We are so glad you have joined us for some insightful, Holy Spirit inspired latest teaching from Pastor Fred Aguilar on marriage.....
Pastor Fred on "No-Fault Divorce".....04/2010
On questions relating to the Bible's treatment of
family and morals, one might expect assurance, if not
rigidity, from Evangelical Christianity. So, it may surprise
many to learn how "alive" the topic of divorce remains in
Evangelical circles. Last month, the cover story of the
monthly Christianity Today was titled "When to
Separate What God has joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible
on Divorce." The heated controversy provoked by the story
showed how Biblically flexible some Evangelicals can be -
especially when God's word seems at odds not just with
modern American behavior, but also with simple human
kindness.
As the article's author, the British Evangelical scholar David
Instone-Brewer, points out, for most of 2,000 years
Christians have viewed divorce through two scriptural
citations. In Matthew, the Pharisees ask Christ, "Is it
lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" Jesus
refers to the Old Testament and then replies, "Whoever
divorces a wife, except for sexual indecency, commits
adultery." The apostle Paul adds in the book First
Corinthians that a Christian is "not bound" to a
non-Christian spouse who abandons him. Simple, right?
Instone-Brewer radically
reinterprets the first passage using, of all things,
quotation marks. The Greek of the New Testament didn't
always contain them, and scholars agree that sometimes they
must be added in to make sense of it. Instone-Brewer, an
expert in Jewish thought during Jesus’ era, writes that
Christ's interlocutors were not asking him whether there was
any cause at all for divorce, but whether he supported
something called "any-cause" divorce, a term a little bit
like "no-fault" that allowed husbands to divorce wives for
any reason at all. Instone-Brewer claims Jesus’ "no" was a
response to this idea, and that his "except for sexual
indecency" condition was not a statement of the sole
exemption from God's blanket prohibition, but merely
Christ's reiteration of one of several divorce permissions
in the Old Testament - one he felt the "any-time" advocates
had exaggerated. Finally, Instone-Brewer tallies four
grounds for divorce he finds affirmed in both Old and New
Testaments: adultery, emotional and sexual neglect,
abandonment (by anyone) and abuse.
Christianity Today
has written previously on divorce, often bemoaning how easy
it is in today's
Each branch of Christianity deals
with divorce in its own way: Catholicism bans it entirely,
but many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find
that their conscience permits them to take Communion.
Liberal Protestantism accepted divorce some decades ago
without much engagement of the scriptural issue.
Evangelicals define themselves as being tightly bound by
scripture. But besides the humanitarian problem, there are
some uncomfortable facts on the ground: The divorce rate
among Evangelicals, which first became news after polls
released by the Barna Research
Group in 2001, has been as high or higher than the
national average.
The Evangelical movement has
actually made tremendous accommodations given the strictures
it lives under. Ministries for the newly divorced are common
at mega churches; and on the historically less-rigid
Pentecostal side of the spectrum, celebrity preachers
Juanita Bynum and Paula White both recently
announced on Yahoo and Goolge their
intention to divorce. Most experts interviewed for
this story attested that whereas 30 years ago, a pastor
might well order a battered woman home to return to her
husband, which is rare today.
More conservative Evangelicals
remain uneasy about divorce. If a split itself is
inescapable, notes Christianity Today editor Andy
Crouch, "remarriage is where the rubber meets the road," and
many remarried couples find themselves denied church
membership says Russel Moore, dean of the 16.3
million-member Southern Baptist Convention's influential
Southern Seminary, "We teach our future pastors that
marriage is a lifelong, one-flesh union." Any woman in an
abusive marriage should "leave that situation," he
acknowledges, and a "majority" probably accept remarriage.
Asked if he does,
Evangelical conflict on the topic
was obvious in reader response to the Instone Brewer essay.
Initially the mail was heavily negative. The most stinging
broadside was a column by John
Piper, a respected theological conservative, that
called the essay not just weak but "tragic." The magazine's
editor in chief, David Neff, felt the need to explain online
that "Instone-Brewer's article did not... give people carte
blanche on divorce." The mail eventually leveled off at 60%
negative to 40% positive.
