Banner
Adultery PDF Print E-mail
Engaging the Culture - Old Table Talk Articles
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Monday, 23 July 2007 07:56

We may all agree that adultery is not a good thing, but our opinions here sometimes appear to be a mud fence we have built to withstand an incoming tsunami. Something more, we feel, may be necessary.

In the modern church, a pastor can commit adultery, and get caught. It is at least possible that, in the aftermath of the scandal, if there is a scandal, he can expect to get some counseling, and be back in the pulpit in a matter of weeks. If he is lucky, he might get a book deal out of the whole thing. As we consider the pattern of contemporary evangelical Christians (as distinct from historic believing evangelicals), we would be hard-pressed to show any distinctive difference between the sexual behavior of evangelical Christians and the behavior of their unbelieving counterparts.

As with so many issues, we need to get to the root of the matter. And the root of the matter is our general pattern of self-indulgence. We maintain a culture which is designed to enervate any serious attempts at the virtue of self-control.

One writer astutely observed that America has turned into a nation of large toddlers. We all, from successful businessmen on down, dress as though we were little ones. The uniforms of little kids can be seen everywhere. We see baseball caps, baggy pants (big enough to hide the diapers), oversized sneakers, untied (haven’t learned that yet), and then, in the weirdest twist of all, we see that everyone appears to be carrying around bottles with giant nipples. All we need is for some bright engineer in Detroit to figure out a way to make our cars look like strollers, and for someone else to figure out how to market adult binkies.

We as a nation are not used to any instruction or discipline on how to control our passions and desires, in any area. We are pampered as toddlers, indulged as schoolchildren, spoiled as teenagers, and by the time we come to young adulthood, we are floating in a small lake of material prosperity and assorted stock options. When, where, in what area, have we ever been told, No? If such an event were to occur, as rare as a slow comet, we take it ill.

Now, with this as our context, just to make it a little more interesting, throw in sexual desire. If we want a car, we charge it. If we want a bag of chips, we buy it. If we want better grades, we whine to the instructor. Now, given this, what happens when we want our neighbor’s wife? This is not a trick question.

What is needed is a return to discipline, in every area. This should not be problematic for Christians, because this is simply a call for renewed discipleship. Disciples, by definition, are those under discipline. But this call is problematic for the modern Church because discipleship is not sufficiently sensitive to market forces. It says no to those who show up at the door expecting to be told yes. This is what lies behind the massive shift to ecclesiastical marketing, and seeker-sensitive churches. We approach unbelieving America, arms wide open, saying that we can meet all felt needs. What we ought to be doing is preaching the Word, maintaining that we expect to encounter various lusts and desires, masquerading as felt needs, and when we do, we will do our level best to punch them all in the head.

If any man would be my disciple, Jesus did not say, let him affirm himself, and know that God don’t make no junk. Let him learn to feel good about himself. Let him learn to view heaven as a giant vending machine.

As long as this sorry state of affairs exists in the Church, we can continue to expect affairs in the Church. As long as we continue to adulterate our liturgy, our preaching, our confessional standards, our psalm and hymn singing, we can continue to expect men and women to adulterate their marriage vows. Why should they not be unfaithful in what they have been given? Their churches are unfaithful in what they have been given.

This is just another way of saying that everything is connected. Piecemeal reformations will only exasperate us in their futility. We are overwhelmed by our adversaries, but this is because they are still too small. Goliath needs to be a giant before the Bible story can be reenacted. Because we want to "divide and conquer" we continue to ignore the real nature of the war, and we continue to suffer one tactical defeat after another. We want to face fifteen little goliaths, one at a time. This is why each little goliath takes us down. We need to recover the faith of David, and pray that the whole system of unbelief, the massive resistance to discipleship, will be seen all at once, all together, lying on the ground with a stone in its forehead.

