Things I Think

You may also like...

111 Responses

  1. JTK says:

    “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. (‭Ezekiel‬ ‭16‬:‭49‬ NASB)”

    Arrogance,
    Careless ease,
    Not helping the poor and the needy
    =
    The sin of Sodom

    There is room for concern.

  2. Dan from georgia says:

    Amen number 5. Oh, and first?

  3. Babylon's Dread says:

    Authority is the issue and the Reformers did exactly as their critics feared. They opened a door that has allowed precisely the kind of thing they wanted to prevent.

    Every man is a pope.
    Every person decides what they believe without a standard other than themselves.
    The Reformers rejection of authority has taken precedence over the authority to which they submitted.

  4. Michael says:

    JTK,

    That pattern is repeated over and over again…thank you for getting it.

  5. Michael says:

    Dan,

    You were close… 🙂

  6. Dan from georgia says:

    Oh, second

  7. Babylon's Dread says:

    As for God judging America…

    I always have believed that sowing and reaping is the ongoing action of God’s righteous judgment in history upon all nations. He gives them what they want. He says yes to our lusts and we become prisoners of those things we desired. We did not seek the kingdom so we were given what we sought.

  8. Michael says:

    BD,

    #8… the great lesson from the prophets is that God is patient and longsuffering.
    It is not too late until His patience runs out.
    We’re still here…

  9. Michael says:

    We still have time as individuals and as the church to repent…but I strongly suggest using the prophets as a guide to what we need to repent of.
    That would have made a good #10 if I wasn’t delirious…

  10. dswoager says:

    On #9, I would probably zoom out a little on that one… The scriptures are merely communicating the authority that God has over all of creation, and specifically mankind, so I wouldn’t necessarily frame it as the scriptures vs. the self, but more as the authority of God vs. the disobedience of man. That narrative goes back way further than the Reformation, to a garden if I remember correctly.

  11. Michael says:

    I’ve got a bunch going on today…will be in and out…more out.
    Share your wisdom…

  12. Pat says:

    Michael don’t always comment, but visited a church yesterday where the message was the gracious law. As the message finished the final instruction was we must love the law enough to live by it. I said to my wife later. “True statement, but a problem with these kinda of messages is that if it is not taught that the law is still crushing believers and pointing back to the gospel, then it they tend to produce just another dose of self-righteousness.” Points 7 and 8 reminded me of that, because they are closely interlocked.

    Thanks

  13. Em says:

    #2 – harsh words
    #4 – you’ve got that right
    #5 – ditto … goes against rationalizing our righteousness, but i’ve come to the same conclusion as important (sacred even) as the family is, we’ve erred in putting our little personal kingdoms/families on pedestals that are too high … IMHO
    #6 – not sure i follow … God backed off and allowed their enemies to punish them at times, but …?….
    #7 – yes, and vice versa?
    #8 – amen, trouble is we’re not too good at teaching the doctrine IMHO
    #9 – very interesting to think on … very, very interesting … kind of goes to the question of where every individual meets God – kinda
    #10 – wonderful list to think on … thank you, Michael

  14. OCDan says:

    Em,

    The trouble with teaching #8 is multifaceted. First, many of us have never experienced first hand God-like grace from another person, nor have many of us seen it. Many of us also haven’t been forgiven or loved enough to do the same, or have the trust required to do the same.

    With all the problems our beloved host has blogged about in the modern evangelical church are we surprised? Sure, some churches have a foot-washing service and their are those who have held lepers, but come on, how many and how often?

    Besides, even if we do that, but only in the sense that God owes us something or it is a checklist, then the whole effort was useless and of no value. Sure, God can use it even then, but I think you all get my point.

    Lastly, in my jumbled rant, I think grace is difficult because I have to give it when wronged and seek it when I sin. In other words, when I am wronged, I am going to get mine, but when I sin, I want to cover it up or get away with no consequences, just move along, nothing to see here.

    As to America being judged….Again, why are we surprised.

    Michael to your point, I am reminded of James where it is written that true religion faith is taking care of the widows and orphans. I know I can do much better in this area, so I cast no aspersions, but why are we surprised about the shape this country is in. As Cain said, AM I my brother’s keeper. Why, yes we are. For all our faults, there was a day in this country when we looked out for one another, the weak, the oppressed, even the crazy uncle in the family. Sadly, those days are far and few between for many and we wonder why things are sliding down the slippery slope at the rate they are.

    As for doing better next week. I just want to say thank you, Michael. This blog, despite, the differences in styles and thoughts, always exudes grace. I cannot tell how many times God brings tears, joy, and peace that surpasses all understanding to me through this blog. You never have to worry about doing better.

  15. Michael says:

    Pat,

    Good word.
    As I’m teaching through Amos the challenge is to make sure that the Gospel is part of the message.
    Easier said than done…

  16. Michael says:

    OCDan,
    Great word and thank you…

  17. LB says:

    I can never figure out why some Christians want to minimize the sin of homosexuality in relation to Sodom and claim that inhospitality was the cause for its destruction. Sodom had numerous sins:

    “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.” Ezekiel 16:49-50 ESV

    Unless I’m mistaken, “abomination” is the same word used in Lev 18:22 for homosexuality.

    Add to this Jude 7-8 and I would tend to believe that the main reason God destroyed Sodom was for the abomination of homosexuality, not the inhospitality. Romans 1, don’t see any inhospitality there either.

    Even if you want to claim that inhospitality was part of the reason, why minimize the sin of homosexuality? I don’t get it? This isn’t being hateful, it’s being truthful. Say all you want about pride and not helping the poor, I agree. Just don’t minimize what God has called an abomination. And I think you do that by your statements.

  18. Xenia says:

    The similarities between how cartels operate in Mexico and how large American evangelical groups work is striking.<<<

    No.

  19. Michael says:

    LB,

    If we’re going to be consistent then we need to talk about divorce as much as homosexual sex because God says he hates it.

    We don’t.
    We have grace and acceptance for this sin that God hates because we’re not homosexuals and all of us love someone who has been divorced or have been divorced ourselves.

    I’m not the one minimizing any sin.

    My point is that while those sins outside the church will indeed be judged, so will ours.

    First.

