. It's like my key problem. You may not know what you're taking. You may not even mean to be taking it, but it's gone and it's not easy to return what you have taken.

If you are in the middle of a sexual relationship with anyone other than your marriage partner, whether it's your present or future partner, take this program as a warning from God. He loves you. He stands ready to forgive you if you'll honestly repent at the cross of Jesus. In fact, He died for that very sin - one that He wants to forgive you of so you can be clean and know Him personally.

He'll strengthen you as you face whatever fall-out there will be. If you're on the edge of a sexual mistake or just flirting with fantasies, run from it now! The bill lasts much longer than the thrill. Sexual sin is four-way robbery. It costs so many people, so very much.

________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

“You acted like a dummy: Get out of here.” That's how one expert in business ethics summed up the attitude of the Boeing Company toward chief executive Harry Stonecipher. When Stonecipher's extramarital affair with a Boeing employee became public, Boeing's board forced him out.

The irony is that Boeing hired Stonecipher to mop up the ethical mess left by his predecessor, who resigned following full-blown scandals of his own. Stonecipher designed a “zero tolerance” ethics code in order to reassure investors and customers that Boeing was cleaning up its act. But as Stonecipher himself admits, “I violated my own standards. I used poor judgment.”

Did Boeing go too far in firing Stonecipher for what many consider private conduct that has nothing to do with his job? Absolutely not, says an expert in business ethics.

Dr. Scott Rae is associate professor of Christian ethics at Talbot Seminary. Rae argues that ethical decisions in the business world must be made with an eye on virtue. After all, highly educated people who knew right from wrong caused the business scandals at Enron and elsewhere in recent years. How many times when Chuck and I go into prison have we seen highly educated people who simply chose to do wrong. And as Rae argues, capitalism depends on virtue, for without trust, honesty, and cooperation, the entire free-market system falls apart.

As Rae puts it, “The founders of our nation believed that the democratic experiment would work only if the citizens are virtuous. Contrary to popular belief, total liberty was never their intent. Rather, their vision was one of 'ordered' or 'restrained' liberty — that is, freedom tempered by morals and character.”

Rae identifies three theological norms for business ethics: holiness, justice, and love. Holiness in business ethics refers to someone who is set apart from the surrounding culture or environment. That doesn't mean leaving the business world, but rather standing against corrupt values.

Justice is the mark of someone who meets the standards set by God's character and who is innocent of intentional wrongdoing. Love — a virtue not often associated with business — has to do with relationships. Without love, relationships with employees and customers, suppliers and shareholders, become strained and break down.

That is why adultery on the job robs a chief executive of his moral authority. And it's why people are wrong when they say we can separate someone's private conduct from public duties. During the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski scandal, conservative critics were told, “Private sexual behavior has nothing to do with how someone runs a country — or runs a business.” But today, in the wake of so many business scandals, Americans are waking up to the reality that one's character is not divisible. If we ignore that truth, we imperil, not only the health of individual companies, but also of our country's future.

Business in a free-enterprise system is a cornerstone of democracy. As Rae says: “We should all be worried about the future of the free market economy [and democracy itself] if virtue isn't once again taken seriously in the public dialogue about morality.”

That's why, if like Harry Stonecipher you're a CEO who ignores your moral compass, you'll be told to get out — and rightfully so.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

In the 1950s, Hank Williams twanged, “Your cheatin' heart, will tell on you.” In the '70s the Eagles harmonized, “You can't hide your lyin' eyes.” Most recently, Toby Keith sang, “Just remember when you let it all go, what happens down in Mexico stays in Mexico.” Though the approach is different in each song, the subject is the same -- adultery.

Adultery is like a car wreck on a busy street. Though everyone knows something terribly tragic has happened, the urge to stare is difficult for many to overcome. The subject of adultery seems always to creep its way onto the stage of popular culture. Whether the vehicle is music, film or literature, cheating on one's spouse is a subject hashed and re-hashed in every generation.

When the movie “The Bridges of Madison County” was in theaters in 1995, a young lady in the church I was pastor of approached me and suggested that my wife and I should see it. I knew the movie was about adultery, so I replied, “Why do you want us to see it? Do you want my wife to be unfaithful?”

Her face revealed a look of shock, “No, of course not,” she said. “Oh,” I said, “Do you think I should commit adultery?” She shook her head, “No.” I asked her why then was she recommending the movie. She replied, “So you would realize why some people commit adultery.” I graciously informed her that no matter the reason for adultery, it always leaves in its wake hurting people and damaged marriages.

Through the ages there have been some who have vainly attempted to romanticize adultery. However, its deceptive and destructive nature renders cheating on one's spouse difficult to spin in a positive fashion. As a result, most discussions of adultery include the negative consequences of such behavior.

Until now.

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, a new line of greeting cards is hitting the market aimed at those involved in adulterous relationships. Cathy Gallagher has launched the “Secret Lover Collection” of 24 cards “exclusively for people having affairs.”

Gallagher contends “affairs are out in the open.” She cites not only former President Bill Clinton's “relationship” with Monica Lewinsky, but also the dalliances on the popular television show “Desperate Housewives.” It is all about “forbidden love,” Gallagher says.

What sort of sentiment does an adultery card convey? Among Gallagher's offerings is a card that celebrates the anniversary of adultery, one that addresses the reality of holidays spent apart due to family obligations and another that suggests the adulterous couple leave their spouses and become a “legitimate” couple.

To the charge that she is celebrating, even encouraging, a dark and destructive reality, Gallagher replied, “People make choices. I'm not making the choice for them... And by the time they buy this greeting card, they're already involved deeply in the affair.” She added, “This is an entrepreneurial venture.... That's the bottom line.”

By Gallagher's standard, the drug dealer is not contributing negatively to society. Rather, he is involved in an entrepreneurial venture. After all, his customers choose to use his product. They were already addicts long before he came along.

And, of course, the pimp is only supplying a service for which there has long been a demand. So don't judge him, he is an entrepreneur with his eye on the bottom line. Of course, the same holds true for pornographers.

In the winter 1993 edition of the American Scholar, former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York observed the following in an article titled “Defining Deviancy Down”: “...we have been redefining deviancy so as to except much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal level' in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard.”

While adultery has long been a reality, it has never been viewed positively. Even when romanticized in song, film or literature, it has rarely escaped stigma. Every generation has understood that adultery carries with it the baggage of harmful consequences.

The last thing our culture needs is a line of greeting cards that celebrates adultery as some romantic adventure. It doesn't matter where infidelity takes place or under what circumstances, it always hitches a ride home in a cheating heart and undermines the trust that is the foundation of a marriage. The result is a family that suffers damage.

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE -- WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THIS BEFORE?

By Myron Horst

The research for this report began a number of years ago in an attempt to find out what God’s Word has to say about divorce and remarriage. Is divorce wrong? Is the adultery in remarriage an act or a state? In what cases are divorce and remarriage permitted? What place do divorced and remarried couples have in the Church? Can the church accept them the same as any other married couple? As I look at the interesting truths that I found in Scripture on divorce and remarriage, I have to ask myself, “Why didn’t we see this before?”

It is important that we know and understand what God's truth is about divorce and remarriage. The subject of divorce and remarriage has the potential to be a deciding factor of eternal life or death - Heaven or Hell for someone. One day each of us will be judged by Jesus Christ by God's Law; not the lower court’s (the local church’s) opinion of God’s Law. If the Church has said that a particular divorce and remarriage situation is not sin and God says it is sin, it is too late on Judgment Day for the one who was in that situation to find out God's truth, repent and be saved from hell.

Therefore, divorce and remarriage is a matter of eternity in heaven or hell: a subject of utmost importance for us to understand exactly what God has to say about it. Eternity in hell is too long to risk putting faith in the opinions and reasoning of others. We need to know what the truth is, and what God says is right and wrong.

