Pete Wilson and Cross Point Church: Until There is Truth, Lessons Will Not Be Learned

“The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution.” ― J.K. Rowling link

screen-shot-2016-10-24-at-7-31-06-pm

Pray for Cross Point Church

Question: What did the average Cross Point person know about Pete Wilson?

  • How many people in Nashville, along with the rest of the world, have heard about the successes of Cross Point Church and its beloved, former pastor, Pete Wilson?
  • How many people were asked by friends to attend this very cool church to learn about the Jesus?
  • How many books did Pete Wilson write and sell that extolled the virtues of Cross Point Church?
  • How many church members were asked to give their hard earned money to support the ministry of this church?
  • How many folks knew how much money Pete Wilson was making as head pastor?
  • How many people thought their pastor and church was a cut above other churches in town or even in the United States?
  • How many couples wanted to have a marriage just like Pete Wilson and his now separated wife……..What?

Let me back up. It is time to open up the closed doors of Cross Point Church and tell more of the story. The Gospel demands it, the truth demands it and the dedicated members of this church and those who have contributed money and time to the ministry, deserve it.

Today's post is based on the reports of reliable sources who have reasons for their anonymity. Also, TWW received some emails from folks alluding to the background situation at Cross Point church.

Accountability: The folks who contribute time and money should have it. 

The pastor and the staff should be accountable to the members. However, the history of the ARC, of which Cross Point is a member, appears to have a history of limiting knowledge about finances and difficult issues to a tight knit little group of pastor overseers. They take care of each other very well when it comes to determining their pay scale and what to do when something untoward happens with one of their own.

It is the philosophy of TWW that any church that demands and seeks out publicity when things are looking good, need to be willing to take the hits publicly when things go bad. If you play in the public eye, you pay in the public eye. (A TWW maxim.)

Truth, not baloney, is at the base of the Gospel.

TWW posted Pete Wilson Is So Exhausted and Burned Out That He Became the President of the A Group.  We noted that the evangelical social media world was abuzz with sympathetic posts about burned out and exhausted pastors. I doubted Cross Point's narrative from the outset. In fact, it made me a little mad. Poor Pete, extremely well compensated and universally admired by his many followers, was dog tired and ready to drop. Here is who I thought about.

  • The single mother who is working two jobs to support her children.
  • The doctor on the mission field living in difficult circumstances with hundreds of people waiting to see her.
  • ​The parents of severely handicapped children who needs daily, exhaustive care yet they have other children and can barely support their house.
  • The average Joe who busts his tush to support his family and can barely keep the lights on.

But, what if burnout wasn't the truth? What if it was merely the excuse because Pete Wilson or CP's leaders or the Arc's Overseers demanded it? What if they don't truly get the Gospel message that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? What if they are hiding the truth to look good to the world? The world we Christians are so quick to condemn for being sinful?

Understanding that all pastors are a sinner is vital to understanding the Gospel.

Does it upset you when I say that your pastor is a sinner? If so, you need to figure out why. Your pastor is no different than any person in the pew. He may preach a good sermon, lead the church to do great things, be the nicest guy you have ever met but he is still a sinner. He can lie, cheat on his wife, and manipulate people just like anyone else. That is why he needs close accountability by those who are not *yes* men. But most church leaders only pick the yes men and that is harmful to the church.

What follows does not mean that Pete Wilson hasn't done some wonderful things. It doesn't mean that everything he has preached is wrong. All it means is that we must become wise and set our baloney filters in high.

Also, we must always question our baloney filters since we, too, are sinners. That is why TWW asks lots of questions before writing our posts. I have been thinking about this story for over the past week.

We cannot address our problems with pastors, leaders and churches if we do not know what the root issues involve.

If the root cause of Pete Wilson's departure was not burnout then the church community is spinning its wheels addressing pastors and burnout. TWW has approached folks within 9Marks and The Village Church to sort out what really happened, not what was said to have happened. Why did 9Marks punish Todd Wilhelm when he refused to remain in a church that actively sponsored books by CJ Mahaney? Why did none of the elders at The Village Church speak out against the abusive behavior directed towards Karen Hinkley. Unfortunately, our questions will not be answered by either entity. This means that change will not happen in the long run since no one fully understands what happened.

The basic story behind the public story: I am getting so tired of this ole c**p.

This is what one of my sources said. "I am getting so tired of this ole c**p" and they had good reason to say this as you will see in the following allegations. 