The word of Christ is all-encompassing. He is the Lord of heaven and earth, and He invites followers to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him. Those who do not want to follow Him need not do so. But they cannot "not follow Him" and "follow Him" at the same time. They cannot halt between two ways of life. They cannot indulge themselves, affirm themselves, stroke themselves, and deny themselves. And those who try frequently wind up in the wrong bed.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Monday, 23 July 2007 07:56
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Charles Baker  Monday, July 23, 2007 9:15 am
Speaking of weird twists in a perverted culture ... Americans have had "adult binkies" -- assuming that your 'binkies' refers to pacifiers -- from the earliest of times. Adult pacifiers first funded the European interest in colonizing the Americas. And now, PC is ostensibly against those who continue to satisfy oral stimulation needs with the adult pacifier, the ones that truly end in fier (that is, fire). Disclaimer: Legal, yet restricted for sale and possession to those 18 or older. While it is becoming more difficult to use these adult pacifiers in most public places without being hassled, users MUST learn to deposit all remnants of the 'pacifier' and its packaging on the public sidewalks or roadsides of your community.
john  Monday, July 23, 2007 10:00 am
You forgot; churches that give you grape juice in thimbles and call it wine. If this isn't toddleresque I don't know what is.
Henry Huizinga  Monday, July 23, 2007 3:21 pm
Pastor Wilson:
Could you please define adultery as it is is defined in the Bible? I happen to believe adultery is defined primarily as wife-stealing.
Henry
Christopher Witmer  Monday, July 23, 2007 5:27 pm
Thanks, Henry -- I guess that means I'm safe . . .
Justin Spencer  Monday, July 23, 2007 5:42 pm
I found that a very interesting post with a lot of good things to say. I think it might be worth noting, however, that forgiveness is also something quite lacking in the curch as a whole today. It is true that a pastor who has comitted the sin of adultery ought not be reinstated in his position, but he should not be driven from the church if his sin is confessed and forgiven. Two extremes are possible and both are just as un-Christlike as the other. There ought to be no hint of sexual immorality but at the same time no hint of the pride which accompanys a lack of forgiveness. If a brother in Christ has commited adultery (or any sin for that matter), confessed it and forsaken it, he ought to be welcomed with open arms by his fellow believers without grumbling or gossip.
Justin Spencer  Monday, July 23, 2007 5:44 pm
True forgiveness that is.
David C. Moody  Monday, July 23, 2007 10:41 pm
Justin said, "If a brother in Christ has committed adultery (or any sin for that matter), confessed it and forsaken it, he ought to be welcomed with open arms by his fellow believers without grumbling or gossip."

The sin of adultery is, however, a much graver sin than others. Adulterers can often be extremely manipulative in their interaction with others. They can put on a feigned confession of sin and a feigned repentance. They have already broken the most sacred trust once; why should they care about breaking it again?

In the Old Testament, adultery was a capital offense. Adultery strikes at the very life of a family; a confession made with words is not enough. Some serious restitution must be made before the church receives him back. (An adulterer should never presume that his wife would ever accept him back.) I'm not sure what would be enough, but without an extremely harsh sentence of restitution, there can be no certainty that the man has truly confessed.

David Houf  Monday, July 23, 2007 11:00 pm
Mr. Moody, I'm intrigued. I agree with you that adultery is a much graver sin then [some] others, and that adulterers can be quite manipulative (especially when in leadership positions...).

Your post stopped short of defining serious restitution. What extremely harsh sentence of restitution would you recommend? Who would mete out this sentence?
chasid  Monday, July 23, 2007 11:27 pm
Speaking as an adulterer myself, I question David Moody. King David did penance for his adultery, and the Lord took away his child for it. The King didn't even get stoned, though he deserved it. Saul murdered the church, which is just as serious as adultery, but Paul was not required to pay an extremely harsh sentence of restitution that we know of. In both cases God almighty meted out his own penances, which took the form of claims upon those men's lives for their sanctification before Him. Although I agree with David Moody that adultery is one of the worst offenses, I wouldn't call his solution biblical. Righteously angry, but not biblical. But, be wary of whatever I say, because I might just be trying to manipulate others.
chasid  Monday, July 23, 2007 11:29 pm
Which reminds me- my five year old boy isn't an adulterer, but he's pretty bleeding manipulative sometimes, and he does like to feign remorse for his sins. We're working on that, though.
J.W. Montgomery  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:38 am
Adult binky? Chewing gum.
TBush  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:14 am
Adultery is grave because it is treachery and betrayal, and someone caught in adultery must show the fruits of repentance before restitution is made. If they were a pastor or deacon when the offence was committed, then that is something to which they can never again aspire.
Charles Long  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:48 am
I see your point about the gravity of adultery. But tread carefully there. In the context of divorce, yes -- adultery is clearly defined, and attempts to classify things as "adultery" that really aren't adultery are nothing more than attempts to justify self-indulgence. I'm all on board with that.