Divorce and remarriage is a significant subject which many people, as well as the church, face. Many marriages are being severed by divorce. Today, the divorce rate is no different in the church than among the ungodly. Everyone has an opinion about it, and everyone is entitled to hold an opinion about divorce and remarriage. However, the personal opinions and human reasonings that others share tend to obscure what God says about divorce and remarriage. This is particularly true when a line of reasoning (that is in error) is stated by a number of well respected, highly educated Christian sources. When error is repeated as truth, the number of people who believe it to be truth increases. Those who believe that a particular erroneous line of reasoning is truth also see God's truth as error. God's truth on divorce and remarriage then does not make sense because it does not line up with what they have been told and with what they believe to be true.

We need to be like the Bereans and search the Bible for ourselves to see if what is being confidently stated as truth is truth. As I have checked out things that I have read or heard, I have found a lot of error being stated as truth in the church. People who I highly respected had not done the careful research that I thought they had. I also found that often they were relying on the writings of others rather than a careful study of the Bible.

The subject of divorce and remarriage has not been exhaustively studied in the Bible, even though it has been extensively studied and written about. The Bible is a rich gold mine of spiritual truth and there is even more to be learned. In fact I am still learning more as more and more of the puzzle pieces are revealed.

GOD HATES DIVORCE

On many doctrines, God speaks His will as clear, and sometimes more clearly, in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. We find this true on the doctrine of marriage and divorce. God hates divorce. God says in Malachi 2:16 that “He hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment.” No only does God tell us that He hates divorce, but He says that divorcing one's spouse removes a person from fellowship with Him. He will not receive the worship of a person who has divorced their spouse. God says “And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” (Malachi 2:13,14)

We see from this passage in the Old Testament that divorce and remarriage is a serious matter. We see that God hates divorce. Not only does He hate divorce, but when a Christian divorces their spouse, it removes them from fellowship with God and He no longer receives their worship. Because God expresses His feelings so strongly about divorce, we need to be careful to correctly discern what God is saying on the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, lest we be guilty of removing ourselves or others from fellowship with Him.

THOSE WHO CAN NEVER DIVORCE:

A couple who committed fornication together before they were married can never divorce. In Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 God says: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” This passage is significant because it significantly limits what the phrase “saving for the cause of fornication” in Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9 can mean. There is no exception for divorce and remarriage if the couple had sexual intercourse together before they were married.

HOW DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE ARE SEPARATE EVENTS AND THEREFORE ARE TWO SEPARATE, ALTHOUGH RELATED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION.

Many people view divorce and remarriage as one and the same for purposes of discussion. For instance, the assumption is often made that if a person living in a remarriage situation cannot be accepted as a member in the church, then a person who is divorced is not able to be able to be a member in the church either. When divorce and remarriage are viewed as one and the same, it significantly hinders one from understanding what God says about both divorce and remarriage. The assumption is often made that divorce makes a person single again and that remarriage is the purpose of divorce. Because remarriage is viewed as the purpose for divorce, they view divorce and remarriage as one and the same: if divorce is permitted then remarriage is also. However, this is not the case according to Scripture.

We will see that according to Scripture, divorce and remarriage need to be viewed as two separate events, and therefore as two separate, although related, items for discussion.

GOD MAKES THE MAN AND WOMAN ONE

Marriage is more than a marriage certificate from the civil government. In marriage, God makes the man and the woman one. God says about the being made one aspect in Malachi 2:15: “And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.”

Jesus also stated that it is God who joins a man and woman together as one flesh in marriage: “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'“ Matt. 19:4-6

Divorce is a legal action that the civil government (not God) has established. A couple may go to the church to get married, but they have to go to the civil government to get a divorce. The Church cannot grant a legal divorce. Although divorce can end the legal aspect of a marriage, it cannot end the “one” aspect of the marriage which God has joined together. Once divorce occurs, a person is not single again in God's judgment, and therefore not free to marry another person even if their first spouse has remarried. The “one” union with their spouse can only be ended by the death of one of the marriage partners. According to Jesus, a marriage cannot be ended by the legal proceedings of the court. There will be more on this later.

In the same passage in Malachi 2 where God states that he makes the man and woman one, God also clearly states that after divorce the marriage is still binding “yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” (Malachi 2:14) Divorce does not end the “one” aspect of the marriage that God joined together when they were married.

God also says, “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” Romans 7:3.

WHAT IS THE ACT OR ACTION THAT IS ADULTERY IN REMARRIAGE?

Jesus makes it clear that adultery occurs in remarriage. This is stated clearly in the following passages:

“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matt. 5:32);

“whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9);

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” (Mark. 10:11,12);

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Lk. 16:18);

“So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Rom. 7:3)

The term “adultery” is the Greek word “moichao” Strong's number 3429. In all the Greek lexicons (dictionaries) I checked there was only one definition given for this word and that is “to commit adultery”. Thayers adds, “to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife”

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary also gives only one definition for the word adultery: “Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.”

Jesus added to this and stated that a man can commit the sin of adultery in the fantasy of his mind without the physical act taking place. Jesus said that for a man to desire in his mind to have sexual relations with another woman, that man commits adultery in his heart. Mt. 5:28: “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” According to the definition for the Greek word for adultery that Jesus used, the act or action that is adultery in remarriage is voluntary sexual intercourse with a person whose first husband or wife is still alive. Adultery is not divorce, adulterating the marriage, nor the one time act of remarriage. Adultery is the sexual relations of the remarried couple the first time, and every time thereafter.

WHY DIVORCE IS NOT ADULTERY

Divorce is a serious act of defilement against the spirit and every other aspect of the marriage. But nowhere in the Bible does God say that divorce is adultery. There is no definition in any dictionary or Greek lexicon that says that the action of defiling the marriage is adultery. Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse, either mentally or physically, where at least one of those involved is married to someone else. Defilement of a marriage is a consequence of adultery. But neither defiling a marriage nor divorce is adultery. Jesus makes it clear that adultery occurs in remarriage, not in divorce. “And whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matt. 19:9b.

WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT ADULTERY IN REMARRIAGE?

When Jesus said, “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9) He said something significant that I did not see for a long time. When Jesus made that statement, He was stating that divorce does not end the first marriage. People have always assumed that divorce ends the first marriage, but Jesus said that it is not true. The sin of adultery can only occur if one or both of the persons involved is married. If neither of the persons are married the term adultery cannot be used. When Jesus said that “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”, He was stating that when a man marries a divorced woman he is living with another man's wife and therefore is guilty of adultery. Divorce does not make a man or a woman single again. Divorce does not end a person's first marriage. That is why a person commits adultery when they marry and live with a divorced person.

Do you get the significance of Jesus’ use of the word adultery? Adultery could not occur in remarriage if divorce ended the first marriage. Adultery can only occur in remarriage because the divorced spouse is still married to their first marriage partner in Jesus’ judgment. (Jesus is the Judge we will stand before, for our hearing on Judgment Day and it is important that we understand our Judge’s reasoning and logic if we want to enter Heaven.)

The significance of the sin of adultery in remarriage is that divorce does not end a person's first marriage! God has joined the husband and wife together as one. “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'“ Matt. 19:4-6. Man's civil action of divorce in the court system of this earth, does not end the “one flesh and one spirit” aspect of the marriage that God has joined together.

ADULTERY IN REMARRIAGE: AN ACT OR A STATE?

Is the adultery a one time act that occurs only on the day of remarriage or is the adultery the sexual union of the remarried man and woman throughout their marriage? This question is often phrased: “Is it (the sin of adultery) an act or a state?” Many would like to view the adultery in remarriage as a one time act because then the remarried couple can repent of their one time act and continue in their remarried state without separating or making any other changes. But is the adultery in remarriage only a one time act?