1/10/17 Update

Due to the recent revelation that Brandi Wilson has filed for divorce from Pete Wilson, we have decided that it is no longer necessary to cause further turmoil . We have redacted this part of the post which deals with allegations including those that the Wilson marriage was on the rocks when Pete resigned. We were not asked to do this by anyone. We do it out of compassion for the family during this difficult time.

Comments

Pete Wilson and Cross Point Church: Until There is Truth, Lessons Will Not Be Learned — 1,364 Comments

  1. Nancy2 wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    This might be shocking but a rape doesn’t always lead to a death penalty to the rapist.
    In Mosaic law, if the rape victim doesn’t cry out for help during the rape, she is the one who is commanded to be stoned to death.

    We have to remember that God is all loving. Is he saying this to blame the rape victim for the rape? No he isn’t.

    God is telling the rape victim to ALWAYS scream for help, even if the guy has a knife right at her throat. Try to push that knife away and start screaming. Because under this law the rape victim has no better chance of surviving by keeping silent. Even if she survive the rape encounter, the law will condemn her. Under this law she must ALWAYS scream for help.

    Why would a loving God put this law in? Maybe because her BEST bet is to scream! Maybe because if the victim makes enough noise, chances are good that she can get away. That the rapist will get scared and runs off.

    Imagine a city where every women will always make a lot of noise if they are getting raped. This will scare off potential rapists. The women there are hard to rape. They always fight and run. The rapists are better off going to a different city. This “reputation” will actually be defense against rapists.

    Of course the above law is ONLY talking about the city. It say nothing about the country side or isolated areas.

    Also this reinforce the fact that sexual purity is important. Sexual purity is enough to risk your life for, as per God. Don’t just let a rapist take it away from you. Ignore that knife he has at your throat. Fight against him. Run for it and make a lot of noise.

    What can we take from this? Many things.

    For example let’s say you are in a foreign country in a city. Someone suddenly point a gun at you and say they will be kidnapping you. So you must go into their van if you want to live.

    Two choices:
    1) You stay quiet and let these kidnappers take you into their van, tying you all up.
    2) You just turn around and start running, screaming for help the whole way.

    Which one should you do? The gun is so scary!

    God is telling you to start running and screaming. He is saying that is your BEST bet to survive. Forget the gun. Forget that knife. You try to get people to help you and hope for the best.

  2. Lea wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    But, if you’re saying it doesn’t matter, if you’re saying all’s well if one decides to have sex with various and sundry strangers
    I am absolutely not saying that.
    You guys are going from 0 to 60! What I’m saying is the married person, who was previously widowed or divorced, or the unmarried person who slept with a boyfriend or two in the past, is not cursed to never bond with their current husband. This is the thing that’s being peddled, to me, when people go on and on about ‘soul bonding’ and so on and so forth.
    I also think our lives and hearts are big enough to admit more than one person.

    Here we are just talking about sex between a BF and a GF. I think the bible is very clear that they will become one body, as I pointed out previously in verses like 1 Corinthians 6:16-18.

    I never said that non-virgin is “cursed” to never be bonded with their future spouse. I said God can heal all things. That God can improve the sexual bond that non-virgin has will the future spouse. All things are possible with God.

    And if a non-virgin Christian loves God and love others as himself/herself, there is no need to worry.

    It is almost like I am saying that if you got stabbed by a knife, there will be a scar from the stab wound. And you guys are saying there is no scar at all. And I tell you that there is no need to worry about that scar, because God CAN heal that scar.

    By accepting the fact that there is a scar, we open up the opportunity to receive more grace and mercy from God. Because God can heal it. Got can repair it. God will help you so it would be as if that scar never existed.

    Isn’t this the whole Gospel message? That whoever believe in Jesus is a new creation. That Jesus is making all things new in that person.

  3. CHIPS wrote:

    I think the bible is very clear that they will become one body

    I just think that means something different than you think.

    CHIPS wrote:

    I never said that non-virgin is “cursed” to never be bonded with their future spouse.

    I added the ‘curse’ part, obviously I’m not being literal. But you did suggest that they would have to bond over ‘chess’ or something, because the sexual bond would not be the same. I just don’t agree.

  4. CHIPS wrote:

    In 2 Samuel 13:14-17, Amnon raped his sister Tamar. So this was worst than rape. This is a brother raping his own sister. Now obviously this is a terrible situation and story. There really is no good ending and conclusion. However Tamar said sending her away (not marrying her) would be a GREATER SIN than the rape itself. And this is sick because he is her brother. But there are different levels of sin, and Amnon not marrying Tamar would be the greater sin than the rape.