[br][br]But when the context of the discussion is (as it is here) the gravity of the sin, we must also remember that God used adultery as an allegory for Israel's sin across the board. Sure, much of Israel's sin amounted to Idolatry, which is essentially man leaving his Husband (God) for another (idol). But (and this is the kicker), what sin among us cannot be similarly classified? Who among us can say that none of our sin can be biblically classified as idolatry, which was in turn illustrated by God as adultery? Do our farts not stink as bad as the other guy's?

[br][br]If the things that makes adultery (proper) a bigbadnasty are the elements of manipulation, treachery and betrayal, then by that standard there are few sins less grave (and few sins requiring the fruits of repentence less) than adultery. Which means I'm in the same line with chasid in that sense, regardless of how well I get along with my wife.
Justin Spencer  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:58 am
I can see your point and completly agree about the gravity involved in a sin such as adultery. What I don't see is any Scriptural defence for the shunning of a believer who had truly repented. I thank God that I, myself an adulterer by Jesus' own definition, a young man who has indeed lusted but confessed and forsaken it, am not cast out of the church and shunned as a non-believer. We should not pronounce un-clean what God has deemed clean. The only examples of being cast out and dissasociated with the church are when the man being cast out has not repented and continues in his sin.
Jane Dunsworth  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:26 am
Can anyone address Mr. Huizinga's contention above? He seems to be saying that sexual violation of the marriage vows by a man is not adultery if his paramour is unmarried. I've heard this said before, and I believe at some times in history the church has held to this distinction. Is there any biblical credibility to this, and if so, do the particular admonitions against and condemnations of adultery not apply to men who violate only their own marriages?
Gene  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:14 am
Henry, does your wife agree with you?
David C. Moody  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:41 am
David Houf, in response to your questions, let me start by saying that I stopped short of saying what sort of harsh restitution because I wouldn't know nor could think of all the specifics.

Obviously, the Scriptures make adultery a capital offense. And, more obviously, there are more instances of adulterers not being stoned than being stoned.

If a man steals, he must restore it two and a half times. If a man commits adultery, he could pay and pay tons of wealth, but that could not suffice (Prov. 6:35).

A husband who commits adultery has broken his marriage vows and forfeits all the rights and privileges of that marriage. If his wife decides to divorce him, then one obvious part of the restitution is the forfeiture of all his property and assets to his wife and family (just as if he had died). He could only see his children if his (ex-)wife allowed it. Perhaps for something further than that: his alimony could be equivalent to what his life insurance policy would pay annually.

Henry Huizinga  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:08 pm
Dear Mr Moody:

Would you please define adultery? Since is it is a capital crime,its proper biblical definition ought to be determined before the penalty is imposed.
Assumptions are deadly serious here.

Pastor Wilson did alude to wife stealing when he wrote: "when we want our neighbor's wife". I'd like some elaboration on that.

Where adultery is not punishable as a capital crime we can follow the law to the extent permitted by the State. I believe that is our limit.