    I am the biggest sinner I know and I need to get the sawmill running for my own eyes…

  20. Miss ODM says:

    I have attained perfection – I never sin; I got a friend in Jesus. So I know that when I die He’s gonna set me up with the Spirit in the Sky.

    God’s biggest gripe is idolatry. Have no other gods before Him. He hates that. He really hates it when those who are supposed to belong to him engage in idolatry.

    Flee idols!!

  21. LB says:

    Michael,

    Agree 100 percent. I hate divorce too and it’s a huge problem in the church. But, when you are specifically referencing Sodom, then should we not specifically reference homosexuality?

  22. Michael says:

    LB,

    I was using brimstone as a metaphor for judgment.
    I’m much more concerned with the problems inside the church than outside.
    Much, much more.
    I don’t think I need to reiterate my position on homosexuality every day.

  23. Xenia says:

    I keep repeating that I don’t know of any Christian church that is in favor of fornication, adultery and divorce. They are all against these things.

    A few thoughts:

    1. If the pastor preaches too much against these sins he is accused of being legalistic, preaching law too much, etc. etc. So he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

    2. The reason divorce is so prevalent is the no-fault divorce laws, to which Christians were adamantly opposed. For this opposition they were faulted for getting too involved in politics.

    3. Churches that do have rules in place to discourage divorce are faulted for being cultic.

    4. As I have said repeatedly, churches welcome divorced people back into the fold in the name of showing them grace. “Showing grace” is the number one virtue on this blog.

    I simply do not see how churches can be faulted for the divorce rates. People are not bound to their churches; they wander off and do what they want to do. Who among the PhxP’ers would like to see a system where all the churches in America track the divorced people for purposes of denying Communion, etc. A person commits adultery, divorces his wife and is received with open arms at the next church he show up at. That is how most of folks here want things to be- complete freedom. Most of you here cannot tolerate even the slightest whiff of authoritarianism in a church and it would take considerable authority, more than any of you would be willing to tolerate, to reduce divorce rates among Christians.

  24. Michael says:

    Xenia,

    I don’t know of any church thats in favor of those things either.
    However, they don’t have the reaction to those sins…which are happening inside the fellowship…to the degree that they react to homosexuality which is mostly outside the fellowship.
    I think we have two standards…and that difference erodes our moral authority.

  25. OCDan says:

    Xenia,

    Your #24 is spot on regarding the modern church. Look at what Jesus said to the Pharisees regarding Moses giving a certificate of divorce. It was because of stubbornness, hardhearted, stiff necked attitude. However, we don’t like to hear that now. Got a gripe, get a divorce, nothing has changed.

  26. Em says:

    #3 – “living by faith isn’t easy…” since faith doesn’t come natural to me, i ponder on it once in awhile… for instance, Peter jumped out of that boat – a rash and illogical move with no discernible benefit that those still in the boat saw – i assume his one thought was to get to Christ, who he could see was doing fine out there in that storm – to me that was foolish faith and i suspect it was VERY pleasing to God nonetheless … the older i get, the more i see that it isn’t the results of faith, but the direction that it drives us – toward our Lord – that pleases God … so the next question on my mind is, does faith = “success?” did sinking Peter negate his act of faith?

  27. Michael says:

    Em,

    On #6… God sent Amos to prophesy to Israel and he begin his oration by telling them how God was gonna whup their enemies.
    This probably resulted in wild applause.
    Once Amos had their attention, he informed them that God was going to whup them first.
    This probably did not result in applause. 🙂

  28. Ms. ODM says:

    I hate divorce — but I also hate abusive husbands and lousy marriages which amounts to depressed, sad, lonely, and miserable people.

  29. dswoager says:

    Xenia, I think that the point is that there is this image of the church where it seems to be more interested in transforming the actions of those outside it’s bounds than those who are inside. The “pet sins” of the church never seem to be ones that it sees in the mirror each morning. In the end, it certainly seems like it is more about controlling people and actions that we find uncomfortable to be around, rather than a matter of morality at all. I suppose there is also the comforting feeling that we enjoy condemning those on the outside in order to make ourselves feel more godly and righteous.

  30. Michael says:

    dswoager,

    You said it better than I did…

  31. OCDan says:

    ISTR that Peter wrote something about judgement beginning in the House of the Lord.

    HMMMMMMMM, we seem to forget that, often times.

  32. OCDan says:

    dswoager,

    Excellent points in 30 above. It is so easy to see the speck in everyone else’s eye, but woe to anyone who mentions the California Redwood, let alone log sticking out of our own.

  33. Xenia says:

    If the non-believer down the street wants to shack up with his non-believing boyfriend, then
    I Corinthians 5:12 (“For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?”) certainly applies. However:

    1. Many who call themselves Christians are now in favor of homosexuality.

    2. Some “churches” are accommodating themselves to SSM.

    3. This doctrine is becoming so pervasive that is will impact our entire culture, Christians and all. Homosexuals will be “created” as the practice is now considered to be just another lifestyle choice, like vegetarianism.

    4. I am not judging homosexuals for the joy of being judgmental. The lifestyle is very destructive. Believe it or not, while I am busy worrying about the redwood log in my own eye I still care about the unbelieving homosexual who is destroying his own life. I also care about our culture, which has become so degraded that I doubt if can recover but nevertheless, I do care about it.

    These things are occurring within the house.

  34. Xenia says:

    And a large percentage of homosexuals claim to be Christians.

    Bruce Jenner (whatever he is) claims to be a Christian.

    Inside the house, yes or no?

  35. dswoager says:

    I would assume that if Bruce Jenner is a professing Christian that he would have brothers and sisters that would be able to speak into his life with regard to the decisions that he is making. I don’t know him, so that really isn’t my really my place.

    I think part of what we see happening is actually rooted in that very dynamic. We are being asked to take stands on issues rather than interacting with and relating to people. Worrying about the degradation of society is kind of above my pay grade, but I can work out the way in which I am to love and encourage the people who I come into contact with on a daily basis… frankly that’s a full-time job, and I’m not particularly good at it.

    Finally, I am responding to you, but I am really engaging an overall attitude that I see around me. I would guess that you are probably better than me at most of the things that I think that we should be doing in our personal walk, but as Michael said in #3, God is faithful, there are small corners of this world that I have been appointed to have a helping hand in, but God is in control of all of it… I am attempting to take my hands off the reins of a number of things that are much larger than me. I have found it helpful so far and think that it would be a good practice for us all to occasionally shed some of our unnecessary baggage that we carry.