    You need to read that passage again.
    2 Sam. 13:15 “Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.”
    Amnon tricked Tamar into coming to his tent. He then raped her. After he was finished with her, he hated her and ordered her to leave. The hatred Amnon felt towards Tamar and the fact that he considered the woman he had loved was now nothing but trash to be thrown out was more evil than the physical act. There is no mention of marriage. I can’t figure out where you got that idea.

  5. Nancy2 wrote:

    The hatred Amnon felt towards Tamar and the fact that he considered the woman he had loved was now nothing but trash to be thrown out was more evil than the physical act.

    Thank you Nancy. I also think this is meant to show that sometimes people hate someone else because of guilt over what they themselves have done. Maybe Amnon was a narcissist.

  6. Lea wrote:

    But you did suggest that they would have to bond over ‘chess’ or something, because the sexual bond would not be the same. I just don’t agree

    I don’t agree with that, either. I have been for married for 7 years, widowed, and have now been married again for 23 years. There were highs and lows, disagreements and misunderstandings, times of trouble and times of sheer joy in both marriages. It takes a lot more than sex, or chess, or cooking to make a strong bond between a man and a woman. Commitment transcends any joint activity. Love transcends the physical.
    I wonder if CHIPS is married, or has ever been in a serious relationship?

  7. Robert wrote:

    A friend told me once that you never know what’s really going on in someone else’s marriage, meaning that if it ends in divorce it’s usually for reasons that people outside the marriage can’t understand. What I’m saying is except for a few clear cut cases we have no way of knowing why a divorce occurs or whether it is “justified”. I prefer to leave the judging to God.
    Another thing. If my wife and I went to a church, and someone in a leadership role started asking my wife to justify why she got divorced before marrying me, the best outcome they could hope for would be that we leave the church and not come back. More likely there would be teeth knocked loose.

    It is not the church’s job to find out why your wife divorced her ex-husband before marrying you. If any church ask that you should indeed walk out. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will keep you from knocking that guy’s teeth out.

    How about an current divorce? Should the church do nothing? I will tell you how I think the church to handle it.

    Let’s say Bob and Amy wants a divorce. The church knows nothing about the details and situation. So the church will call both Bob and Amy into the office. The pastor will read them directly this passage:

    “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (and abuse), and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)

    The pastor will then discuss the meaning of that passage with them. And without asking for any details (the pastor really shouldn’t ask any details), the pastor tell them that if there is indeed sexual immorality or abuse happening in the relationship, it is solid ground for divorce. If the couple in their hearts think it is right to divorce, after reading that verse, then go ahead. God will be their witness in this divorce, an end to their marriage convenient. And the church will say no more, if the couple walks out and proceed with the divorce.

    The couple might decide to share more. One might argue that sexual immorality did happen, such as pornography. Another might argue that there was abuse, such as he always being in the office and not seeing her. And if the couple want to share more, the pastor should be glad to discuss and help them out. But this information should be voluntarily provided. It is not the pastor’s job to force out information.

    What is sexual immorality? What is abuse? It varies from person to person. The church should have a definition. And if the couple want to share more these can be discussed. But if the couple do not want to share more, pointing them to Matthew 19:9 would be enough. They answer to God, not the church.

  8. CHIPS wrote:

    Here we are just talking about sex between a BF and a GF. I think the bible is very clear that they will become one body, as I pointed out previously in verses like 1 Corinthians 6:16-18.

    He is referring to the obvious physical joining that takes place during the act of sex, and comparing it to the spiritual joining of Christians with God. He is obviously not saying that there is a literal melding of bodies, nor is he claiming that there is a spiritual melding that takes place because of sex.

  9. CHIPS wrote:

    How about an current divorce? Should the church do nothing? I will tell you how I think the church to handle it.

    I think the church should treat the couple as if they were adults fully capable of making their own decisions about their lives. I think the church should show compassion to people who are undergoing a painful process which, regardless of the circumstances, represents the death of the couple’s hopes that went into their marriage. I don’t think the church should provide marriage counseling that was not requested, and I particularly think it is a bad idea to call both of them to a meeting with the pastor at the same time.