Still, the controversy suggests
that even the country's most rule-bound Christians will
search for a fresh understanding of scripture when it seems
unjust to them. The implications? Flexibility on divorce may
mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on
such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians
far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into
power. (The ever-active Barna folks have found that 57% of
"born-again" Christians age 16-29 criticize their own church
for being "anti-homosexual.") It could also give heart to a
certain twice-divorced former
In September of 2004 by the Barna
Group in an article entitled Born Again Christians Just
As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians? In 2004,
people that claimed to know Christ as Lord and Savior don’t
do any better at staying married than non-believers.
Biblical teaching, or do we simply ignore it? The Bible clearly teaches us that remarriage while a previous spouse remains alive is adultery (See Luke 16:18; Mark 10:3-12; Rom. 7:3; I Cor. 7:39). But these teachings, reflecting our covenants with our mates, are roundly ignored in favor of our confusion over the “exception clauses” in Matthew. How is the ole “exception clause” strategy working in the Evangelical Church? The answer is a 39% divorce rate, two percentage points above the atheist and the agnostics. Christian, if that doesn’t boil your blood, check for a pulse.
Jeremiah 3:14-15 “Return, O
backsliding children,” says the LORD; “for I am married to
you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family,
and I will bring you to Zion. And I will give you shepherds
according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and
understanding.”
“Hey Jesus... this woman of yours
is too wacked out. You deserve better than this.
She is breaking the covenant right and left. There isn't one
point where she has kept the oath she made. She's already
got the divorce papers ready and has a ring from that dude
down the street, and it is one hunk of a diamond. I've
even heard she is already stepping out on him too, but he
doesn't know it yet. Jesus, I know this really is hurting
you a lot. I can't even imagine but the best thing to do is
forget about her. It is over with. You need to get
totally over her. There are so many other women
out there that are waiting for a faithful man like you. Oh,
I'm sorry to be the first to tell you this; I heard she is
pregnant from the dude with the diamond. I am just
saying this is way too much of a cross for you to bear and I
just don't think God wants you tied to her with the way she
is betraying you. You know she actually deserves a
death sentence!”
“Peter, Shut up! Your ways are
not My Ways and your thoughts are not My Thoughts.
Right now Satan is trying to use you to try to keep Me from
what I know to be the reality of My purpose. You
have a man-centered opinion and I have My Father's Glory on
My Mind. My Father has shown me fully how to
handle this matter and I will not betray His Heart or His
Character. Listen well, I made a blood covenant with
My Bride and no matter what she does, I am faithful to My
Word. Nothing she can do will change that. I
covenanted to her until death do we part. Only her
death could eternally separate her from me if she doesn't
return to Me. Until then I stand true and will love
her and say to her "Return to me for I am married to you.”
Even if she has another's child and marries him My Father
calls it adultery. You see My Father already showed me how
He handled this. There was a time hundreds of years ago His
chosen people so betrayed his love, they went out and had
sexual affairs all over the place. They even married the
daughters of those who served foreign gods. It became so bad
that they even sacrificed their children to these foreign
gods. My Father’s Heart was broken and the pain was so
severe. But My Father had made covenant with His
people and His love endured all pain and suffering. He
chose some Holy men named Hosea, Jeremiah, Malachi and a few
more to pour out His Heart through to show us the depth of
His response to His people.”
“Jeremiah learned from Hosea what
the Bridal love of God is all about. Then Jeremiah
went through the wringer with God. Jeremiah was My
Father's confidant and he told us about the pain and the
agony of the Father's Heart. Then Jeremiah would tell
about his own pain and agony. The situation was just
as bad as it gets. Of course Jeremiah was told by My
Father to write it all down so we can always have the record
of what My Father expressed. It is all divided into
chapters and the third chapter of Jeremiah's journal tells
it all. In the first sentence My Father says back in
the Law of Moses there is a saying that if a man divorces
his wife and puts her away and she goes to another and He
doesn't like her either and put's her away that it would be
an abomination for the first husband to take her back. Then
My Father says what He is going to repeat time and time
again. “Even though this is an abomination, I am willing to
take on this abomination out of My great love and covenant
with you and I say, return to Me for I am married to you!”