In the State of New York that does no good whatsoever. If a wife commits adultery and the husband divorces her, she still gets the kids,child support, equitable distribution of property, leaving the husband in the nasty position of being forced by the State to subsidize his wife's adultery.Polyandrous America! The ultimate binkie.
Henry
lewsta  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:59 pm
I'm amazed that some are asking for a definition of adultery....it is simply the sexual involvement of any married person with someone other than the one to whom that person is married. So, a married man taking up with the cutie pie next door is an adulterer, as is the paramour, just as much as if that same person took up such a relationship with someone who was married to someone else, except that, in this second instance, there would be TWO spouses offended in addition to the two adulterers. Yes, the penalty in the OT was death..BUT, remember, for such a sentence to be meted out, the matter must have been established on the testimony of two or more EYEWITNESSES. Such activity as illicit sexual involvement with the spouse of another would, of its very nature, be kept most private. Which is part of the interest in the account of the woman brought before Jesus and accused of adultery. Where were the two witnesses? Not certain, but I believe such witnesses had to be of a high standard of integrity..perhaps leading to the speculation that those men gathered about with their stones were compelled to leave when Jesus required the first one to cast his be without sin himself.
David C. Moody  Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:11 pm
Henry, you said, "Where adultery is not punishable as a capital crime we can follow the law to the extent permitted by the State."

I disagree. Neither the church nor the family can mete out capital punishment, but that doesn't mean that they can't mete out a harsher penalty than the state.

Justin, a truly repentant man could be welcomed back into the church. But I still think that he must have some works in keeping with repentance. If he were unwilling to accept those works (assuming the works he was asked to do were just), though, that would mean that he wasn't truly repentant, and should remain excommunicated. My point was not whether a repentant individual can be forgiven of adultery; my point was what true repentance looks like. As far as I can tell, a truly repentant adulterer had better have a whole lot more than a mere verbal confession of his sin.

Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:31 am
lewsta, I agree with you, but I suspect that Henry has an argument for you. I want to see what it is because I think there is more behind it.
David C. Moody  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:36 am
Well, if Henry has an argument, then out with it.
Henry Huizinga  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:57 am
Mr Moody:
Since the State has for the most part usurped the church and family's sphere of authority, what we are able to practice amounts to what is permitted by the State. I was speaking practically.

You have not offered a Biblical definition of adultery,but we already have a punishment of forfeiture of assets and property to the man's wife for adultery that is not defined from the Bible by you.

Will it be Minnesota's law? Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man
other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to
imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

OR NEW YORK? New York defines an adulterer as a person who "engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.

OR NORTH CAROLINA? adultery is when any man and woman "lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together.

"WHAT SAY THE SCRIPTURES? At most, only one can be the biblical definition.
Henry
John Barry  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:22 am
Jesus says (Matthew 5:28): But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Charles Long  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:48 am
John,

[br][br]Point taken, but is this the proper context for Jesus' statement? For example, may a woman righteously divorce her husband if it becomes known that he looked at a woman lustfully?
Charles Long  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:50 am
Henry,

[br][br]I think most of us have assumed that we are using the same working definition of adultery. So why don't you end the nail-biting suspense and define it for us.
David C. Moody  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:17 pm
And, Henry, when you define it for us, please be sure to put the word "lascivious" in it. That would be cool.
Henry Huizinga  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:33 pm
The biblical definition of adultery:

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Romans 7:3
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.

The essential thing in these three Scriptures is the sexual violation of a married woman by a man other than her husband.This is Adultery.

Henry
Henry Huizinga  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:00 pm
HELP I can't seem to figure out how to skip a line or start a new paragraph in this forum. The enter key just doesn't do it, anyone ??Thanks Henry
Henry Huizinga  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:24 pm
John Barry & Long Shot:
There was the wife of a televangelist some time ago who filed for divorce when she discovered that her husband was into internet porn. I wonder if she read Cosmopolitan? Would he have had grounds for divorce against her?
Long shot; your question seems to intimate that divorce is a recourse against the actual physical act, not the thought of it. I agree. God is the dicerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart- not man. Henry
Charles Long  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:50 pm
Henry,

[br][br]First, the line breaks: in order to affect a hard return, type (br) , except use brackets instead of parentheses.

[br][br]If you want to start a new paragraph and leave a blank line in between it and the previous one (like I just did), then do the above function twice, like this: (br)(br)
Charles Long  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:54 pm
Now then...

[br][br]Henry, thanks for the definition. Are you saying that for a single woman to sleep with a married man would not be adultery?