  10. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    The context of my statement is that, if your spouse DID NOT commit sexual immorality and didn’t abuse you, what ground do you have to divorce that person? What you find him boring? You find him fat? He doesn’t make as much money as your co-worker Johnny? He isn’t as healthy as he once was? Is any of that biblical grounds for divorce? Nope!
    What if the man and woman just aren’t right for each other? Do you still insist that they have to live together miserably?

    The following is in the context that no sexual immorality and no abuses happened.

    The walk of a Christian is to learn the unconditional love of Jesus. In Ephesians 5:25-27, Paul wrote that husbands are to love their wife just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

    Did Jesus loved the church because the church was so lovable? Nope! The church is filled with terrible sinners. I am a terrible sinner. You are a terrible sinner. We all are. But God loves us even when we are terrible and keep failing him.

    So when our spouse falls below our expectations, do we just pack up and leave? You expect her to cook good meals but she turns out to not be such a good cook. You expect him to come home by 6pm but he often stay at work till 8pm. She still talk to her ex-BF even after marriage. He never quit smoking like he promised. Do we leave? Nope!

    We do not stay with our spouse because they are so lovable and perfect. We stay with our spouse because we love them! You can love someone that isn’t all that lovable and perfect. You can love someone who fails and disappoint you very often. Why? Because I am not all that lovable and perfect. I often fails and disappoints God. Did God run away? No! God loves me the same. So I learn that love from God and I also do not run away from my wife (when I get one).

    And guess what, every other girl out there are sinful in their own ways. We are all “crazy” if we want to argue about it. Why kind of sane man would see God right there everyday and then go listen to Satan? Yup, Adam and Eve did just that.

    Your spouse might have problem #5, 78 and 347. You go out and find another girl. And now you find out she has problems #8, 45 and 573. You are not winning anything. You just broke your marriage convenient for no reason.

    So yes, if you feel you and your wife just aren’t right for each other, you stay with her and love her even more. And when you love her like that, you won’t be miserable anymore. How can you be miserable when you are with the one you love? Was Jesus miserable when he was with his sinful Apostles? Was Jesus miserable when he was the sinful tax collectors? No! Jesus was delighted to be with his sinful Apostles and tax collectors, because Jesus loves them. You go and learn to love your wife the same way.

  11. CHIPS wrote:

    Let’s say Bob and Amy wants a divorce. The church knows nothing about the details and situation. So the church will call both Bob and Amy into the office. The pastor will read them directly this passage:
    “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (and abuse), and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)
    The pastor will then discuss the meaning of that passage with them.

    We can make scripture say whatever we want by disregarding the context of a verse and/or passage. The context in that particular discourse is the Pharisees and the way they were abusing the Certificate of Divorce as an excuse to marry as many times as they wanted “because Moses said so.”

    When a Certificate of Divorce is given, there is no adultery as the woman is no longer married. That document is key. It’s like getting married without a certificate and the trying to get a divorce. In our culture both documents are necessary to accomplish the desired end.

    So Jesus was saying it would be adultery if a Certificate of Divorce was not given but He was also curtailing it’s use by the Pharisees to continually send their wives away for any cause.

  12. Victorious wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    So the end result is Zacchaeus realized his sin of stealing and scamming. How would Zacchaeus realize this if Jesus didn’t point out Zacchaeus’ sins to him over dinner. Why would he figure out that he need to pay back what he has scammed and more?
    People that spent time with Jesus come to realization of their sins. They repent and receive forgiveness.
    CHIPS, I’m afraid you’re grasping at straws in an effort to prove Jesus exposes sins of others. On the contrary, in the example you’ve used, Jesus wants to spend time with the sinner. He humbles Himself by wanting to be a guest in the home of Zacchaeus. It’s the gesture of a friend; not a judge or exposer of sin. Tax collectors were hated by the Jews but Jesus even wanted Matthew to be one of those with whom Jesus would call His friends. He allowed sinners to wash His feet with perfume and another by her tears. He even called Judas “friend” when he was about to betray Jesus.
    “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Matt. 11:19

    There is a huge different between exposing someone’s sins in a condemning way, from pointing out someone’s sins in a loving and gentle way.

    If we are talking about exposing someone’s sins in a condemning way, we are in full agreement. I am totally against this kind of behavior. This leads to abusive churches.

    However when it comes to pointing out someone’s sins in a loving and gentle way, I believe this is a good thing. That is what Jesus did here. He went to the tax collector’s house and ate with him. And like you said Jesus even called some tax collectors his friends. All these are true. However at the end of the day the tax collector realize his errors, repented and promise to give back more than what he has scammed from others.