  36. OCDan says:

    Xenia,

    I was not arguing that the church shouldn’t engage in the culture. My point is that some worry so much about the culture, they forget about the sin in the church. Much like Michael reports here daily.

  37. Em says:

    #28 – thank you Michael, lots to think about what you’re thinking about today….

  38. Em says:

    #35 – inside the house? hmmm… this may be on a case by case basis… it would almost take an honest person who identifies as a homosexual to answer the question – doesn’t the answer hinge on whether or not one is in denial or is simply denying what is clear to them?
    dunno
    i need to really study the letters to those 7 churches – i think there may be far more said there than i have picked up on – repent or your light will be removed… hmmm nice, dark dead churches?

  39. I think that the church is there to speak specifically to the culture and to offer God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ as the only solution to a lost and fallen world full of lost and fallen people. At the same time the church must realize that we cannot offer the world a morally changed life – because we inside the church are there for the exact same reason… because we sin daily and need to hear God’s words of forgiveness in our ears and have his body and blood poured down our throats for that same forgiveness of sin.

    If it were for any other purpose, the churches would be have “how to stop sinning classes” each Wednesday night. Perhaps some do.

  40. Michael says:

    MLD,

    Your first sentence pretty much says it all.

  41. Michael – watch your email tonight.

  42. Muff Potter says:

    @ # 29,

    And it really does beg the question:
    Are humans made for marriage or is marriage made for humans?

    It’s not all that different from Jesus’ run in with the Pharisees over the Sabbath.

  43. Em says:

    MLD’s #40… seems to hover around the truth, but just doesn’t quite ring true for me… almost makes living life as a Christian a mechanical – outward, rather than internal – enterprise…

    but, perhaps it suits folk more naturally civilized than i am… i really need fine tuning with regularity – my mind tends to wander – perhaps, my mental pegs have shrunk 🙂

  44. Em says:

    #43 is my thought to think on tonight

    God keep

  45. Bob says:

    em:

    The question of marriage isn’t about abusive spouses, as you ask, it’s about covenant relationship, the design and model of God.

    If one reduces marriage and love to the sexual act, well hey even animals do that. The fact so many people are so abusive in relationships isn’t a comment against marriage at all.

    Jesus’ teaching on the question of marriage and divorce wasn’t to make some new rule at all. It was a statement about the ultimate sin of man, and their failure to maintain civility in the most basic of God’s designs. It also points to the huge loving-kindness of God in spite of ourselves, things are “allowed” even though they are in rebellion to the design of God.

    It might be noticed the teaching demonstrates the hardness of the hearts of men. When Jesus teaches the consequences of divorce He is clearly pointing to the actions of the one who writes the paper as the one who cause the other to commit a sin which deserved death.

    At the end the disciples even ask if it is worth being married at all because of the severity of Jesus’ teaching. And what is Jesus’ interesting response? If you can’t handle getting marriage don’t, but remember you must be some form of eunuch.

    In essence it’s worth the risk!

    Not a condemnation of those who fail at marriage at all, just a view of God’s plan contrasted with where humans took it.

  46. Bob says:

    Ironically it might be said about marriage:

    1. God sanctions the marriage between a man and woman.
    2. Moses allowed, and therefore God ignores or turns His head away from the issue of divorce (in spite of “hating” it).

    In light of this can it be said:

    1. God will never sanction the marriage between two people of the same sex.
    2. But will He turn his head like He does with divorce, because either the church or people allow same sex marriage because of the “hardness” of their hearts?

    Personally I think we need softened hearts, both in our marriages and our view of marriage.

    em, you made me think. Thanks!

  47. Em says:

    you’re welcome, Bob – but it was MsODM and Muff’s thoughts 🙂

  48. Andrew says:

    Micahel @ 20 “We have grace and acceptance for this sin that God hates because we’re not homosexuals and all of us love someone who has been divorced or have been divorced ourselves.”

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    Sin of Divorce? Michael, although God hates divorce, it shouldn’t be labeled as sin. First, there are circumstances that divorce is explicitly permitted in the bible. On the contrary, homosexual activity is always prohibited. So with this is mind you need to be careful not to define divorce itself as sin. Its the result of sin but its not sin itself. The sin of adultery or possibly even homosexual behavior may be what caused one spouse or both spouses to leave the marriage.

  49. Divorce may be permitted, but I believe it is always sin – just another one that needs to be brought before God to receive forgiveness.

    Is anyone who has been divorced ever going to claim to hold no blame or responsibility in a marriage gone south?

  50. Andrew says:

    MLD, I disagree with you. Yes, I believe there is always sin abounding but calling Divorce always a sin is like saying smoking is always a sin. Smoking can be sinful and usually is sinful cause it can cause harm to your body but to call it INHERENTLY sinful is pure legalism in my opinion.

  51. Well, as the scripture says we are to be perfect – we are not, we are in sin. If you are divorced you sinned. Divorce was allowed because were are in sin.

  52. Andrew says:

    Baloney MLD. We sin all the time but to say someone sinned because they divorced is completely wrong!! Tell that to the lady at Village church who was put under church disciple for divorcing her husband involved in child pornography. Thankfully Matt Chandler finally apologized. No MLD, sometimes there is no fault divorce. And in this case, her husband was at fault and not her so don’t go putting this sin on her as the elders of this church did to her. Sorry but this ignorance really irks me.

  53. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Andrew, if you don’t think both parties need to seek forgiveness in the case of a failed marriage – what can I say?

    I have not done any of the things on the “list” that gives warrant to divorce, BUT if my wife decided in her sinful flesh to take up with some other dude, that there is a slice of something I did or did not do that help push her in that direct. I am guilty (in sin) for that part.

  54. Andrew says:

    MLD, You miss the point entirely. But in a way make my point. Yes you are guilty of your part in the sin that helped lead to the divorce if you want to put it that way but the divorce itself is not the sin. That is piling on. We all sin and we all sin constantly but divorce is not always the sin but is usually the result of sins. In fact, in our day and age, I highly encourage same sex couples to get divorced because that would be completely honoring to God. In fact staying in the marriage I believe is the true sin in this situation.