The term “commiteth” (adultery) in Matt. 19:9; and Matt. 5:32 is in the present indicative. Spiros Zodhiates states that “The present tense represents contemporaneous action, as opposed to action in the past or the future. It normally refers to continuous or repeated action. However, in the indicative mood. it may represent punctiliar action. The indicative mood is the only mood in which distinctions can regularly be made about the time when an action occurs. Examples: he will go, they had said, she saw.”1 Therefore, the phrase “commits adultery” may refer to a specific time when adultery occurs but it may also refer to continuous or repeated action of adultery. Some have used the present indicative definition to state that the adultery only occurs one time at marriage and does not occur after that. However that conclusion cannot be decisively made from the present indicative. Every act of adultery (sexual relations in remarriage) occurs at a specific point in time and all repeated acts of adultery occur at specific points in time. At the same time the present indicative does not indicate that the act of adultery cannot or does not occur again. There is the possibility with the present indicative that continuous or repeated action of adultery does occur.

God states that the sexual intercourse of a divorced and remarried couple is adultery. Therefore each time they have sexual intercourse they commit an act of adultery. As they continue to have sexual relations and there is no repentance, it becomes a state of adultery. Therefore, adultery in remarriage is both an act each time it occurs, and a continuing state of sinning. The action of remarriage is not adultery.

Both an act or a state of adultery, is sin. Either one bars one from fellowship with Jesus and from entering Heaven. One is guilty of sin before God until they have repented of the sin and stopped the sin. One cannot repent of the “act” adultery but continue in it and expect God to ignore the fact that they are continuing to commit adultery.

THE INTERESTING ILLUSTRATION OF GOD AND ISRAEL'S DIVORCE

To gain further insight into God's position on divorce and remarriage, I did a study on God divorcing Israel in the Old Testament. I discovered some interesting things that I had never seen before, that I believe clarifies some of what we wrestle with in the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament God uses the analogy of marriage to describe His relationship with His people - in the Old Testament with Israel, and in the New Testament of Christ and the Church.

In Jeremiah 3 God states that He gave Israel a certificate of divorce. However at no point did that annul or end the covenant that He had made with the ten northern tribes of Israel even though Israel had married other gods. Jeremiah 3:1 says “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.” In spite of the command by Moses in Deut. 24:1-4 that a divorced woman could not return to her first husband, in Jer. 3:1 God says to Israel, “Yet return again to me.”

God infers that the instruction given in Deut. 24:1-4 on divorce and remarriage is not a command that He gave to Moses. God says in Jer. 3:1 “They say” not “I said” in referring to Deut. 24:1-4. He then goes on to ignore the command that a divorced woman may not return to her first husband by saying “yet return again to me.”

Jesus also implied that divorce and remarriage in Deut. 24:1-4 was something that Moses permitted because the people demanded it, but it was not a permission that God gave. Jesus said that from the beginning it was not so. In Matt. 19:8 Jesus said, “ Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” Jesus at no point indicated that Deut. 24:1-4 was a command that God gave to Moses. Hardness of heart is refusing to believe what God has said and is sin. Jesus could not endorse the excuse of hardness of heart as justification to do the opposite of what God had said.

In addition we see that divorce and remarriage did not end God's marriage covenant with Israel. In Jer. 3:1-8 God says: “ They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. 2 Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. 4 Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth? 5 Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest. 6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”

God asks Israel to return. He says in V. 14 “For I am married unto you” (even after divorce and remarriage!) Jer. 3:12-14 “Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. 13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:”

Ezekiel was younger than Jeremiah. Ezekiel wrote from captivity in Babylon after Israel's divorce. He testifies that God's covenant with Israel was not ended by divorce and remarriage. Ez. 20:40-44 “For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things. 41 I will accept you with your sweet savour, when I bring you out from the people, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye have been scattered; and I will be sanctified in you before the heathen. 42 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers. 43 And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. 44 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.”

WHAT IS CLARIFIED ABOUT DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE BY THE EXAMPLE OF GOD AND ISRAEL'S DIVORCE?

1. Neither divorce or remarriage ends the first marriage. God said to Israel after He had given her a certificate of divorce, “For I am married to you” (Jer. 3:14) Therefore, in remarriage adultery occurs as if there had been no divorce.

2. God indicates, and Jesus confirms, that Moses’ command allowing divorce and remarriage and prohibiting the returning to the first spouse after remarriage, was not a command that God gave to Moses. It is was something that Moses permitted because of the hardness of people's hearts, and is not one we are to follow, nor can we use it to justify divorce and remarriage. It was never God's will from the beginning. Matt. 19:8 “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

3. God's desire is that the first marriage partners leave all other marriage partners, return, and be reconciled to each other. God said, “Yet return to me” (Jer. 3:1)

4. One must never give up hope that a wayward spouse will return.

FURTHER SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FIRST MARRIAGE IS NOT ENDED BY DIVORCE

In looking at whether divorce nullifies the first marriage in God's eyes and therefore makes it permissible for a remarried couple to remain remarried, there are several additional passages of Scripture that indicate that divorce does not end a person's first marriage.

In Malachi 2, God indicates that even though divorce occurs that He still views them as married. In v.14 He states after the divorce has occurred “yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” God says here that divorce does not end the marriage covenant. After the divorce she is still his wife and companion.

Another passage is Mk. 6:17,18. This is the account of King Herod and Herodias. Even though Herod was not to marry the wife of his brother there is another observation here. The Jewish historian Josephus writing in the latter part of the first century AD tells us that Herodias was divorced from her first husband and had married Herod. This passage indicates that even though she was divorced and remarried she was still considered the wife of her first husband by God. “ It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.” If divorce nullified the first marriage in God's eyes, then it would not matter who she married after the divorce. She would no longer be the wife of anyone and it would not be possible for her to marry her husband's brother, because she would not have a husband to marry his brother. John the Baptist was killed by Herod and Herodias because he told them they needed to separate from their immoral remarriage relationship. It was not a message they wanted to hear! The first martyr in the New Testament was John the Baptist, because of the stance he took on a divorce and remarriage situation.

If remarriage had nullified the first marriage, Herod and Herodias would not have been living in sin. But, Herodias was divorced and remarried and they were living in sin.

HOW REMARRIAGE DOES NOT END THE FIRST MARRIAGE

There is not any example or teaching in Scripture that the act of remarriage ends the first marriage. Nor is there any place in the Bible where the making of a covenant with a second person ended the covenant with the first person. Jesus clearly stated that remarriage does not end the first marriage when He said “Whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” The first marriage is not ended by remarriage. A person can commit adultery only with someone else's husband or wife. If both of the persons involved in sexual immorality are single it is fornication not adultery.

To say that remarriage ends the first marriage is to say that remarriage is the “divorce” from the first marriage. There is nothing that Jesus said that would indicate that remarriage was “divorce” from the first marriage. Romans 7:3 states clearly that remarriage does not end the first marriage and that only death ends the first marriage. “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” I have not found any place in the Bible that would indicate that remarriage is the “divorce” or an event that ends the first marriage.

WHAT DOES GOD SAY CAN END A MARRIAGE?

God clearly says that the death of one of the marriage partners ends their marriage and frees them to marry another person. “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man..” (Romans 7:3) , Jesus also said that death ends a marriage in His response to the Sadducees. “And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven'“ Mark 12:24,25. We see from these verses that marriage is ended at death because it does not continue into eternity. In I Cor. 7:39 God also says: “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

Death is the only thing that I could find that God says ends a marriage so that the person is free to marry another person.

WHAT DOES THE “EXCEPTION CLAUSE” MEAN?

There are two “exception clauses” on divorce in Matthew. One of the first things that I noticed is that they do not address the same thing. It is often implied that both “exception clauses” give permission for remarriage. I noticed that the exception clause in Matt. 5:32 does not give an exception allowing remarriage. The exception only applies to whether the person initiating the divorce is responsible for causing their spouse to commit adultery. That exception does not permit divorce or remarriage. The last part of the verse, “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” removes any question that this exception clause allows remarriage after divorce. Matt. 5:32 states: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: AND WHOSOEVER SHALL MARRY HER THAT IS DIVORCED COMMITTETH ADULTERY.”