Eight verses later it tells how My Father had to even give a
certificate of divorce to Israel and put her away BUT three
verses later My Father pours out His Heart to Israel and
says, “Return to Me for I am married to you.”
Peter, you see, even with the divorce it was never a
permanent matter of cutting off the one He loved and
covenanted with forever. He was not remarrying another
and always open and calling for her to return. Even with
what is called a divorce Father held the stance that they
were still married. He was willing to not harden His Heart
and He doesn't want us to harden our Hearts
either. Peter, I am following My Father's example and My
people are to follow My example.” (Jeremiah 3)
In the case of so-called
"no-fault" divorce, however, legislators and governors
should have been able to know a disaster when they saw one,
but they didn't. State after state began adopting "no-fault"
measures in answer to demands that divorce be made "more
humane."
By the middle of the 1970s, the
battle was largely over. States adopted no-fault divorce
laws citing various rationales, including the unclogging of
courts burdened with contested divorce proceedings. No-fault
laws enabled one spouse to seek a divorce, acting
unilaterally. These statutes only required that one spouse
declare the marriage irretrievably broken.
Previous to this, divorce was
considered a matter of far greater social importance and
common concern. Marriage was considered the bedrock
institution of society and divorce was seen as a subversion
of society, as well as the breakup of a marriage. Under this
system, divorces required legal cause -- some ground
recognized in law as constituting an adequate reason for the
dissolution of a marriage. A spouse could fight the divorce
and contest the grounds offered by the spouse who sued for
divorce.
Under no-fault divorce, no ground
is necessary. By definition, there is no fault ascribed to
either spouse -- fault is no longer considered to be of
legal or societal importance.
Demanded by those who claimed
that no-fault divorce would be more humane, the laws
actually allowed two very different (but entirely
foreseeable) results, and both are disastrous. The first is
the fact that no-fault divorce has allowed millions of men
to abandon their families and leave their children and
former wives to poverty. The statistics are clear enough --
men who divorce their wives and no longer live with their
children generally improve their standard of living over the
next few years. The family left behind generally has the
opposite experience, with children and former wives living
at significantly reduced income levels.
The second result is almost the
opposite of the first. No-fault divorce has also allowed
women to end the marriage unilaterally, usually retaining
primary custodial authority over the children. In such
situations, men -- who are not even charged with any fault
by their wives -- can find themselves robbed of their own
children. No state has yet remedied the unjust assault on
fatherhood that no-fault divorce set loose.
In times past, contested divorces
may have clogged the courts and entailed acrimony, but can
anyone really justify the pain and emotional carnage caused
by no-fault divorce laws? Add to these ills the continued
cultural subversion of marriage aided and abetted by
no-fault divorce. One other angle on this tragedy is often
missed -- an entire industry has grown up around divorce,
with divorces proving very lucrative for many attorneys and
legal professionals.
All that is what makes a legislative move in
Michigan so interesting. State Senator Michelle McManus has
emerged as the sole sponsor of a bill that would repeal
no-fault divorce in that state.
Since 1972 Michigan's 'no fault'
divorce law has required only that one spouse say 'there has
been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent
that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there
remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be
preserved.
Under McManus's proposal, specific grounds would
have to be both alleged and proved in order for a divorce to
be granted.
As expected, many divorce lawyers adamantly oppose
the move. Michael A. Robbins, president of the Michigan
Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,
said: "You can't legislate morality and you can't force
people to stay together if they don't want to stay
together." Of course, that statement ignores the fact that
no-fault laws also "legislate morality" -- just in the form
of a moral undermining of marriage as an institution. As a
matter of fact, most laws are passed for the expressed
purpose of "legislating morality."
No-fault divorce laws put the entire society at
fault for weakening and injuring the most basic institution
of human life and culture. There is plenty of fault to go
around on this one.
Observers of Michigan politics argue that Michelle
McManus's bill has little hope of passage. She is running
for the office of Michigan's Secretary of State, and one
defender of no-fault divorce simply charged her with
pandering to voters.
That seems unlikely. There simply is not enough
public opposition to no-fault statutes as yet. If anything,
Michelle McManus's proposed bill may be a sign that a public
debate on the effects of no-fault divorce might be taking
shape. If so, this can only be for good. Let's hope that
this bill sends the message that at least one state might
muster the courage to rethink no-fault divorce.