  55. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Adultery is on the person who cheated, not the person they cheated on. Although the person who cheated with another, there sin is their own, however, they also sin against the one they cheated with, by leading or agreeing or giving in to another person to cheat against a person’s spouse.

    There is never justification to commit adultery. Keep in mind, adultery 99.9% of the time requires many other wrongs being committed against the marriage, the spouse, and most likely everyone they used to bear a false witness against their spouse to discredit, belittle, and made out to be deserving to be divorce. And yes, the act of divorce, if the innocent spouse does not file for divorce, is then another act of betrayal, violence, and slander against them. Example: the husband abuses his wife while telling everyone else that she has mental health issues, but they don’t know as he has managed to alienate and isolate them from everyone, but at the same time has a propensity to womanize and darn it all, what do you, he’s gotten someone pregnant, but no one knows this, because he has brought her to church on his arm, so he must be a god-fearing man. Reality, wife is now homeless, because he has walked out, living in small apartment with pregnant g-friend a few doors down the way. Wife make several requests to speak alone to his pastor, but is refused because husband wants to be there, so he can control the communication. Although he’s been going to church alone, because he doesn’t want her to give him a rough time when he “decides to look at a woman he finds attractive.” Nor does he want her making any friends or letting anyone know about his sexual addiction and how he constantly and find ways to act out directly or indirectly with other females. Behide the scene he creates situations hoping she will screw up so he then can say, “see, she’s insecure or jealous, or possessive, or dellusional. All the time making time and a future with the girl in waiting, pregnant or otherwise.

    But somehow, it’s his wife’s sin—–Wow!!

    Even if my husband cheated on me, it would not justify me then cheating on him.

    If the innocent spouse should be so willing to forego a divorce with the knowledge that the prodigal husband will not continue to cheat and abuse her and the marriage, while setting the record straight to vindicate her character and cutting all ties with any females he had used to act out with, emotionally or physically, directly or indirectly, then this man ought to fall on his knees to our Lord and thank Him for the wife he has hurt, harmed, abused, betrayed, violated, slandered, and thrown under the bus, in total submission to do whatever it took, to win her heart, her love, and her trust back again. And stop crying, as if he had been the victim instead.

  56. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Correction: ‘ darn it all, what do you know, he’s gotten someone pregnant, but no one knows this, because he has yet brought her to church on his arm,

    By the way, this guy also probably has at least one more in waiting. He may use her to throw his wife off from staying on his heels about the one she already caught him with several times (but can’t prove it, because he made sure she was the only one who saw this). Of course telling others, it’s a figment of her imagination.

    People tend to think when someone cheats, they do with one person at a time—-not if the cheating spouse is an addict or narcissist. Or even if someone feels they are entitled used, abuse, and then discard women at their convenience or are inconvenience when they dare to protest such behavior and choices.

  57. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    “entitled to use, abuse, and the discard women”

  58. Em says:

    been thinking on that question a bit, “is marriage made for people or are people made for marriage?”
    seems obvious that people – male and female people – were made to be mates… what is hard for me to get my mind around: why did Adam, if God came every evening and walked with him in that garden, chose to listen to Eve? why did a snake seem more relevant than God, Himself?
    as MLD likes to remind us, we are flawed… free will? we’ve chosen our precious selves over the Creator of same… the day the garden gate locked behind us we entered into chaos and God is NOT the author of confusion – thank God that He is full of grace and mercy towards us because we’ve sure stepped into confusion with both feet…
    i’m still pondering that question… could be it neither?

  59. Em says:

    “could be it neither” … wasn’t trying for a new language with that one .. got my ‘be’ and my ‘it’ bakerds

  60. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    But probably 80 – 90% of divorces do not involve adultery – they are broken covenants between sinners. In any divorce, regardless of what Andrew says – the divorce is the final act in the failed marriage.

    The only proper response before God is “we have sinned”

  61. Bob says:

    Uriah

    You seem to miss what scripture clearly says, the divorce will cause the party divorced, the divorcee, to sin. If a man divorces his wife for another woman, yes he is an adulterer. Additionally His ex wife becomes an adulterer and that is the point. In his selfishness one of the consequences of his sin is to cause another to sin also. That is the ultimate sin, bringing harm to another.

    Make a list sometime of all the people effected (or involved in) by a single divorce. It’s rather large.

    Oh and smoking is a sin because it brings harm to the body, for Andrew.

    Wow maybe there are a whole lot more sins we don’t think are sins and have justified somehow.

    Remember just because sin is covered by His blood and His people are justified through Him it doesn’t make sin any less wrong or more right. Having multiple wives was wrong from the beginning. If you don’t believe me look at the first recorded person with more than one wife in Genesis and the check out his heart. X

    Thank God for His grace and mercy in Messiah Jesus!

  62. Bob says:

    Em

    As better question to ponder is, what is marriage?

  63. JoelG says:

    I’m divorced, remarried, smoking a cig, I even ate McDonald’s last week. Lord have mercy.

  64. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    JoelG – and forgiven 😉

    just think – no sin, no forgivness

  65. JoelG says:

    Thank you MLD. I needed that. The weight of my sin can be crushing. Hopelessness and condemnation kills. The Hope of Mercy gives life.

  66. Bob says:

    “I’m divorced, remarried, smoking a cig, I even ate McDonald’s last week. Lord have mercy.”

    Yep, He does.

    And MLD has said it correctly.

    No need for forgiveness if you have no sin.

    The problem is many don’t think these things are sin.

    The old, “What’s a sin to you may not be a sin to me” routine.

    You did make me think, which is more damaging to your health:

    1. Divorce
    2. Smoking
    3. McDonalds

    ???

    I know this avoiding all of them will improve one’s health.

  67. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    “You seem to miss what scripture clearly says, the divorce will cause the party divorced, the divorcee, to sin. If a man divorces his wife for another woman, yes he is an adulterer. Additionally His ex wife becomes an adulterer and that is the point. In his selfishness one of the consequences of his sin is to cause another to sin also. That is the ultimate sin, bringing harm to another.

    What scripture tells us is: 32 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. KJV

    What it says:

    1. If a person marries someone who has committed adultery against their spouse, they too are guilty of adultery. The innocent spouse is free to marry again.

    2. If a innocent chooses to divorce their adulterous spouse, they are free to do so. But if the adulterous person divorces their innocent spouse, then marries another, they commit adultery, as well as, the person whom marries them.