The second clause is in Matt. 19:9. Here Jesus says: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: AND WHOSO MARRIETH HER WHICH IS PUT AWAY DOTH COMMIT ADULTERY. I discovered that modern translators have altered this verse to make it say something totally different than what Jesus originally said. The NIV (and most modern translations) reads totally different than the KJV. The first major change in the NIV is the incorrect twisting of the “translation” of the Greek word pornea as “marital unfaithfulness.” By twisting the meaning of pornea, the NIV opens wide the gate for divorce and remarriage in every divorce situation. In every divorce case at least one spouse is maritally unfaithful to their spouse. The very act of one spouse divorcing their mate is a serious act of marital unfaithfulness. In many divorce cases both spouses view the other as being maritally unfaithful in some way. Therefore, the NIV wrongly gives permission for at least one spouse to get remarried in every divorce situation!

The second major change to this passage is the removing of the last third of the verse, the phrase: “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. “ It is wrong to remove words of Jesus from the Bible. This error has led many men and women into the sin of adultery, thinking that it was permissible to remarry. The Church can make changes in the version of the Word of God that it uses, but it can not change the true Word of God that Jesus will use to define sin on Judgment Day.

Divorce and remarriage was common in the Roman Empire in New Testament times and the centuries following; however, I was not able to find this “exception clause” in Matt. 19:9 in any of the writings of the early Christians in the first 300 years A.D. The early Christians always quoted Matt. 5:32, but never the reading we have in Matt. 19:9. I found this significant, because these men, speaking for the early Church did not understand Jesus to be giving an allowance for remarriage after divorce.

To translate the phrase “except for fornication” as “except for adultery”, giving adultery as grounds for divorce and remarriage has some problems. If a man's wife committed adultery, how would her adultery keep him from committing adultery if he divorced her and remarried? Or to ask the question another way, is there any teaching or example in the Bible that would indicate that adultery by one marriage partner ends their marriage and makes them single again in God's eyes? I have not found any Scriptural teaching or example where adultery ended a marriage, unless the spouse committing adultery was stoned. If he or she was stoned to death, that would end the marriage. Jesus' words immediately following this exception clause make it clear that He was not giving permission to remarry after adultery. “And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (He gave no exception). God considers the first marriage valid even after a legal divorce and remarriage.

What then does the “exception clause” mean? Jesus was speaking to Jewish men, the Pharisees, in response to their question when He spoke these words in Matthew 19:9. Jesus said “Except it be for fornication and shall marry another.” Fornication is sexual relations with another unmarried person before one is married. The Jews required a man to write a certificate of divorce to end an engagement. We see this illustrated in the story of Joseph and Mary. Joseph believed that Mary had committed fornication with someone else and was planning to divorce her even though they were not yet married, when God stopped him.( Matt. 1:19,20)

What Jesus said to these Jewish men, the Pharisees, in Matt. 19:9 is that divorce and remarriage is sin unless the divorce occurred in the engagement period. Even then the engagement could only be broken if the fiancée committed fornication with another person. Jesus said that if the man divorced his fiancée in the engagement period before marriage occurs, then it is permissible for him to marry another. The exception only applied to the Jewish custom requiring divorce to break an engagement. I could not find any evidence that the Roman law or custom required a certificate of divorce to break an engagement. We do not find the Matt. 19:9 “exception clause” repeated any other place in the Scriptures.

THE TEACHING OF THE RABBIS IN JESUS' DAY

To correctly understand Jesus' response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19, we need to understand the broader context and what positions the Jews had on divorce and remarriage in Jesus’ day. The Pharisees were testing Jesus to see which rabbinical school of thought Jesus would side with. The Roman society around them allowed divorce for any reason. In the Oral Torah, which the Jews in Jesus' day held equal to the Old Testament Scriptures, is found three explanations (schools of thought) of what Moses meant as grounds for divorce. Usually it is stated that there were two schools of thought in Jesus' day, but when I researched it in the Mishnah (The Oral Torah) I found there were three schools of thought. The third school of thought was “no fault” divorce - Rabbi Akiba

The positions of the following three rabbis are found in the Mishnah, Gittin p. 90a, 90b:

1. Beth Shammai - If he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct. (Divorce is allowed in the case of adultery)

2. Beth Hillel - even if she has merely spoiled his food. (Divorce is allowed for any reason)

3. Rabbi Akiba - even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is. (No fault divorce)

The Pharisees were questioning Jesus to see which explanation Jesus would side with. They asked Jesus if divorce was lawful for “any reason”. The disciple's response clearly indicates that in Jesus' response He did not side with any of the rabbis’ explanations in the Oral Torah. Jesus' exception for divorce was much narrower than “marital unfaithfulness” (NIV). The response of the disciples tells us that Jesus' response to the Pharisees did not support any of the schools of thought in the Oral Torah. “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” Matt. 19:10. Jesus' response to the Pharisees also tells us that He did not side with any of the Rabbis interpretations of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in the Oral Torah. He said that the permission allowing divorce and remarriage had never been God's will. “From the beginning it was not so.”

How divorce among Christians is disobedience to God's command not to take a believer to court.

1COR 6:1-11 “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

HOW DIVORCE REMOVES ONE FROM FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD -- THE NEED FOR FORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION

God tells us that divorce removes one from fellowship with Him. In Malachi 2:13 He says, “And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.”

In a divorce situation there is a lot of hurt, anger, and bitterness that occurs between the couple, the children, the extended families of the couple (their parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins) and friends. These deep wounds of a divorce affects those impacted by the divorce for the rest of their lives. God makes it clear that these wrongs and offenses need to be repented of and reconciliation needs to occur.

Matt. 5:23,24 “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”

God also makes it clear that one needs to forgive any offenses that the other spouse has committed. All bitterness, anger, and hatred need to be repented of and put away. This is what God says:

Mk. 11:25,26” And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” (The last sentence has been removed from the NIV!)

Matt. 6:14,15 “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Matt. 18:35” So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” (“his trespasses” has been removed from the NIV. Immediately following this verse is Jesus teaching on divorce and remarriage.)

I John 2:9-11 “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.”

I John 4:20,21” If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”

Because divorce removes a Christian from fellowship with God, that person needs to be sorry, repent of the sin of divorcing their spouse, and ask God to forgive them. That person also needs to go to all the family members and tell them that they are sorry for the hurts and offenses that they have caused them through the divorce and ask for their forgiveness. In addition, that person needs to forgive all the offenses that brought about the divorce and the offenses that occurred in the divorce process, whether the other spouse is sorry and asks forgiveness or not.

“IF ANYONE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HIS OWN”

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (I Timothy 5:8) God says this about providing for a person's mother to whom they have not made any vows. How much more does this apply to a man providing for his wife to whom he has made a vow to provide and care for. The same is also true for the wife. She has made a vow to care for her husband. Divorce is an abandonment of provision for one's spouse and is the same as denying the faith. It is sin. To take this one step further, it is also sin before God for a divorced man not to pay child support for his children.

God expects us to take our responsibilities to provide and care for our family members very seriously. If Christians do not provide for their own families, they deny the faith and are worse than unbelievers.

*

Sister Silvia Gomes De Sousa, 39, has been charged with threatening to murder and with arson after allegedly setting fire to the house of the village priest in Roccalumera, Sicily, Italy. Why? She stopped by the house where Fr. Carmelo Mantarro, 70, lives and “I just flipped when I came to the house and caught him in bed with another woman who is married,” she testified in a court proceeding. “We had been together four years and I even had two abortions because of him.”

________

London Daily Mail

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13404]

Dr. Richard Batista, 49, and his wife, Dawnell, are getting a divorce. She filed the action, but the Long Island, N.Y., doctor has a demand too: he wants his kidney back. He donated it to her for a transplant eight years ago and, if he can’t have it back, he demands $1.5 million instead.