The fact is, this legal practice
has wrought untold human suffering and injustice since its
establishment in 1969. It is an evil that exists in
active opposition to the principles of God's kingdom. As
Christians, we are commissioned to oppose what is evil in
the advance of Christ's kingdom (see
Luke 19:13). So the abolition of a policy that has
systematically undermined our society's commitment to the
divine plan for the family seems perfectly consistent with
the admonition to "seek first the kingdom."
Throughout history, Christians have fought against
countless social evils from slavery to child labor and these
battles inevitably began with a campaign of sustained public
persuasion that exposed the hidden evils to a public largely
unaware. Similarly, no-fault divorce has become so
commonplace that its evil is either obscured or ignored. But
the availability of no-fault divorce has served to increase
family dissolution at a rate greater than ever before in
history; furthermore, it undermines the institution of
marriage itself, perhaps more so than any other single
factor in history. We would not be standing on the brink
of same-sex marriage were it not for the corrosive effect
upon marriage-as-an-institution that followed the divorce
revolution.
No-fault is national catastrophe.
Anything which overturns the order or systems of things
whereby families are destroyed and the whole of society
adversely affected is by definition a catastrophe."
You may be surprised to learn that the initial
efforts to advance no-fault divorce legislation were
underwritten by Hugh Hefner through the Playboy Foundation,
which financed an army of young lawyers working to advance
these antifamily policies. Let's see…America's largest
pornographer working to rewrite public policy related to the
family? There's something seriously wrong with this picture!
Alfred Kinsey also played an instrumental role in reducing
these legal protections by falsely reporting that adultery
was commonplace in most marriages. This reduced the stigma
associated with adultery and ultimately served as the basis
for eliminating all laws against adultery. Hefner and Kinsey
both saw marriage as the final barrier to sexual freedom and
thus determined to No-fault divorce is much more than just
divorce; it is a legal tyranny that denies the fundamental
right of due process to a defendant. Prior to no-fault
divorce, the party seeking divorce (plaintiff) was required,
by law, to demonstrate cause on the part of the other party
(defendant) prior to dissolving the marriage, dividing the
family's assets, and destroying the two-parent structure
essential for children. These measures provided strong legal
protections—primarily to women and children who might
otherwise find themselves abandoned by husbands and fathers
who simply sought "greener pastures." (You might think
me overly hard on men here. Granted, both men and women can
be guilty of abandoning marriages; however, statistically
speaking, women and children are most often the victims.)
Under the system prior to no-fault divorce, the
state was limited in its actions and intrusion into the
private affairs of the family except in those cases in which
one of the parties committed a legally recognized offense
against the other. In the wake of no-fault divorce, the
state has been given unprecedented access into and
unconstitutional authority over what was previously
sacrosanct: the family. Historically, the law regarded the
family as a preserve of privacy that was largely off-limits
to the government. It was what Supreme Court Justice Byron
White (1962-1993) called the "realm of family life, which
the state cannot enter."
What is most shocking about no-fault divorce is the
inherent unconstitutionality of it all, a direct violation
of human rights. A retired circuit court judge writes, "To
the characterization of no-fault divorce laws as both
ungodly and inhumane I would add unconstitutional as well."
In my conversation with attorney J. Shelby Sharpe he was
confident that if a case involving no-fault divorce were
ever brought before the U.S. Supreme Court it would no doubt
be ruled unconstitutional and no-fault divorce abolished!
One of our most fundamental protections secured by
the U.S. Constitution is the right to due process,
which secures the right of an individual to be heard
regarding issues of life, liberty, or property. This means
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
property, or of any right granted him by statute, unless the
matter involved is first adjudicated or ruled against him at
trial.
No-fault divorce completely usurps the defendant's
constitutional right to due process. In the case of Judith
Brumbaugh, author of Judge, Please Don't Strike That
Gavel on My Marriage, with whom I spoke, her husband of
twenty years had an adulterous affair, formed a relationship
with the other woman, and decided that he no longer wanted
to be married. Under the no-fault procedure he was able to
file for divorce claiming that their marriage was
"irretrievably broken." Judith contested this claim, hoping
to preserve her marriage; however the no-fault procedure
ultimately gave her husband and the court the right to deny
her due process. She was, in essence, charged with a crime,
found guilty, and sentenced without ever being heard. The
marriage contract was unilaterally dissolved.