Beverly B.  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 2:09 pm
Wouldn't it be fornication for the woman, and adultery for the married man?
Henry Huizinga  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 2:42 pm
Long Shot & Beverly B
[br] Every single time the subject of adultery comes up in the Bible it is ALWAYS a married woman having sexual relations with some man other than her husband. No exceptions. David with Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. Herod with his brother's wife. Israel and Judah commiting adultery with other gods against their husband YAHWEH.
[br]
[br] A married man cannot commit adultery with a single woman.
Henry Huizinga  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 2:44 pm
Long Shot:[br] [br]
Thanks . It worked.[br]henry
Charles Long  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:34 pm
Henry,

[br][br]I see. Well, okay -- Every time scripture specifically narrates an individual person's participation in the Lord's Supper, that individual is always a man. What should we conclude from this?

[br][br]And is James 5:14-15 a special privilege of a men's-only club?

[br][br]Now you may have a really important theological point to make here that I have never considered before. I mean, if your definition of adultery is correct, it may teach something allegorically. I dunno what, but I'm open to that. But if your position is based solely upon the use of the masculine gender (as if you'd require the Holy Spirit to say "He and/or she" every time instead of just using "He"), then you're going to have to show how the adultery issue is substantially different than the two I introduced at the top of this post.

David C. Moody  Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:33 pm
Alright, Henry, if a married man committing sexual immorality with a single woman is not called adultery, then what is it to be called? Certainly, we must call it wrong.
Gene  Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:41 am
So, Henry, what does your wife think of your definition?
Gene  Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:06 am
And Henry, under which of the Ten Commandments would a married man's infidelity with an unmarried woman fit?
Henry Huizinga  Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:59 am
David ,Gene:[br]
Let me return the question you like this: if a married man has sexuual relations with a single woman ,what is the result? See Exodus 22:16&17. Does it not result in the obligation of marriage, since the one flesh act of marriage has occured?
[br][br] David - You have not yet offered your definition of Adultery from the Bible. It will not do to disagree with the definition I have offered without a counter-definition from Scripture.[br] Henry
Beverly B.  Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:15 am
Matthew 5:28
Henry Huizinga  Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:07 am
Beverly[br][br]
The word Jesus is using here " woman" is referring to a wife ( Strong #1135) Again we see that adultery is mentioned in the context of a man lusting after another man's wife.
Charles Long  Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:27 am
Oh, good -- so I can go ahead and subscribe to Hustler, as long as I skip the "naughty housewives" pages. I can't wait to explain all this to my wife.

[br][br]Curious -- does the word "man" in Matt 5:28 refer to a married man or not?
Henry Huizinga  Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:55 am
There must be a reason the Bible defines adultery in this very precise and particular way. [br} What is that reason? It is must be alien to our way of thinking. Is the problem that we have made the assumption that the monagamy only doctrine is the doctrine of the Bible? Where in the Bible is polygamy prohibited? [br][br] If one understands that polygamy is lawful and the keystone support of God's social welfare system for the family and society, then the Biblical definition of adultery I have offered makes perfect sense. [br][br]The book MAN AND WOMAN IN BIBlICAL LAW can be downloaded free from www.newcovenantpatriarchy.com The book is worth buying. Tom Shipley's work is on a level with Greg Bahnsen and superior to RJ Rushdoony[br][br]My purpose in pressing for a Biblical definition of adultery is that the monagamy only folks just do not have one. This indicates that something is not right.
David C. Moody  Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:58 pm
So, let me get this straight, Henry:

You believe that, if a married man desecrates the marriage bed by sharing it with an unmarried woman, then the proper punishment is not excommunication from family, church, and state, but instead MARRIAGE.

Your argument avoids the book of Proverbs which speaks of adultery very clearly and does not always define the seductress as a married woman:

"Drink water from your own cistern,

And running water from your own well.

Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,

streams of water in the streets?

Let them be only your own,

And not for strangers with you.

Let your fountain be blessed,

And rejoice with the wife of your youth.