“I saved her life” by giving her one of his kidneys, he told reporters. “There’s no deeper pain you can ever express than to be betrayed by the person you devoted your life to,” he said, alleging Dawnell was unfaithful to him with her physical therapist. “It put a hole in my heart that still exists.”

________

New York Daily News

________

Postscript - the judge didn't buy it. Suffolk County Special Referee Jeffrey Grob declared in a 10-page ruling, "At its core, the defendant's claim inappropriately equates human organs with commodities." Grob cited state law making it a felony for people to give or take money for a human organ. See .

For the leaders of Watermark Community Church, church discipline is simply loving like Jesus. But for many people, the notion of churchgoers publicly denouncing one another’s sins raises fearful images of The Scarlet Letter and Pilgrims in stocks.

An appeals court in Dallas is now being asked to decide where the right of Watermark -- or any church -- to confront sin ends and an individual’s right to privacy begins. Can a church pursue someone who isn’t even a member?

Watermark, a fast-growing nondenominational church in northeast Dallas, says the case involves accusations of adultery, a wife who wanted to save her marriage, a husband who sat on a board of a national Christian organization, and another woman who works for another church.

The man and woman accused by the wife and by Watermark of having an affair -- identified in court documents only as “John Doe” and “Jane Roe” -- say the church is distorting what happened and has invaded their privacy. (Both declined to be interviewed.)

They filed suit against the church in April to stop the discipline process.

These days, congregations may call it church discipline, “care and correction” or a “restoration ministry.” Discipline is mostly private and informal, one friend talking to another. Less often, church officials get involved.

What makes the Watermark case fairly unusual is the lawsuit.

Jeff Tillotson, attorney for the man and the woman, said the case has nothing to do with the church’s view of biblical teachings. “It has to do with actions the church wants to take against its former members and third-party citizens who never belonged to this church in the first place.”

Church officials say their responsibility is clear. As Watermark’s senior pastor, the Rev. Todd Wagner, told his congregation last month: “Sue me. Nail me to a tree. Tell me you hate me. Misrepresent my motives. We’re going to love you anyway.”

GUIDED BY GOSPEL

Anger, gluttony, sex, inattention to others’ needs -- the list of possible sins some Christians say demand congregational attention is long.

The idea that Christians have a sacred obligation to keep tabs on one another has been part of the faith since the beginning. It was as common as singing hymns in most churches in early America. After almost vanishing in the mid-20th century, discipline has made a comeback in many conservative Protestant churches.

About 1,500 worshippers fill the auditorium at Lake Highlands High School every week for each of Watermark’s two Sunday services. Worship begins with Christian rock. Sneakers, T-shirts and open-toed sandals are OK.

But while the style is informal, doctrine is anything but. People who join Watermark literally sign on the dotted line, agreeing to “submit themselves to the care and correction of the Board of Elders.”

And that’s where the story of John Doe and Jane Roe vs. Watermark Community Church started. According to church officials, Mr. Doe and his wife joined Watermark more than a year ago. Both signed the papers agreeing to church accountability.

Soon, the wife went to Watermark leaders, saying she had evidence that her husband was cheating on her, church officials said. Her plea for help set off what Watermark calls a “Matthew 18” process, referring to a passage in the Gospel:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault

between you and him alone. ... If he does not listen, take one or

two others along with you. ... If he refuses to listen to them,

tell the church.”

The wife confronted her husband -- by herself and with friends -- and he confessed, church leaders said. But early this year, the wife, who also declined to be interviewed, discovered that Mr. Doe was continuing his affair with Ms. Roe, and she filed for divorce, church leaders said.

At a regular evening church meeting, the wife Doe asked for a public prayer, which Mr. Wagner offered. Identifying the wife by name, he prayed that she and her husband would reconcile. While he discussed some difficulties in the marriage, Mr. Wagner said, he did not specifically mention infidelity.

Watermark officials asked the wife to make one more try at reconciliation, one last meeting with close Christian friends who might be able to work with her husband. She supplied the names of 14 people, half of whom were not Watermark members. The church sent a letter to the 14 describing the situation and inviting them to a meeting, but Mr. Doe refused to attend, church leaders said.

Then the church sent a letter to Mr. Doe telling him that it planned to contact the woman who was allegedly his paramour -- and who is not a Watermark member. The letter also said the church would write to the 14 people invited to the meeting, letting them know about his unwillingness to cooperate, and to the national Christian organization where he was a board member. (Mr. Doe has resigned from that board, Mr. Wagner said, and the church no longer intends to contact the organization.)

There was never a plan to inform the entire congregation about the affair, the pastor said.

Mr. Wagner and two other Watermark leaders called Ms. Roe and suggested that she tell her boss, the pastor of another Dallas-area church, about her relationship with Mr. Doe. If she didn’t, they said, they would call the pastor, “even as we would want and expect others to contact us if one of our employees or members was engaging in activities damaging to the reputation of Christ,” according to a prepared statement from the church.

Mr. Wagner said this week that he believed he was obligated to contact the woman’s boss even though she never signed up for Watermark’s discipline, because all Christians are obligated to one another. “If a sister sins, she is a sister in Christ,” he said. “We are commanded to love our neighbor.”

Mr. Doe sued in late April to block the church from sending out the follow-up letter and from contacting Ms. Roe’s employer. In court papers, he gives a different version of the story: According to the lawsuit, Mr. Doe revealed his personal problems directly to Mr. Wagner, believing the information would be confidential. Mr. Doe believed that Watermark encouraged open discussion of problems without fear that the secrets would be revealed, said Mr. Tillotson, the lawyer.

After the discipline process started, Mr. Doe decided to quit the church, Mr. Tillotson said. But church elders told Mr. Doe that he couldn’t leave and that they would continue their efforts to make his “sin” known -- to the congregation, his friends outside the church, his employer, Ms. Roe’s employer and possibly even the public at large.

BATTLE MOVES TO COURT

When Mr. Doe filed suit on behalf of himself and Ms. Roe, he got a temporary restraining order blocking the church from acting further.

But on May 5, state Associate Judge Sheryl McFarlin lifted that order, agreeing with Watermark’s assertion that it violated the church’s constitutional right to freely exercise its religion.

Mr. Doe has appealed. No hearing date has been set. Although Watermark is legally free to send out its letters and contact Ms. Roe’s boss, it will hold off until the appeal is decided, Mr. Wagner said.

Kelly Shackelford, the lawyer for Watermark, wants the lawsuit dismissed. Allowing it go forward, he said, would force judges to decide whether Watermark’s elders are correctly applying the Bible. That, he said, is inappropriate. “What happens next?” said Mr. Shackelford, chief counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. “[Do] we need to get churches involved in politics to ensure that we have judges in office that support their theological views?”

But Steven K. Green, former general counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the appeals court should hear the case. Otherwise, he argued, the church’s religious views trump the right of a member to change his religious views and leave. “Once he withdraws, it seems that the church’s interest is over,” he said.

Church discipline cases raise important constitutional issues:

• The First Amendment protects a church’s right to exercise its religion but also protects an individual’s right not to have another’s religious beliefs imposed on him.

• Americans have a right to have conflicts heard before a judge, but such cases entangle the court in religion.

In cases involving both of those dilemmas, the courts have usually ruled in favor of the churches, say experts in church-state law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled directly on church discipline involving lay members. Federal and state courts, however, have often ruled that civil courts can’t interfere with religious controversies -- regardless of the harm to individuals. Safeguarding religious freedom, judges have said, is worth some damage to an individual.

The courts can intervene only if they find an important nonreligious reason, like a threat to health or public safety.

But the legal record is more mixed when discipline is aimed at nonmembers or those who have quit, church-state experts said. And at least two lawsuits demonstrate that courts can find reasons to intervene in church discipline disputes.