Judith lost her home, her children, and her
husband; she was left nearly destitute from legal expenses
and utterly without recourse—which is legally impossible in
every other contractual obligation in this country! And yet
in the most important contractual obligation in society,
under no-fault divorce the plaintiff is able to break his or
her contractual obligation without the right of due process
being given to the other party in the contract. The
defendant's life can be ruined, her liberty restrained in
countless ways, and her property taken away by the courts. I
know, and I'm sure you do as well, too many women and
children who have suffered similar results.
This is a travesty of justice that affects more
than a million families each and every year, with an annual
related cost to taxpayers of more than $48 billion! This
cost doesn't even begin to consider the secondary societal
effects of family dissolution upon crime rates, welfare
rolls, and the emotional and psychological effects upon the
children of divorce. No-fault divorce has created an easy
divorce culture, which, according to Maggie Gallagher, an
affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values and a
nationally syndicated columnist, "demotes marriage from a
binding relation into something best described as
cohabitation with insurance benefits."
By now, any observer with a modicum of moral
insight is aware that marriage is an institution in crisis.
Nevertheless, one of the most significant factors
contributing to this crisis is often overlooked, and that
one factor has led to the breakup of more marriages than any
other--no-fault divorce.
America's embrace of easy divorce is the most
significant reason that marriage is now threatened and, by
some measures, hanging by a thread.
No-fault divorce laws emerged in the United States
during the 1970s and quickly spread across the nation. Even
though only nine states had no-fault divorce laws in 1977,
by 1995, every state had legalized no-fault divorce
Became the most devastating weapon in the arsenal
of feminism, because it creates millions of gender battles
on the most personal level." As far back as 1947, the
National Association of Women Lawyers [NAWL] was pushing for
what we now know as no-fault divorce. More recently, NAWL
claims credit for the divorce revolution, describing it as
"the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken."
The feminists and NAWL were not working alone, of
course. Baskerville explains that the American Bar
Association "persuaded the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws [NCCUSL] to produce the
Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act." Eventually, this led to a
revolution in law and convulsions in society at large. This
legal revolution effectively drove a stake into the heart of
marriage itself, with inevitable consequences. In effect,
no-fault divorce has become the catalyst for one of the most
destructive cultural shifts in human history. Now, no-fault
divorce is championed by many governments in the name of
human rights, and America's divorce revolution is spreading
around the world under the banner of "liberation."
Baskerville gets right to the heart of the matter,
labeling no-fault divorce as a "misnomer." In reality, the
"no-fault" language was taken from the world of automobile
insurance. These new divorce laws did not really remove
fault from the context of divorce, but they "did create
unilateral and involuntary divorce, so that one spouse may
end a marriage without any agreement or fault by the other."
As Baskerville explains, "Moreover, the spouse who divorces
or otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no
liability for the cost or consequences, creating a unique
and unprecedented legal anomaly."
In many cases, the reality is even worse. In
effect, no-fault divorce means that the courts now assist
the violator of marriage vows. Any spouse can now demand a
divorce for any reason and be assured that the courts will
award the divorce--and will often grant disproportionate
favor to the party seeking the divorce.
No-fault divorce means that legislators created an
"automatic outcome" in issues of divorce. "A defendant is
automatically found 'guilty' of irreconcilable differences
and is not allowed a defense,"
No-fault divorce laws actually assume that both
parties are equally at fault, since no party could be
innocent. The perverse assumption inherent in this argument
is that if any individual is unhappy, someone else must
necessarily be at fault. Once no-fault divorce became a
reality, spouses found themselves simply informed of the
fact that their marriage was effectively over. Many of these
spouses were not even aware that the marriage was in
trouble--and trouble is not even necessary.