    Matthew ch.19:9
    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.

    The clause: “except it be for fornication,” is the key. Otherwise, unless a spouse has been unfaithful, the only other biblical grounds is if they are abusive and unbeliever. And if they are abusive, they cannot possibly be a believer, regardless of what some have put forth that one can live like the devil, but as long as they claim Jesus, or been baptized, or taken the “eucharist,” no big deal–just keep on keeping on.

    Why else would Jesus give permission for a betrayed spouse to marry again??????

    So let’s try this again:

    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.

    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.

    The person who puts away [divorces] an innocent spouse, then marries another, commits adultery.
    However, if the person who puts their spouse away for adultery, and someone marries them, they too are guilty of adultery.

    The person who puts away [divorces] a spouse who has or is committing adultery is free to marry.

    Very strange interpretation that Bob put forth on this.

  68. Andrew says:

    MLD, I’m in a successful marriage and the only response I can say is: “I sinned”. 🙂 Seems like whether you are married or divorced, the response is the same. I rest my case. So stop piling on by adding the “status of divorce” to a list of sins that the betrayed party needs to deal with!!! This really is abusive to a lot of betrayed people especially women who have been cheated on and then dumped and abandoned.

  69. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    So let’s try this again:

    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.

    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.

    The person who puts away [divorces] an innocent spouse, then marries another, commits adultery.
    However, if the person who puts their spouse away for adultery, and someone marries them [the adulterous spouse], they too are guilty of adultery.

    The person who puts away [divorces] a spouse who has or is committing adultery is free to marry as long as the new spouse is in the Lord.

  70. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Something to seriously consider:

    http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_divorce.php

  71. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    A big OOOPs. That’s what I get for not reading the entire article—-had I known the writer was going to compare this with the idea of God replacing Israel, I would not have posted it.

    So take glean what you can and leave the rest in the wash bucket. My apologies to all.

  72. Bob says:

    Uriah

    I didn’t put forth an interpretation at all. I pointed out Jesus taught the harm done by the one divorcing another does. If you understood the test he was being put under by the experts of the Torah you would also understand it a bit better.

    In the day there were two major interpretations of the divorce issue, one being a teacher named Hillel and the other Shammai. Jesus ignores both of their interpretations and takes them all back to the beginning, the first marriage, where God gave Eve to Adam. Basically He trumped there interpretations and spoke of their “hardness” and how they hurt people through divorce. You might remember the penalty for adultery is death, something they knew quite well.

    But you wanted to go somewhere else I take it.

    Sin is not just what we commit against God it is also something we do to each other. It is often forgotten forgiveness begins with, “as you forgive others God will forgive you.”

  73. Bob says:

    Uriah:

    Your link is the direct, legalist and simple solution to the issue of divorce in the church body. Obviously for Jesus to be asked the question about divorce over 2,000 years ago means it isn’t very simple and to make up a rule based on the direct teaching of Jesus just doesn’t cut it.

    The Hebrew way of teaching isn’t to state the obvious but is designed to make the hearer think. Those actually asking and hearing Jesus’ explanation of divorce were more versed in the nuances of the text than you are. Because of this the answer isn’t designed to confirm or agree with either of the two interpretations of the day at all, it was made so they would think of the consequences of divorce.

    The real sin of divorce is the consequences of the parties actions and breaking of their marriage covenant, something which hasn’t changed to this day. As I stated count the number of parties outside the couple who are effected by a divorce, it can be staggering.

    So the commandment of “loving your neighbor…” is clearly violated in a divorce and there’s a whole lot of forgiveness needed in the community, besides God, in such situations.

  74. Bob says:

    Andrew:

    ” Tell that to the lady at Village church who was put under church disciple for divorcing her husband involved in child pornography. ”

    I’ve been on the end having to deal with this type of issue. Divorce is a sin, but the child porn sin is a greater sin. If you want a clean and neat package on the teachings of Jesus, there isn’t one.

  75. Andrew says:

    Bob,

    I agree there is not a clean and neat package on divorce and remarriage in the Bible. No argument there but I also don’t call divorce sin. At a minimum I don’t think its a perpetual sin that needs to be constantly repented of. In the West we equate marriage to exchanging vows and rings but in the East its not always so. I heard a pastor once try to hold someone accountable to Christians vows that they never even said because they weren’t even Christians at the time. That’s a little strange to me.

  76. Bob says:

    Andrew

    Good morning!

    The mistake being made on the vows issue is comparing marriage traditions with marriages in the USA. It is well known the tradition of how we get married in the USA are very shallow when compared to the ancient near east. In the day a marriage starts in the betrothal not upon the signing of the marriage contract at the community ceremony.

    A Jewish traditional marriage includes a contract, look it up, spelling out the obligations of the parties in that marriage. We non-Jews think we were clever with our pre-nup agreements (designed more around our wealth than our commitment or love for the other) when the Jewish people had such things for probably thousands of years.

    How can the breaking of a contract or its disillusion not be a sin? Two parties agree to something considered binding for a lifetime and then agree to dissolve it for what ever reason and now there’s no sin?

    Yes it’s very complicated and all I’m trying to point out is when two people marry and break it up they selfishly think they are the only ones effected.

    When you say it’s not a sin to divorce, well I guess the legal action isn’t but the consequences are it causes a lot of people to sin.

  77. Andrew says:

    How can the breaking of a contract or its disillusion not be a sin? Two parties agree to something considered binding for a lifetime and then agree to dissolve it for what ever reason and now there’s no sin?
    ________________________________________________________________________

    There is always sin but to label the divorce as sin I believe is a mistake.

    I see two problems with this.
    1. Homosexuals are now making lifetime contracts with each other. I can not in good conscience believe its sin to repent and divorce and break this ungodly contract.

    2. Not everyone married signs or has a lifetime contract or has this understanding when they get married. Maybe it ancient Jewish times this was so but in the modern atheistic world, we can not impose a contract on someone they never agreed to.

  78. Andrew – is homosexuality “sin” for the non believer? They never agreed to any “God rules” either.

  79. Andrew says:

    MLD, I believe homosexual activity is breaking God’s law and is sin. The law is our tutor to bring us to Christ.

  80. Bob says:

    Andrew:

    You bring up two good points and reveal our cultural bias through them.

