John Edwards has and had that “all American” look about him: clean-cut, polished, distinguished … and he talked all the things Americans like and need to hear.
So, when the news of his sexual liaison came out this week, I was disappointed. He was and is human after all, like all the rest of us. I don’t believe a word of his story about how the affair took place, when it started, and that the love child is not his. But that’s not my concern. All that is done in the dark comes out. It always does …
What I’m concerned about is Elizabeth Edwards, and in fact all women who deal with unfaithful husbands. Over and over, I have seen women in my office for pastoral counseling, hearts broken because of an unfaithful spouse, convinced that the Bible tells them they must stay and forgive their husbands.
The Bible does say forgive. It says nothing about staying.
And funny, the men who have cheating wives never seem to be bound by the same theological directive. They come angry and indignant, and decry the audacity of their wives to have cheated on them. I never get from them the sense … or the statement … that they should forgive their wives OR stay with them. If divorcing their wives mean they will go to hell, then, that’s life.
It’s the women – taught very well by men – who come thinking that they must forgive their husbands and that forgiving means “stay.”
There is, in other words, this huge double standard. What? Are there two gods, one for the men and another for the women, with separate instructions for each?
Who is the author? Is there a link?
I think the decision on trying to save a marriage or leaving, where there has been adultery but no abuse of the spouse, is very personal and nobody else’s business. Throwing out a lifetime marriage because a husband has had a mid-life episode of sinful behavior is not necessarily the right call. It depends upon the interior relationship of the marriage, which may or may not be reflected in the news reports.
Jesus did not “recommend” divorce in any case. If you read the “exception” clause in Matt 19:9 in the Greek, it mentions divorce in the case of “porneia,” not “moicheia.” (“Moichea” is the word that is translated adultery; “porneia” refers to fornication.) That “exception” clause most likely refers to the fiancee or fiance, who at that time in Jewish culture was considered as good as married. See the story of Joseph and Mary for an example.
Jesus DOES command us to forgive – both men and women.
[blockquote]And funny, the men who have cheating wives never seem to be bound by the same theological directive. They come angry and indignant, and decry the audacity of their wives to have cheated on them.[/blockquote]
This is simply not true. It’s inclusion in her remarks makes clear the axe that Susan K. Smith is grinding.
The line “(The Bible) says nothing about staying” seems to give the aggrieved party a blank check to leave. Rev. Smith doesn’t seem to be aware that there is simply too much divorce nowadays. In the absence of abuse, if either partner wants to “stay and forgive” we should support them not second-guess them!!!
I’m curious to know when Rev. Smith thinks divorce is acceptable from a Christian perspective. It is hard to agree on appropriate “pastoral†advice when you are starting from radically different theological/ethical foundations (c.f. gays and lesbians).
From here:
http://tinyurl.com/5e33uv
Susan K. Smith is the senior pastor of Advent United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio and obviously hates Evangelicals:
[blockquote] I have one question I would ask both Senators Obama and McCain, if I had the chance, and that is, why? Why have you consented to sit in a church, an evangelical megachurch at that, to answer questions from that church’s pastor, Rick Warren?
* * *
Are you pimping the American religious community? Is your quest for the presidency so intense that you will do anything, even muddy the so-called separation between church and state? [/blockquote]
from her next column, here: http://tinyurl.com/63bjey
I found it interesting that she put the word moral in scare quotes while passing over the phrase “love child.” This woman has obviously forgotten the meaning of love. If anything, this child was conceived in the passion of lust and is an illegitimate child.
The little girl should not be stigmatized for the sins of the mother and father, but we shouldn’t just blithely use a euphemism like “love child.”
Thank you, William P. Sulik. A feminist UCC minister is not someone whose opinion I need be much concerned about. Many people, often from the other political spectrum, blamed Hillary Clinton for not divorcing Bill. From my perspective that would have been more rational, since this was not a one-time affair but a long-standing pattern. But the decision belongs to the wife and husband and not to the public.
“And funny, the men who have cheating wives never seem to be bound by the same theological directive.”
really, never ever? i have seen plenty of men who stay with wives that have cheated even as an ongoing pattern. she must not have ministered to that many people in order to categorize all men in the same way. besides that, and i know that she probably has not thought of this, maybe they actually LOVE their spouses and want to work through whatever the problem is.
#2 Interesting take, Helen; I never heard that position presented, and yes, I have read numerous ‘takes’ on what might be the proper understanding of Matt. 19:9.
I would think, however, if one is has justification for divorce for fornication (“porneia”, as you have pointed out), that there would be even greater justification for divorce if the even more egregious sin of adultery was committed. In other words, the more general term porneia would certainly take in adultery.
That aside, I agree that Jesus never “recommended” divorce; quite the contrary. The whole tone & tenor of Jesus teachings in Matt.19 & Mark 10 bear out His view about the permanence of the marriage bond as having been established from the beginning. This seems to have been a response to the almost cavaliere attitude adopted by some even within the Jewish culture (different schools of Rabbinic thought during the time of Christ had different takes on the exact meaning of Deut. 24, ranging from quite liberal to quite stringent). Needless to say, John the Baptist lost his life over the issue of divorce & re-marriage, and the Holy Spirit was quite strident in His condemnation of unchaste behavior through the prophets-and not just Malachi.
Agreed [3] and [7]. That would not be my experience either. I think the perception that this is a “bad man” issue is fed by the fact that it has been male politicians who have made the recent public statements about their infidelities, and by people like Ms. Smith who have a political agenda to feed. That is not to say that there may not be differences in the way many people perceive infidelity by husbands v. infidelity by wives, but it cannot be summed up as forgive the straying husband but cast out the straying wife. Certainly that is not a Christian perspective. God calls each of us to faithfulness in marriage and many, men and women, fall short. Framing it as a men v. women issue is useful to those who make a living from controversy, but not helpful or accurate to anyone else.
Within a truly Christian context there is a pretty decent case to be made that divorce [i]may[/i] be acceptable in situations of:
Abandonment, Abuse, Addiction, and Adultery.
Whether or not divorce would be the [i]best[/i] course of action for a Christian cannot really be determined apart from deep consultation between the aggrieved party and a competent Christian counselor.
It seems to me that Christians might be able to make better use (than is currently so) of a legal separation the principal purpose of which is to establish manoeuvring room within which both parties might attempt a durable reconciliation arising from genuine and [i]lasting[/i] changes of behaviour.
Bart Hall,
I would like to know more about this:
[blockquote] Within a truly Christian context there is a pretty decent case to be made that divorce may be acceptable in situations of:
Abandonment, Abuse, Addiction, and Adultery. [/blockquote]
I know, of course, about scriptural reasons for divorce in case of adultery, but I am wondering about your reasons for the other three.
Abandonment comes from 1 Cor 7:12-16. I suppose abuse and addiction are in a way similar to abandonment.
Centuries ago, it was possible to be divorced, in the eyes of the Roman Church, but not free to be remarried. It would be a form of legal separation. I think that that is still part of the Roman view — although annulments clear the way for remarriage, since (although a legal marriage had existed) there was no sacramental marriage to begin with.
Helen, #2, I have heard that “porneia” included adultery, but was not limited to it — it was a general way of speaking of sexual wrongdoing, and would include adultery and fornication. The Jews were very protective of marriage and had a strong position against sex outside marriage — in contrast to nearly every other culture in the Mediterranean world.