In 1989, an Oklahoma court ruled that a church could no longer publicize a woman’s alleged sexual immorality after she quit. The decision prodded many churches to develop extensive education for members about the discipline process, including the kinds of forms that Watermark members sign.

And in 2004, an appeals court in Fort Worth denied claims against a church but agreed with a woman who said the license that her pastor holds as a professional counselor prevented him from publicizing her behavior -- even though she attended group sessions with other church members. An appeal is expected to be heard by the Texas Supreme Court this fall.

DIFFERENT METHODS

Even churches that advocate the discipline process can struggle with how to do it. Last year, the magazine Christianity Today highlighted the issue. The headline on the cover: “Fixing church discipline: Tough love without the legalism.”

Not every theologian reads Matthew 18 as a procedural formula, said Robin Lovin, a professor of ethics at Southern Methodist University.

“Methodist pastors would interpret that as advice to keep working on relationships. It’s about not giving up on somebody,” he said. “It shouldn’t be turned into a legal process.”

The Catholic Church, by far the largest Christian denomination in the United States, has no formal method for lay members to discipline one another with or without church leadership involvement, said the Rev. Thomas Green, a canon law professor at Catholic University in Washington.

But it’s easy to find other churches that have adopted some form of church discipline over the past 20 years. And when discipline goes beyond face-to-face discussions, it’s usually about sexual issues, said Darrell Bock, a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and an elder at Trinity Fellowship Church in Richardson.

“Issues of marital fidelity have become a litmus test for general fidelity. And it some ways, they’re the easiest to quantify,” he said. Several years ago, he said, his church had to deal with a man he called a “serial adulterer.” When his church discovered the man had joined another congregation, Dr. Bock’s church notified the leadership of the other church, he said.

Bent Tree Bible Fellowship in Carrollton has also used public church discipline. A worship leader whose husband discovered she was having an affair was confronted by her pastor more than a year ago. Unlike the Watermark example, the woman repented, reconciled and eventually went on a local Christian radio show with her husband to discuss the experience.

Bent Tree has had four other successful reconciliations of married couples that had been split by adultery, said the executive pastor, the Rev. Tim Harkins. “Those are the home runs. That is what we are pursuing,” he said.

That’s the kind of reaction that Watermark hoped for with Mr. Doe, Mr. Wagner said. “Most folks respond really well and are grateful,” he said.

CHURCHES AND COURTS

Some key court decisions on church discipline:

Bear vs. Reformed Mennonite Church

(Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1975)

Summary: A church member was excommunicated for criticizing the bishop’s teachings. Other members, including the man’s wife and children, were ordered to shun him. He argued that his business and family were destroyed.

Outcome: The court supported the man, saying that despite the church’s First Amendment rights, its conduct interfered with superior concerns, such as the preservation of marriage.

Paul vs. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

(9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, 1987)

Summary: A Jehovah’s Witness in Washington withdrew from the church because she felt her parents had been unjustly excommunicated. The denomination said members who quit should be treated just like those who are excommunicated. When the member visited her hometown, friends in the church shunned her.

Outcome: The court said she had no standing because shunning is part of the faith and protected by the Constitution.

Guinn vs. Church of Christ of Collinsville

(Oklahoma Supreme Court, 1989)

Summary: Elders publicly confronted a church member with a rumor that she was fornicating with a man and asked her to repent. When she refused and tried to quit, the elders told the congregation to call her and urge her to repent. They asked other Church of Christ parishes to do the same.

Outcome: The woman was awarded monetary damages. The court said she withdrew her consent to be disciplined when she quit the church.

Williams vs. Gleason

(14th District Texas Court of Appeals, Houston, 2000)

Summary: Elders at a Presbyterian church disputed a Sunday school teacher’s lessons. The teacher filed a complaint against the elders. They in turn accused him of lying and disciplined him. A deacon’s wife called another Presbyterian church where the teacher preached and questioned his qualifications.

Outcome: The court said it was constitutionally prohibited from ruling on an ecclesiastical dispute over church discipline.

Bryce vs. Episcopal Church

(10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Denver, 2002)

Summary: A Colorado Episcopal church sent letters and held meetings with members after learning that its youth minister had entered into a same-sex civil commitment with a minister in a non-Episcopal church. The letters said homosexuals are promiscuous and get terrible diseases. The youth minister and her partner said members made offensive remarks at the church meetings.

Outcome: The court said the two women had no standing to sue. Though the partner wasn’t a member, the church still had a right to discuss their religious beliefs.

Penley vs. Westbrook

(2nd District Texas Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, 2004)

Summary: A woman and her husband attended a group marriage discussion hosted by their Bible church pastor, a licensed professional counselor. The woman divorced her husband and quit the church. The pastor sent a letter to the congregation, saying she had an inappropriate relationship with another man.

Outcome: The court said the pastor’s First Amendment rights might not apply because of his role as a licensed counselor. He has appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

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

Michael Grabell

BY THE BOOK

Churches that call for formal discipline of members rely on several New Testament passages:

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

-- Matthew 18:15-17

“Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”

-- Galatians 6:1-2

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?”

-- 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 (New International Version)

The sad spectacle of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford continues to dominate the headlines as further revelations add one bizarre twist after another to the governor’s tale of adultery, deceit, and the consequences of sin. With every passing day, pressure mounts for the governor to resign. As the revelations unfold, his leadership credibility is further destroyed. The people of South Carolina now look to their governor’s mansion with a sense of dread and embarrassment.

Governor Sanford’s admission of adultery came only after he was ambushed by the media after returning from a liaison in Argentina. In a rambling confession, the governor admitted to an ongoing relationship and an extramarital affair. While the media quickly turned to ask questions about money and the affairs of state, many others immediately thought of the governor’s wife and four sons and the horrible pain and embarrassment they were now forced to bear.

In his original statement, Governor Sanford seemed to acknowledge the evil of his actions and, using biblical language, he appeared to understand the sinfulness of his adultery and betrayal. Yet, his statement was rambling and disconnected and, upon reflection, his words raised more questions than they answered. How did this affair happen? Was the relationship really over?

When Governor Sanford addressed his cabinet just a few days after his confession, he offered an apology to his colleagues and promised to “carry on” as governor. “I wanted generally to apologize to every one of you all, for letting you down,” he said. Of course, “letting you down” hardly covers the behavior that brought the governor to this admission. The governor violated his marital vows, engaged in an elaborate and sickening correspondence with his mistress, abandoned his responsibility as husband and father, and forfeited his right to lead the state which twice had elected him governor.

When speaking to the Cabinet, Governor Sanford referred to the biblical story of King David. The governor spoke of “the way in which he fell mightily -- he fell in very, very significant ways --- but then picked up the pieces and built from there.” The governor also suggested that remaining in office would set a good example for his four boys, teaching them to persevere after a fall. The great shame is that the governor did not have his four boys in mind as he committed adultery.

Naturally, questions emerged related to the extent and duration of the extramarital affair. The governor’s initial statement was unclear about several key issues. The days following would render the situation even more unclear.

Most recently, in a lengthy interview granted to the Associated Press, Governor Sanford added what the wire service called “explosive details” that made the picture all the more troubling. In the first place, the governor admitted to having “crossed the lines” with other women. “There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines that I shouldn’t have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line,” said the governor.

But the most troubling words from the governor concerned the nature of his relationship with Maria Belen Chapur, the woman with whom he had the affair. “This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” he said. He added: “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.”

Speaking, not of his wife, but of his mistress, Governor Sanford declared that he would go to his grave “knowing that I had met my soul mate.”

Immediately following the governor’s first admission, it seemed that he might survive politically and remain in office. The nation found itself once again in a debate about the relationship between personal virtue and public responsibility. This is a question that is particularly vexing to Christian conservatives, who must simultaneously understand that all are sinners in need of redemption and, at the same time, affirm that some sins disqualify individuals from public service and influence.