    In the day Jesus was challenged about how He interpreted the issue of divorce according to the understanding of the day. Look at how He handled it, He took them to a time before any sort of law and cultural bias existed, the beginning.

    Now jumping to your question or statements:

    1. If something which is a sin, or unlawful in anyway even culturally, happens is the disillusionment of that action a sin or unlawful also? We can’t really approach the issue without creating new laws or approaches to interpreting old ones.

    I believe if Jesus was asked the question about a divorce between two homosexuals his answer would take them back to the beginning and how they were never really “married” in the first place.

    Now if you are speaking clearly from a secular and non-religious position about their divorce then the whole thing, the marriage and the divorce, may have never been a “sin” under the laws of the state. With that as a basis no divorce would be a sin. Since the state can recognize marriage it can also recognize the disillusionment of that marriage.

    2. Not everyone signs a lifetime contract for marriage? Again a state and not God driven idea. See previous paragraph.

    Andrew Jesus’ words, “it wasn’t so in the beginning…” Do you choose words of the state or the words of Jesus? Which ones are most convenient?

    Treat her like a precious vessel!

  81. Bob says:

    Andrew:

    You also ask or stated this:

    “we can not impose a contract on someone they never agreed to.”

    No one is attempting to do so. What we are attempting to do is love God with all our heart mind and power and in doing so we have to address the issues of life and abuse of others. One of the great interpretations of loving our neighbor is to not bring harm to them.

    During the holocaust (and the many others like it) people turned their heads to the evil done to others. Is turning our heads loving others and by doing so are we bringing harm to them?

    Is teaching others it is “OK” and “I have no business telling them it is wrong” bringing harm to others? Yes I do agree I can’t solve anyone’s problems, but in the cloud of my own sin I certainly can’t pass that sin on to others knowingly.

    Divorce is wrong, abuse is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, and so many others things are wrong, but maybe I can help in the clean-up of the carnage these things have brought to others. I can be the one who shows mercy and dresses the wounds of the almost dead guy.

  82. Andrew says:

    Bob, I take the words of Jesus over the words of the state but this is where it gets controversial. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard pastors in particular CC pastors say how important the piece of paper from the state is for your marriage. If you don’t have that piece of paper from the State and you are living with your boyfriend or girlfriend you are in sin. Being married in God’s eyes is not enough for these fundamentalists.

  83. Andrew says:

    Divorce can also be interpreted as separation. Sometimes the separation is temporary and sometimes its permanent. Without a certificate of divorce, how can one tell if the divorce is temporary or permanent? This is a quasi state issue. I believe this may be what Jesus was alluding to when a man separates from his wife but gives her no certificate of divorce? Basically the guy wants it both ways to have his cake and eat it to. With no certificate she would be committing adultery if she lived with another man. The best loving thing this creep could do would be to make it legal so she would be free to move on with her life.

  84. Bob says:

    Andrew:

    “If you don’t have that piece of paper from the State and you are living with your boyfriend or girlfriend you are in sin. Being married in God’s eyes is not enough for these fundamentalists.”

    A marriage is done two ways and both are before the people of your community. To simply say, “we are married in the eyes of God,” is a denial of the role of your community in recognizing the marriage (and it is a justification for having sex by many because they are in “love”).

    There is a difference between being married at the court house and in front of your fellow believers. One is solely a legal and state recognized function and the other is a statement to your brethren. So if your church requires a state license to be married then go with it.

    “Divorce can also be interpreted as separation. Sometimes the separation is temporary and sometimes its permanent. Without a certificate of divorce, how can one tell if the divorce is temporary or permanent? ”

    Again you are trying to make something which isn’t. A divorce is a tearing up or destruction of the covenant made. Yes it is both a legal issue (for the protection of those involved) and God issue. When does God recognize a divorce and why? Yes the text gives us clues.

    The certificate is again both legal and community way of recognizing the two are no longer one. Your separation argument is a bit weak.

    Oh and the Jewish term for divorce is a “get” and to this day has a whole lot of requirements and also limits remarriage in many cases.

    Again it’s complicated and we build laws on laws to protect the innocent. Just stay married and enjoy the bride (or groom) of your youth.

  85. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Bob,

    Your link is the direct, legalist and simple solution to the issue of divorce in the church body. Obviously for Jesus to be asked the question about divorce over 2,000 years ago means it isn’t very simple and to make up a rule based on the direct teaching of Jesus just doesn’t cut it.

    The Hebrew way of teaching isn’t to state the obvious but is designed to make the hearer think. Those actually asking and hearing Jesus’ explanation of divorce were more versed in the nuances of the text than you are.”

    Not so, Bob, but nice try at saying Jesus didn’t really mean what he said, then put your own interpretation on what he clarified to those who were divorcing their spouses for any reason whatsoever.

    ” Because of this the answer isn’t designed to confirm or agree with either of the two interpretations of the day at all, it was made so they would think of the consequences of divorce.”

    Wrong again—–“designed” to confirm or agree with the two interpretations. Jesus didn’t care about how they were interpreting these things because he already knew, therefore, he soundly set them straight in letting them know that you simply cannot divorce your spouse out of convenience, or to trade them off for someone else. And if you did, you would be clearly be setting yourself up to live an adulterous marriage with this person. Jesus was not being wish washy, nor neutral, but made it clear under what circumstances, biblical grounds for divorce was permissible—-unlike what those who inquired and wanted Him to cosign what they had been doing.

    Depending upon why and how you obtained the divorce determines if doing so is a sin. Here’s a popular one that has been going on for awhile. You terrorize and bully your wife, but you only do it when no one else is looking. In the meantime, you keep company, “as friends,” with other female (s) who just happen to live a long ways from the church you attend, but voila, she ends up on being the only person who is not part of the Sat/Sun trip to minister to the kids in Mexico. T

    The spouse contacts her and asks her what or how she is connected to your husband and all she can say is that you don’t have anything in common with friends. You ask her again, and she asked how came to finding her. You then state that it seems odd that she being from Saddleback and suddenly returning from their mission trip in Germany when she had planned to stay longer, suddenly arrives on the doorsteps of your husband’s parents home, along others from his church, to go to Mexico.