Why did all this happen? How could an institution
as fundamental and basic as marriage become transformed in
less than a decade's time? Baskerville insists that no-fault
divorce laws were not demanded by the public. "No popular
clamor to dispense with divorce restrictions preceded their
passage; no public outrage at any perceived injustice
provided the impetus; no public debate was ever held in the
media." As Baskerville summarizes: "In retrospect, these
laws can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in
history. The result effectively abolished marriage as a
legal contract. As a result, it's no longer possible to form
a binding agreement to create a family."
Divorce--once a matter of shame and tragedy--is now
celebrated as a positive good. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead has
documented the rise of what she calls "expressive divorce."
Spouses simply assert a right to self-interest and
self-actualization as a sufficient basis for abandoning a
husband or wife, and even children. The "rights talk"
lamented by Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon now
replaces serious moral discourse, and those seeking a
divorce can simply claim a supposed "right" to divorce
without any basis for justification.
A basic dishonesty on the question of divorce
pervades our political culture. Baskerville cites Michigan
governor Jennifer Granholm as referring to divorce as a
couple's "private decision." Granholm's comments came as she
vetoed a bill intended to reform divorce law in her state.
The danger and dishonesty of referring to divorce as a
couple's "private decision" is evident in the fact that this
supposedly private decision imposes a reality, not only on
the couple, but also on children and the larger society.
Indeed, the "private decision" is really not made by a
couple at all--but only by any spouse demanding a divorce.
Perversely, the parent who demands the divorce "is
also the one most likely to retain custody" of children,
Baskerville laments. He suggests that no-fault divorce
"amounts to a public seizure of the innocent spouse's
children and invasion of his or her parental rights,
perpetrated by our governments and using our tax dollars."
As if all that isn't bad enough, divorce has now
become an industry. Some lawyers and law firms specialize in
divorce practice, and Baskerville describes the legal
divorce business as "a multibillion-dollar industry" in
which a vast number of persons hold a vested interest. He
writes: "The political interests that abolish marriage in
the first place have only grown more wealthy and powerful
off the system they created," adding: "Divorce and custody
are the cash cow of the judiciary and directly employ a host
of federal, state, and local officials, plus private
hangers-on. More largely, the societal ills left by broken
families create further employment and power for even larger
armies of officials. So entrenched has divorce become within
our political economy, and so diabolical is its ability to
insinuate itself throughout our political culture, that even
critics seem to have developed a stake in having something
to bemoan. Hardly anyone has an incentive to bring it under
control."
That's where the Christian church must enter the
picture and provide leadership. Where are our pastors on the
question of divorce? Why are so many pulpits silent on this
issue? The obvious answer is fear and intimidation. Divorce
has become so common that many Christian leaders fear
creating a tidal wave of offense and resentment if they deal
honestly with the issue--or address it at all. Accordingly,
successive generations of Christians have now grown to
adulthood believing that divorce is simply a lifestyle
option. Where is the recognition that divorce is an affront
to the glory of God and a sin that is expressly described in
the Bible as an evil that God hates?
Without clear leadership from the pulpit, the issue
of divorce has simply fallen through the cracks of church
life, and many congregations effectively ignore divorce in
their midst, as well as all the tragedy and brokenness that
follow. In so doing, the Christian church has become
complicit with the divorce culture and will bear God's
judgment for its failure of nerve.
We cannot expect this society to take us seriously
as defenders of marriage if we are not the enemies of
divorce.
Pastor Fred on "Adultery of the Mind".....04/2010
1) Do I look pure on the outside to everyone else — but in
reality have I merely settled on a middle ground somewhere
between paganism and obedience to God’s standard?
2) Do I get any sexual gratification from anyone or anything
other than my wife?
If you do, then you aren’t keeping yourself and your
marriage bed “undefiled” as the Bible tells us to do. I
don’t know one true Christ follower who doesn’t WANT to be a
man of sexual integrity. Yet at the same time I believe most
Christian men struggle greatly in this area of their lives.
First, I had to personally come to realize that I cannot mix
God’s standard for sexual integrity with my own — because
mine will always fall short of God’s. It isn’t a matter of
“what I can and can’t get away with” in what I allow my eyes
and mind to focus on, but rather staying away from
everything that even hints at being wrong.
Why even go there? What’s the point of “playing so close to
the edge?”
Is that kind of behavior something that would please God?
Is it a place where God would want to go with you?