America’s recent political history indicates that some politicians can survive revelations of adultery. While Christians should be less concerned about the political consequences and more concerned about the spiritual consequences, it is fair to observe that those politicians who survive more often than not do so when the adulterous relationship is clearly over and in the more distant past and when the politician has given himself in a demonstrable way to the priority of rebuilding his marriage and reestablishing credibility with his family.

Put simply, Governor Sanford’s most recent comments point to a worst-case scenario. His words make clear that his heart is still inclined toward his mistress, and not his wife. With tragic candor, the governor has spoken of trying to fall back in love with his wife. He refers to his mistress, not his wife, as his soul mate, and speaks wistfully of the affair as “a love story at the end of the day.”

Governor Sanford may cite King David, and he may even suffer the illusion that his response is similar to that of Israel’s King. Nevertheless, the difference is clear. David’s adultery was mixed even with murder, but his own acknowledgment of sin came in a flood of contrition, remorse, broken heartedness, and humility. David acknowledged the reality of his sin, expressed his hatred of the sin, and became a model for us all of repentance. Governor Sanford, on the other hand, demonstrates the audacity to speak wistfully of his sin, longingly of his lover, and romantically of his descent into unfaithfulness.

Governor Sanford is no King David, and the people of South Carolina -- as well as the watching world -- now observe the sad spectacle of a man who, while admitting to wrongdoing, shows no genuine repentance. As the Christian church has long recognized, true repentance is reflected in the “detestation of sin.” This is a far cry from what we’ve heard from Governor Sanford.

If the governor is really serious about demonstrating character to his four sons, he should resign his office and give himself unreservedly to his wife and family. He must show his sons -- and all who have eyes to see -- how a man is led by the grace and mercy of God to hate his sin, rather than to love it. Until then, the governor must be understood to indulge himself in wistfulness for his affair and in a desperate determination to maintain his office. His remaining days in office are like a Greek tragedy unfolding into farce. The whole picture is just unspeakably sad.

As part of the modern mindset that wants to disregard the concept of sin, the consequences of sin must also be put aside. Except those consequences stubbornly remain.

I read a short article about Sheryl Weinstein. She was the financial head of Hadassah, an important Jewish women’s organization. Hadassah had $40 million invested with financial swindler Bernie Madoff. At the same time, Sheryl the financial officer was having an affair with Madoff. She revealed it while going on television to promote a book she wrote about the affair.

What I found interesting was the reaction of her husband, Ron Weinstein. He says, “I dislike the choice she made, but I try to understand it. He was powerful and he was attentive, and an illicit love is a hot love.” Then he added, “Don’t be too quick to judge my wife. Affairs are commonplace and shouldn’t be such a big deal.”

Mr. Weinstein fits the bill for a sophisticated New Yorker. Still, it tears him up to see her bragging about the affair on TV. He says the upside is if they divorce anyway, he gets half the profits from the book.

Most people admit that being betrayed destroys the relationship with their loved one. You can be as sophisticated as you want, but no one wants to be treated this way.

When a pastor commits adultery, most of their fellow pastors believe they should withdraw from public ministry for at least some time.

A new survey of U.S. Protestant pastors by Nashville-based LifeWay Research finds only 2 percent of pastors believe a fellow pastor who has an affair does not need to take any time away.

“Scripture doesn’t mince words about adultery,” said Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research. “From the Ten Commandments, to the apostle Paul’s lists of wicked things, to the qualifications for elders listed in 1 Timothy, adultery is not appropriate for a follower of Christ nor a leader of a local church.”

Few believe less than a year is a sufficient period of withdrawal from public ministry: 3 percent say for at least three months, and another 3 percent say at least six months.

Around 1 in 6 pastors (16 percent) believe an offending pastor should stay gone for at least a year.

Other pastors want them to be away from public ministry for a longer period of time: 10 percent say at least two years, 7 percent say at least five years, and 1 percent say at least 10 years.

For more than a quarter of pastors (27 percent), a pastor who commits adultery should withdraw from public ministry permanently.

Three in 10 pastors (31 percent) say they aren’t sure what the appropriate time frame would be.

“While the Bible is clear that this behavior does not fit a pastor or elder of a church,” said McConnell, “there is much debate over how long this act would disqualify someone from pastoral ministry.”

Changes since 2016

Pastors’ responses are similar to a 2016 LifeWay Research survey.

Pastors today are less likely than those four years ago to say shorter time frames are appropriate periods of withdrawal from public ministry.

Compared to 2016, pastors now are less likely to say less than a year (6 percent to 10 percent) or at least a year (16 percent to 21 percent) is the right amount of time away.

“There has been much attention given to calling American leaders to account for sexual misconduct since 2016,” said McConnell. “It is not surprising that fewer pastors believe public ministry should be restored in a year.”

Overall, there is more uncertainty among pastors now. Current pastors are more likely to say they are not sure of the appropriate time away from public ministry today (31 percent) than in 2016 (25 percent).

Differences among pastors

The ethnicity, education and denomination of a pastor influenced the likelihood of their response.

African American pastors are the least likely to say one who commits adultery should withdraw from the ministry permanently (8 percent).

Denominationally, Pentecostal pastors are the least likely to advocate for a permanent withdrawal (6 percent) and most likely to support staying away for at least a year (35 percent).

Methodists (7 percent) are more likely to say the pastor does not need to withdraw at all than Baptists (1 percent), Lutherans (1 percent), Pentecostals (less than 1 percent), and pastors in the Restorationist movement (less than 1 percent).

Pastors with a bachelor’s degree (34 percent) are more likely to support a permanent withdrawal than those with additional education: master’s (27 percent) or doctoral degree (22 percent).

Smaller church pastors, those with churches of attendance between 50 to 99, are also more likely to say pastors who commit adultery should withdraw from ministry permanently than pastors of churches with 100 to 249 in attendance (31 percent to 23 percent).

“Pastors’ opinions on the subject are a good barometer for opinions across churches,” said McConnell. “There is widespread disagreement from pastors across denominations, church size, age, race and education levels to quickly restoring pastors who commit adultery to public ministry positions.”

I can’t say I spend my time watching Oprah, but I recently came across a New York Times article about her show that made me do a double take. It seems that recently, the Queen of Therapy interviewed Rielle Hunter, mistress of John Edwards and mother of his youngest child. Times writer Alessandra Stanley reported the interview in a column titled “One Woman’s ‘Truth’: Rielle Hunter Talks to Oprah.”

The word “truth” is in quotation marks, and for good reason.

I have spoken and written many times about the issue of truth and reality. Well, this story may illustrate most of the things I’ve ever said.

For one thing, Rielle Hunter stated that she did not regret the affair with John Edwards, but rather, painted the scandal as a necessary stage in Mr. Edwards’ “process of self-actualization.” And then she said, “I followed my heart, and I believe it was the right thing to do, which is weird...because I didn’t make a commitment to Elizabeth. I wasn’t the one lying to her.”

My heavens! Where do I begin? First of all, “following your heart” may lead you to do the right thing. But more often it will lead you to do the wrong thing. And it depends, of course, on the moral condition of your heart — or, if you prefer, your conscience. Remember, the word “conscience” comes from two Latin words, con scienta, meaning “with knowledge.” The healthy conscience is informed by objective moral laws and truth.

Second, Ms. Hunter talks about being supportive of Mr. Edwards’ desire to live “a life of truth.” Rielle admits that lying like a rug is a “really unique way of getting there.” No kidding. Leaving out everything else that’s wrong with that idea, calling something “true” doesn’t make it true. Your opinion and my opinion have no effect on truth. Truth is truth because it is objectively so. It is unchanging; it is not something we can make up.

But what I find particularly striking — appalling really — is the gentle treatment that Ms. Hunter received from Oprah Winfrey. Wouldn’t you think Oprah might say, “But didn’t your conscience bother you? Don’t you care about the consequences? How can you say hurting someone else is self-actualization?” Instead, the Times reports, “Ms. Winfrey...wasn’t confrontational or even very probing.”