    Funny thing in all of this, she’s not the one he’s hiding, although shortly after being contacted, she drops out of the picture for a season. Maybe she believed what this spouse has shared with her regarding the husband’s shannigans. But the deception does not end here, there’s still that issue of the one he has yet to bring out in the open. Hoping his wife will grow tire and then divorce him, so he can then say, “I tried everything possible to reconcile with her.” Which is a lie from the pit, but how would anyone know, and really did they even care, because really—not one person cared enough about him, his wife, or the marriage, or this or that female he messed with, enough to receive the wife with as much respect, dignity, and worth, that they did with him.

    Funny, people think it is ludicrous that he could be hiding anyone—-really, they didn’t even know his wife existed until she finally grew tired of being silenced, alienated, and isolated from the life her husband was building with CC (and these women, along the way), then made herself known as best as she could—by then it was too late, for he had managed to deceive them into believing she is what she is not and to believe that he is what he is not.

    Divorce can be a sin, but not necessarily the sin of husband and wife.
    Divorce can be an ongoing sin when one is in a adulterous marriage.
    Divorce is a sin when it is sought to put away a spouse for convenience, or being inconvenience.
    The act of or the begetting of a divorce is sin when obtain deceptively and without biblical cause.

    And yes, Jesus really did mean what He said.

  86. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I will stick with divorce is a sin and that both people have their own sin in the marriage that makes it fail. One person may carry 90% of the responsibility and one person’s act may be the final straw, but both parties need to go seek forgiveness.

    This isn’t rocket science – but hey, I’m the one here who says I sins in doing good works.

  87. Bob says:

    Uriah:

    “Not so, Bob, but nice try at saying Jesus didn’t really mean what he said, then put your own interpretation on what he clarified to those who were divorcing their spouses for any reason whatsoever.”

    Dude, you need to bone up on the teaching methods of the 2nd Temple period rabbis.

    Oh and I never said Jesus didn’t mean what He said. What I said was He was teaching something other than a law of divorce and remarriage. You, dude, read and heard what you wanted hear. The people Jesus spoke to knew more about the ins and outs of what Torah and tradition taught about divorce.

    You have added a whole lot to what He said in your story. But in the end you don’t seem to really care about the people hurt and sinned against in a divorce. It would seem you are a bit more concerned about the letter of the Law than the results of those who violate it.

    MLD is correct, it is a sin! Simple and straight forward. Now how are you and I going to show mercy to the ones fallen by the side of the road? That is the answer we need!

    And in case you’re wondering my wife and I are in our 40th year of marriage. It has not been without struggle and yes we even spoke the “divorce” word a few times. I am thankful she has put up with me and loves God with all her heart, mind and power. Both of those are the glue which has made our marriage work.

  88. Bob says:

    Uriah:

    Let me point to some things you wrote:

    “he soundly set them straight in letting them know that you simply cannot divorce your spouse out of convenience, or to trade them off for someone else”

    Who wrote the Torah about divorce? Moses.

    Who is Moses according to scripture and why is Jesus saying Moses allowed?

    “Depending upon why and how you obtained the divorce determines if doing so is a sin.”

    Your statement and description are straw men and worthless, just pure justification.

    Also I believe you are describing a former CC pastor from Las Vegas.

    Here’s a really good and simple statement you can take to the bank about divorce:

    “Divorce sucks no matter how it is cut and displayed.”

    Thank you for the exchange, I actually believe it helps sharpen us.
    Have a restful Saturday!

  89. Steve Wright says:

    If divorce is 100%, objectively, always a sin on behalf of both parties involved, then the LORD would never use it to describe His own actions with His OT bride, Israel.

    Divorce is a lot like war (no pun intended). Almost all wars are sinful on behalf of both sides – and I think the Scripture would support that. However, it is possible for God’s people to engage in a just/righteous war. Rare but possible. The LORD’s wars were certainly not sinful. He never calls Himself a God of fornication of thievery. He does not hesitate to call Himself a God of war.

    So too divorce. It is possible to be the justified party in the issuing of the divorce. As the LORD was justified when He did so. He never associates His actions with sin.

  90. Andrew says:

    There is a difference between being married at the court house and in front of your fellow believers. One is solely a legal and state recognized function and the other is a statement to your brethren.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Bob, you are correct and make my point that not all have been married in front of the brethren since some were not even believers when they married. There is a difference in Christian vs. non Christian marriage and there is also a difference in divorce between the two.

  91. Andrew, I asked you earlier what made homosexual actions sinful with non believers – they had agreed to no previous “god rules” just like those married and divorced before becoming believers.
    So, in your case non believing homosexuals are not in sin — right?

  92. Steve,
    “So too divorce. It is possible to be the justified party in the issuing of the divorce.”

    So you would advise this person that they have no reason to go before the Lord, repent and ask forgiveness because they had no fault? Just walk away and don’t look back?

  93. Bob says:

    Steve

    Well you almost got it right. The text you refer to also speaks of sin causing the divorce. And to compare it to human divorce is not really a good means. He is always just and right we are never just and right.

    So yes sin is always involved with divorce and you are only referring to the technical action and not the why a divorce happens.

    Would you not agree divorce technically is the disillusionment of a covenant or agreement between two parties? But the issue I continually point to is the damage which comes with a divorce and that can never be reduced to a technical description.

    Of course Jesus’ disciples nailed it when He taught on marriage from the beginning, it’s probably too hard, so why bother. Using MLDs methods why not just live together and have sex outside of covenant marriage, the OT dudes did it all the time.

    Night, be blessed this New day.

  94. Steve Wright says:

    Don’t know what you are talking about by “repent” MLD. The cheated-upon spouse is the one filing the divorce. To repent would be to stop the process. And if the act of filing for divorce is ALWAYS sinful, then that is exactly what should take place. I disagree as stated above.

    If you are asking if a person’s adultery means the other spouse never has to repent for specific actions of behavior that are also sinful, well that is a totally different situation. However, the fights or whatever else that might have been sinful (and should be repented over) still never give justification before God for the other spouse to commit adultery.

  95. Steve, I am talking after the fact. When the divorce and everything is final.

    To proclaim that someone has righteous right to do something (divorce) with no reflection back on how our own sin nature added contribution, is neglectful on a counselor’s part.