Where there is too much confidence in your own strength as
well as reckless regard for the consequences, a fall is very
likely.
Obtaining even a hint of sexual gratification from a woman
by writing to her, talking to her, viewing her in real life
or in pictures, on the computer or any other form where you
would be embarrassed if Jesus were with you, is a form of
adultery Ephesians 5:3-5
Yes, if you are a child of God, He IS with you.
“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ
himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite
them with a prostitute (or a woman that you are viewing as
if she were one)? Never! Do you not know that he who unites
himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is
said, ‘The two will become one flesh” 1 Corinthians 6:15-16
The Bible tells us to flee from immorality (as the Bible
says that Joseph did when tempted by Potifar’s wife). We’re
told to “throw off everything that hinders and the sin that
so easily entangles.” And anything or anyone that we allow
for even a brief time to sexually entertain us, apart from
our wife or husband that we don’t flee from entangles us
into sinning. And make no mistake about it, this type of sin
is addicting. Experts say that it is “the fastest growing
addiction in the world, and is the addiction of choice among
Christians.
How tragic! It’s one of the reasons so many outside of the
church point to us as a bunch of hypocrites. And it has to
be angering and breaking the heart of God. As God’s
children, we’re God’s Holy Temple, so whatever dirt we bring
into our lives, we’re throwing at God as well.
“Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits
are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against
his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of
the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from
God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price.
Therefore honor God with your body” 1 Corinthians 6:18-20
So don’t try to normalize any sexual behavior that dishonors
God and your spouse —justifying it as “harmless” or “only
natural” or saying that it “isn’t a big deal” — because it
is a big deal. You give the enemy of our faith a foothold
every time you entertain your sexual appetite apart from
enjoying your spouse alone in your sexuality.
I personally made the decision a number of years ago to flee
from feeding this type of behavior. It’s a continual battle,
but it’s worth it. For me, that means turning away from TV,
media ads, and any images that are the least bit suggestive.
It means that I “starve” my eyes to such an extent that
whenever a woman or an image of a woman begins to tempt me
to think impure thoughts, I instantly remove my eyes and my
mind away from it as many times as it takes until it is
gone. It’s a matter of starving that which I don’t want to
grow. I only want to feed that which is beneficial to the
health of my marriage and my spiritual life.
If I look like a fool to others, I don’t care. I’m not
viewed as a fool to those most important to me — my God and
my wife. I came to realize that holiness and purity are
achieved by a series of choices that I make every day.
For me, the choices that help me are
(1) “To set no vile
thing before my eyes” Psalm 101:3) and
(2) “To put to death
sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires”
Colossians 3:5-6
I pray you will join me in making the choice to live
according to God’s standards for purity.
a)
Become accountable with someone you know will hold your feet
to the fire over this serious matter.
b) Search for the help God can bring your way for a “way of
escape” when you are faced with temptation.
c)
Stay in the Word and pray for grace to keep you strong in
the battle.
d)
And above all else, pray for purity as David did in Psalm
51:10, “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a
steadfast spirit within me.”
Sisters don’t condemn yourselves. A husband will work hard
at convincing his wife and others that the addiction [to
pornography] is her fault. He does this to lessen his own
guilt, but don’t subscribe to such thinking. Beating
yourself up is nonproductive and pointless. It also invites
self-pity and therefore sin.”
“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus” Romans 8:1
God doesn’t want us to condemn ourselves. Neither does He
want us to deceive ourselves into thinking we’re perfect. We
should always be open to correction and change, but God’s
way of achieving transformation is through LOVING
instruction, not brutal condemnation.
How are you doing with the battle in your mind? Are you
refusing to ‘compare’ and ‘condemn?’ Are you thinking right?
If so, you’re free to begin ‘doing.’ The first item on the
‘to do list’ is to increase your understanding and its
dangers.”
Husbands and wives: We pray you will flee from sexual
temptation and sin, do what you can to sexually enjoy each
other only, refrain from even the “appearance of evil” and
educate yourselves on these matters. Do it for your sake and
also to someday help to educate your children before their
minds become exposed to things that can draw them into such
addictions that can ruin their lives and marriages. Keep the
faith and the love in your marriage.
More to come.....
E-mail: info@inloveforever.org