Not that the Times’ own tone is very probing either. But at least Ms. Stanley did call Ms. Hunter’s story a “solipsistic and New Age-ish account, in which Ms. Hunter’s ‘truth,’ as she put it, trumped all other concerns, including all the lying.”

Well, the whole incident has me aghast. Why was this tawdry interview on network television? Is sensationalism the only thing the media thinks will sell to the public? Does anyone care about genuine standards of morality and truth and decency? What about the influence this kind of drivel has on the millions of adoring Oprah groupies?

Well, in one way, maybe it’s a good thing the interview aired. It showed the world what has become of the so-called “self-esteem” generation. It stripped bare the old clichés of moral relativism, like “follow your heart” and “truth is what you believe it to be,” and showed just how ugly and hollow they really are.

There it is for all to see. When we base our idea of truth on what makes us feel good, we end up lying not just to others, but to ourselves.

________

Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

The book NO ORDINARY TIME by Doris Kearns Godland tells the story of World War II and the Roosevelts' issues within it. She points out that from 1919 when Franklin had an affair that he and Eleanor were political partners only. There was no affection. As World War II progressed, you could see the stress on his face. He died shortly before the surrender was signed. After the funeral, Eleanor told her son Elliott, “I should have tried harder to help him through that awful war. If only I had found the courage to talk to Franklin as I wanted to. I could have said, Let's bury this whole matter and begin over again. I ought to have done that when I said I would, but I left it until it was too late.”

“Monogamy, in my opinion, is a failed experiment.” That is the declaration of Noel Biderman, a Toronto businessman who wants to sell you an adulterous affair. As the current cover story of Bloomberg Businessweek reveals, Mr. Biderman is doing a great deal of business.

The magazine describes AshleyMadison.com as “the premier ‘dating’ website for aspiring adulterers.” Biderman says he came up with the idea after serving as an agent for professional athletes. That job required him to negotiate around the adulterous affairs of his clients. Biderman came to the conclusion that adultery could be big business.

Now, Ashley Madison grosses $60 million in yearly revenue and produces $20 million in annual profits. Biderman himself is making millions of dollars a year, and adultery appears to be a growth industry.

The idea behind Ashley Madison is easy enough to understand. Biderman’s plan was to create a website that would appear to cater to women seeking an adulterous partner, while actually attracting men seeking the women for an adulterous liaison. Clients of the site establish a personal profile, check off their “availability status,” and mark their personal preferences. The real money flows to the site when men connect online with women and then have to pay rather steep fees for the privilege of continuing the conversation. If all goes according to plan, adultery soon follows.

Businessweek’s reporter, Sheelah Kolhatkar, describes Noel Biderman as “a lone genius — possibly evil and certainly entrepreneurial.” He serves as chief executive officer of Avid Life Media, the parent company for Ashley Madison. He is also the married father of two young children. In his office the computer monitor flashes his company’s promotional message: “Life is short. Have an affair.”

Biderman’s wife, Amanda, seems unconcerned about both the business and her husband’s chosen role as the captain of the adultery industry. In a statement of almost complete moral evasion, she says: “Really, the business itself doesn’t match who he is as a person — it’s not our lifestyle or value system or any of that.” Well, here’s a clue: if you conceive, establish, and run the business, it is your value system. When “Life is short. Have an affair.” is your motto, adultery is “who you are as a person,” even if you never have an actual affair.

She went on: “I mean, yeah, I’d love it if he were working on a cure for cancer. But it’s a business, and that’s how we look at it.”

The same could be said for a house of prostitution, of course, and at least some observers suggest that prostitution is basically what Ashley Madison is all about. After all, though almost all of the men registered at the site are married, about 20 percent of the women are not.

Interestingly, since adultery has now been transformed into a major business, certain metrics become available. Reporter Sheelah Kolhatkar explains that 20-40 percent of heterosexual married men and 20-25 percent of heterosexual married women will have an affair during their lifetime. She cites University of New Hampshire economist Bruce Elmslie, who claims that men and women commit adultery at about the same rates until the ages of 35 or 40. After that, women are more reluctant to have an affair, and the men surge on.

Biderman explains that women are most likely to have an affair in the workplace with a “work husband” or with the husband of a friend. Men commit adultery under a far wider range of circumstances. Ashley Madison is “drowning in husbands,” Biderman reports.

Biderman launched the site in 2010, but he founded the company back in 2002. He named it Ashley Madison by combining the two most popular names for baby girls that year. He claims just to be meeting a need and rejects the idea that he is actually expanding the numbers of affairs. Nevertheless, anthropologist Helen Fisher accuses Biderman of “preying on human frailty.”

At least in economic terms, Biderman’s idea is paying handsomely. Ashley Madison has already made him a millionaire several times over. David Evans, publisher of Online Dating Insider, remarked that Biderman and his company “certainly own that cheaters’ market.” He added, “It’s quite lucrative and successful.”

Amazingly enough, Biderman actually complains that his business is the target of discrimination. After all, Fox turned down his proposed Super Bowl commercial. As a matter of fact, Biderman seems to complain rather constantly about the opposition his company engenders. On the other hand, some suspect that he is also fueling the opposition, stirring up his own publicity.

Sheelah Kolhatkar describes the company in these terms:

What Ashley Madison does is legal. It’s also illicit, in that it helps users violate their marriage vows and engage in deception and secrecy. This presents enormous branding challenges as well as financial ones: How many fund managers want to go home to their wives and announce, “Honey, I found the perfect investment opportunity!”

It is hard to imagine how this company and its founder would not face “enormous branding challenges.” With understatement, Kolhatkar expresses the obvious: “He is running a budding empire built on an activity that most people would say is wrong.”

That last statement is revealing in more than one sense. It does seem that most people believe that adultery is wrong. Even so, it is rampant. It seems that many human beings will abandon their moral principles when faced with the opportunity to commit adultery. Ashley Madison exists to create even more of those opportunities.

It undoubtedly says a great deal that Bloomberg Businessweek chose this topic for its Valentine’s Day cover story. Why did they run a cover article on a man who declares, “Monogamy, in my opinion, is a failed experiment”? Does this represent the magazine’s agreement with Mrs. Biderman when she says, “ ... it’s a business, and that’s how we look at it”?

________

Sheelah Kolhatkar, “Cheating, Incorporated.” Bloomberg Businessweek, February 10, 2011. [Warning, the article contains sexually explicit language.]

A study, published in the Journal of Family Psychology, showed that couples in which the woman is physically more attractive than the man are happier than couples in which the man is physically more attractive than the woman. Why is this? Handsome men on average make bad husbands. Men can pursue one of two different strategies: Seek a long-term mate, stay with her, and invest in their joint offspring (the “dad” strategy); or seek a large number of short-term partners without investing in any of the resulting offspring (the “cad” strategy).

All men may want to pursue the cad strategy; however, their choice of the mating strategy is constrained by female choice. Men do not get to decide with whom to have sex; women do. And women disproportionately seek out handsome men so they will have good-looking children. Even women who are already married may seek short-term mating (i.e., affairs) with handsome men if they can successfully fool their husbands into investing in the resulting offspring. The women then get the best of both worlds: Their children carry the good looks of their handsome lover and receive the parental investment of their unknowingly cheated-on but resourceful husband. Thus, handsome men get a disproportionate number of opportunities for short-term partners and are therefore able to engage in the cad strategy.

Ugly men have no choice. Since women do not choose them as short-term mates, their only option for achieving marital success is to find one long-term mate and invest heavily in their children -- the dad strategy. Ugly men invest more in their exclusive relationships than handsome men do. Ugly men are more honest and more attentive to their partners than handsome men; McNulty’s study of newlyweds confirms this. Their data show that the more physically attractive the husbands are, the less supportive they are of their wives in their interactions. Empirical data demonstrate clearly that handsome men have more extra-marital affairs and are not as committed to their marriages, which many wives would undoubtedly consider undesirable.