    There are so many other examples. In John 5:14 Jesus said “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” Jesus is directly pointing out the fact that man was a sinner. So yes Jesus do point out sins, in a loving and gentle way. Why? Because if that man doesn’t repent and stop sinning, something worst MAY happen to that man. Jesus said this, not me.

    Let’s say you own kid throw a rock at another kid he hates, causing massive bleeding to that other kid. Certainly that is a sin. What will you say to your kid?

    1) Say nothing. In fact tell your kid that he did nothing wrong and he should continue to throw rocks at anyone he doesn’t like.
    2) Condemn your kid. Say you are this close to disowning him. Say your son disgraced you and your family.
    3) Sit your kid down. Gently and patiently explain to him why he shouldn’t throw rocks at people, even kids he doesn’t like. That he is hurting someone. And hate only leads to more hate. Instead he should resolve anger and hate with love and mercy. How that can win me more friends. etc.

    If you do #1, you are a sicko. What is wrong with you? Where is your love for this other kid?

    If you do #2, you are also a sick. Where is your love toward your own child?

    #3 is the correct way. You must lovingly and gently restore your own child toward righteousness. And this is how the church should be.

  13. CHIPS wrote:

    There are so many other examples. In John 5:14 Jesus said “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” Jesus is directly pointing out the fact that man was a sinner. So yes Jesus do point out sins, in a loving and gentle way. Why? Because if that man doesn’t repent and stop sinning, something worst MAY happen to that man. Jesus said this, not me.

    Again, Jesus said He came for sinners not those who think they are righteous. Mark 2:17. But In the verse you mentioned, He did not call out or expose the man’s sin. He was not afraid to call sinners to repentance, but never, ever named the specific sin publicly other than those of the self-righteous, vipers, hypocrite Pharisees.

  14. Nancy2 wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    In 2 Samuel 13:14-17, Amnon raped his sister Tamar. So this was worst than rape. This is a brother raping his own sister. Now obviously this is a terrible situation and story. There really is no good ending and conclusion. However Tamar said sending her away (not marrying her) would be a GREATER SIN than the rape itself. And this is sick because he is her brother. But there are different levels of sin, and Amnon not marrying Tamar would be the greater sin than the rape.
    You need to read that passage again.
    2 Sam. 13:15 “Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.”
    Amnon tricked Tamar into coming to his tent. He then raped her. After he was finished with her, he hated her and ordered her to leave. The hatred Amnon felt towards Tamar and the fact that he considered the woman he had loved was now nothing but trash to be thrown out was more evil than the physical act. There is no mention of marriage. I can’t figure out where you got that idea.

    If Amnon doesn’t send her away, doesn’t view her as “trash”, what else would he have to do? He would marry her. He would talk to David and ask for her hand in marriage.

    What else can Tamar mean here? That as long as Amnon doesn’t view her as trash, he can come back and sleep with her as many times as he want? That they never have to get married? We know that is IMPOSSIBLE. Why? Because before Tamar even got raped, she was telling Amnon to go ask David to allow them to marry.

    To me it is clear that the greatest sin talked about here is that Amnon REFUSED TO MARRY her. That refusing to marry her after the rape is a worst sin than the rape itself.

    And IF what you wrote is true, that the greatest sin mentioned here is “Amnon hated her and view her as trash after sex”, that would be even scarier. You know what this means? That means if anyone ever have sex with someone, and then later view that person as trash, that is a greater sin than rape. So if you divorce your spouse because you hate your spouse and view your spouse as trash, you had just committed a worst sin than raping her. Is this what Tamar is saying here? I doubt it.

    (I do wonder what would abusive churches do with this. That every single divorce (arguably) is a worst sin than rape. They will certainly have a field day abusing people with this. )

  15. CHIPS wrote:

    To me it is clear that the greatest sin talked about here is that Amnon REFUSED TO MARRY her. That refusing to marry her after the rape is a worst sin than the rape itself.

    Whoa! No. That’s not right.

  16. Nancy2 wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    But you did suggest that they would have to bond over ‘chess’ or something, because the sexual bond would not be the same. I just don’t agree

    I don’t agree with that, either. I have been for married for 7 years, widowed, and have now been married again for 23 years. There were highs and lows, disagreements and misunderstandings, times of trouble and times of sheer joy in both marriages. It takes a lot more than sex, or chess, or cooking to make a strong bond between a man and a woman. Commitment transcends any joint activity. Love transcends the physical.
    I wonder if CHIPS is married, or has ever been in a serious relationship?