  96. Steve Wright says:

    Bob, I guess God sees adultery as more damaging than divorce. The marriage vow is about sexual faithfulness after all (not promising children or any such thing)

    Let’s use a wild example. A man is perpetually unfaithful. A different woman every other night. Maybe into prostitutes. Risking his health (and of course his wife’s) for STDs. You think a wife should have her kids watch their dad sleep around every weekend and her stay with him because “That’s what Jesus demands??” Sounds like a good way to raise a few atheists – and certainly not something given Scriptural support.

    To MLD’s point, maybe she has some things to apologize for in the marriage, but going to court and getting the divorce is certainly not one of them.

    I use an extreme example (though quite commonplace too) – and note for the record that I do not encourage running to the divorce lawayer at the first admission of unfaithfulness either. Again, my sole point is that if divorce is objectively always sinful (the act itself) than God would not associate Himself with being responsible for doing so….

    Night.

  97. Steve Wright says:

    To proclaim that someone has righteous right to do something (divorce) with no reflection back on how our own sin nature added contribution, is neglectful on a counselor’s part.
    —————————————————————-
    Agreed.

  98. Steve Wright says:

    Meanwhile, the act of intercourse between two unmarried heterosexual people, and/or two homosexuals (whether “married” under today’s new laws or not) is objectively sinful…always…and thus something we never see God associating His own actions with.

    Doesn’t matter if they “love” each other….are engaged…whatever. The first part should be declared to the congregation every time someone decides to declare the homosexual part of that standard.

  99. All divorce is is the legitimizing that 2 people broke their marriage. Perhaps no fault marriage is the way to go – you can’t place fault. Oh, perhaps you can identify the straw that broke the camels back but fault.

  100. Bob says:

    Steve

    Good morning!

    Thanks!

  101. Andrew says:

    MLD, the Bible is clear about marriage if one person is a believer and the other is a non believer. If the non believer wants to go, let them. 1 Corinthians 7:15. Christian marriage is completely different than non Christian marriage. If both become believers, I believe they should stay together and say their oath before the brethren. But this is not what I am talking about. If you want to call it sin with the clear direction the Bible gives the believer, I don’t know what to say.

  102. I have never been divorced, so perhaps I am just talking into my hat and don’t know what I am talking about.

    Come over to open blogging and let’s talk about some dead baseball players. 😉

  103. Steve Wright says:

    Well, I’ve never been divorced either (22 years and counting) and my parents have 59 years together (and counting).

    And a couple weeks ago, discussing the Biblical teaching of marriage, I stated to our congregation that each of the pastors at CCLE have committed to step down from the pastorate if we ever divorced. No matter whose “fault” —– that message is online “for the record” as well.

  104. Michael says:

    Why would “any” divorce automatically disqualify a man for ministry?

  105. Steve Wright says:

    It goes to the point MLD was making. For one of our wives to leave us would speak to SOMETHING wrong on our end…and that would necessitate stepping down from CCLE leadership. (Also something I said when I said this in the message)

    I was not seeking a point in the abstract about divorce and the ministry…but an “in the moment” application specifically appropriate to our church and specifically offered in contrast to what we see in many churches today…CC or otherwise. I also included the responsibility of the people in the church to hold their leadership to that standard and not willfully follow the guy along to the next ministry.

  106. Xenia says:

    Likewise, if an Orthodox priest (we have married clergy) were to be divorced, that’s the end of him being a priest. He goes from Fr. Kyrill to Mr. Smith just like that.

    Even if his wife were to die, he is not allowed to remarry. This prevents him from looking at his parishioners as potential girl friends.

  107. Francisco says:

    Stepping down voluntarily for a 3 to 6 month period is not a bad idea. Stepping down shouldn’t be just for disqualifying reasons, it can actually be a good thing and for the good of the grieving pastor. Any shepherd who loses his wife whether to death or to divorce is vulnerable to falling. This time away from the pulpit is actually an opportunity to seek the Lord, process what has happened, and be ministered to by others during this difficult valley.

    In order to be able to do the above however there must be other biblical elders in the local fellowship that can continue to shepherd the flock among them and minister to the lead pastor in need.

  108. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Bob,

    Your summation of what I said is totally off, particularly when stating:

    ‘ But in the end you don’t seem to really care about the people hurt and sinned against in a divorce. It would seem you are a bit more concerned about the letter of the Law than the results of those who violate it.’

    It is the slicing and dicing that enable people to obtain divorces so liberally. In this, there was little thought of consideration towards those being betrayed and put away so easily, just as we see being done today. Jesus set the standard. Within this standard, people do tend to just look at the term “adultery” and treat it as if it all happens in a vacuum, not considering all the other consequences that comes upon the injured spouse, children, extended family, friends, and community, while they just move on with the next partner, as if they were a tornado that behind them a path of destruction, with little no thought of looking back to help with the devastation created as a result of their choices—not just the adultery, but so much more.

    It is impossible to be a married single spouse. One needs to examine their heart and get honest about just how they are electing or choosing to love their spouse. Loving someone has nothing to do with what that person is or is not doing for you. Not to say that when someone is loving towards you, this doesn’t evoke positive affirmation in you as a person worth their time, and a person who is of value and worth. Just saying that, when you lust after someone else, it has absolutely nothing, nada to do with caring about anyone else exception what may feed and nurture your ego and fantasy. In this, no spouse will ever be able to fulfill “narcissistic” ever, unquenchable hole in such a persons heart.

    Legalistic——–LOL, Hardly, yet not foolish enough to slice and dice things to accommodate that which is meant to be kept holy and precious in His sight, for all to witness and to be made known among the congregation to honor and to protect.

  109. Em says:

    something that troubles me as i read all these thoughts on marriage is the assertion that, if a spouse is unfaithful their husband or wife, as a sinner, is in some way contributory to the transgression, i.e., if a divorce occurs, is it a given that both partners have sinned? … that’s nuts IMHO … it’s a false humility calculated to make one look good IMNSHO

    many a spouse has been ‘courted’ out of a marriage by an outsider looking for a mate or a conquest – was Tullian’s wife the object of such a predator? was Tullian, himself? … IMV, we are way too easy on the 3rd party in these situations …
    and as i see it, Christian or not, there are many opportunities to do as Joseph did and flee … nobody is irresistible until one goes past the point of no return … maybe, we need more education on when to stop drinking the wine … and where to drink in the first place

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.