As a loving deer and a graceful doe,

Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;

And always be enraptured by her love.

For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,

And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?" (Prov. 5:15-20).

And, for what it's worth, there are often two ways to describe a woman in ancient languages: as a virgin and not as a virgin. We often translate the second form as a "married woman" or wife, but it does not necessarily mean that.

David C. Moody  Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:59 pm
Just in case, you didn't catch my drift, Henry, but I think your definition of marriage is foolish and belongs with those who in the greatness of their folly go astray (Prov 5:23).
David C. Moody  Friday, July 27, 2007 4:14 am
Oops, I should have said, "definition of adultery." My bad.
Gene  Friday, July 27, 2007 4:45 am
So Henry, why does God only have one wife?
Gene  Friday, July 27, 2007 5:22 am
And if you're still out there, PLEASE tell me you don't consider yourself FV!
Henry Huizinga  Friday, July 27, 2007 11:22 am
Gene:[br]
In Ezekial 23, (note v4) God does portray himself as a polygamist married to 2 sisters, Israel and Judah. God is not the author of confusion,so he would not portray Himself as a polygamist if it were sin.[br]br]
In Revelation 19:6-8 at the marriage supper of the Lamb, the Church is called the wife of the Lamb ,but is also referred to as a great multitude, comprised of INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERES. Gene, I am sure you cosider yourself married to Christ,as an idividual believer. (see M a W i B L pg 193) [br][br] I will check this forum daily and will gladly respond to thoughtful questions and objections.
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, July 27, 2007 3:38 pm
I'll let others duke it out on the proper definition of adultery, but I'm wondering what Henry does with the guy who (like every Christian man who marries in a church ceremony, as far as I'm aware) promises to forsake all others and cleave only to his wife -- and then doesn't. What do you call what he does? The breaking of a voluntary vow? Sorta like not taking his kid to the ballgame like he promised?
Henry Huizinga  Saturday, July 28, 2007 12:40 am
Jane;[br]
You raise an issue I have often considered before. The law of the seducer in Exodus 22:16&17 is given so that restitution is made to the girl and her father. Restitution is made either by an endowered marriage or by dowery and a FATHER IMPOSED DIVORCE so the girl will not be without one when she is given in marriage in the future to a man her father consents to. It should be noted that if the girls father refuses to give her to the seducer, that the father has imposed a divorce on the marriage that has taken place via sexual relations. [BR][BR] Please note that the law of the seducer does not specify the marital status of the man - this aplies it to all men regardless of their marital status. (Credit to TOM SHIPLEY is due here)[br][br] With this in view, when a man-made vow to forsake all others is broken, the law of God is not superceded by it. The man is subject first to the LAW OF GOD, not the word of man. But,as you pointed,a vow should be kept in the first place,even if it is made in ignorance of the law of God.
Gene  Saturday, July 28, 2007 6:07 am
Henry, I hope you enjoy your role as front man for the Islamist invasion of America!
Jane Dunsworth  Monday, July 30, 2007 3:08 am
So it is, essentially, like breaking a promise to take a kid to a ballgame. Got it.
Henry Huizinga  Monday, July 30, 2007 12:14 pm
Jane:[br]
A little more on "forsaking all others":[br] Given that the Law of God permits polygamy,is it even lawful for a man to make such an oath? Is it declared null and void by the law of God that permits polygamy? Is the oath voluntary or is it IMPOSED by the Church and State contrary to the Law of God? What of Luther's renunciation of his oath of celibacy? [br]
[br]When a Pastor administers an oath "to forsake all others", contrary to the Law of God is he culpable?
[br][br]Promising a boy an afternoon at the ballpark is quite voluntary compared to the circumstances involved in a marriage where higher authorities are involved. [br][br] I have asked this in question form because I do not have a conclusion at this point.
Jane Dunsworth  Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:58 am
Henry, if I can promise to bake my kid a cake for his birthday, I can certainly promise my husband to leave other men alone. And vice versa. The fact that other people who understand that marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church encourage me to make that promise is a reason in favor of doing it, not against.

The state, BTW, requires no such promise.