    I will admit that I am not married yet. But I am seriously dating someone.

    But it would be unfair to assume that someone married is automatically better and know more about relationships. If that is the case, the divorce rate won’t be as high as it is right now.

    I learnt a lot about relationships from the Bible. And God is the ultimate author. =)

    I have never had sex. And yes I know a marriage is more than just the sexual bond. I was pointing out what I read from the Bible. I am not speaking from life experience.

    I am very happy to hear that your marriage is wonderful. However you were a widow. So this doesn’t really count. The context is for those who had sex outside of marriage.

    I had heard real life stories where someone had a lot of different sexual partners before they were married. And now they are really struggling to find that deep sexual intimacy with their spouse.

    The high divorce rate for those with many different sexual partners is also evidence that sexual purity is important.

    Once again Christians must forgive non-virgins. And God can heal anyone for anything. But what I am looking at is the truth as per the Bible.

  17. CHIPS wrote:

    What else can Tamar mean here?

    Maybe Amnon realizing what he has done to her, and to God? …… Instead of throwing her ou, realizing that what he had done was inexcusable …… apologizing, begging for forgiveness from both Tamar and God ………
    If a man forcibly rapes a woman, like Amnon did Tamar, pronouncing the couple man-and-wife doesn’t make everything all better.
    And what of Dinah, daughter of Jacob? She was raped by a Hivite prince …. Gen. 34?

  18. @ CHIPS:

    You’re making some major logical jumps here. First, that’s kind of a terrible story all around. Second, it’s a different time. A woman who was raped like Tamar was ruined. Marriage (preferably before but after if that was the only option) was her only way of fixing that. That is not true in modern times. Amnon did not care, which is evil.

    CHIPS wrote:

    So if you divorce your spouse because you hate your spouse and view your spouse as trash, you had just committed a worst sin than raping her. Is this what Tamar is saying here? I doubt it.

    Tamar is not talking about divorce. To be married and divorced was more respectable than to be raped and discarded. Even as a kings daughter.

  19. Robert wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    Here we are just talking about sex between a BF and a GF. I think the bible is very clear that they will become one body, as I pointed out previously in verses like 1 Corinthians 6:16-18.
    He is referring to the obvious physical joining that takes place during the act of sex, and comparing it to the spiritual joining of Christians with God. He is obviously not saying that there is a literal melding of bodies, nor is he claiming that there is a spiritual melding that takes place because of sex.

    I think it is dangerous to down play the important of this “one body, one flesh”. You call it “physical joining during sex”. If this “one body, one flesh” business really isn’t that big of a deal, like you are suggesting, then why is it used to compare with “spiritual joining of Christians with God”? Spiritual joining of Christians with God is a big deal.

    Remember that when Christians join with God in spirit, the Holy Spirit will be inside that Christian. And the Holy Spirit will NEVER leave. If we link it relatively, that would also mean that when a man and woman join in one body, their bond will NEVER end.

    So you might call it “physical joining during sex”. But what it is saying here is the two will still be bonded and will not separate. Just as the Holy Spirit will never leave you once it enters you.

    The bible mentioned this “becoming one body” and “become one flesh” so many times. This is a good indication that this is very important.

  20. CHIPS wrote:

    I will admit that I am not married yet. But I am seriously dating someone.
    But it would be unfair to assume that someone married is automatically better and know more about relationships. If that is the case, the divorce rate won’t be as high as it is right now.
    I learnt a lot about relationships from the Bible. And God is the ultimate author. =)
    I have never had sex. And yes I know a marriage is more than just the sexual bond. I was pointing out what I read from the Bible. I am not speaking from life experience.
    I am very happy to hear that your marriage is wonderful. However you were a widow. So this doesn’t really count. The context is for those who had sex outside of marriage

    I don’t mean this as an insult, so please don’t take it that way. But, you have a lot to learn, kiddo! A successful marriage takes a lot of work!

    You don’t know me. I did have sex outside of marriage. After the death of my first husband, I took a little walk on the wild side. My second husband was not a virgin when we met, either, and he had never been married. What we did before we met has had absolute on effect on out marriage. We lived. We learned. We asked for and were given forgiveness, both from one another and God. Our experiences and mistakes (sins, if you will) have helped to make us wiser and stronger.
    I’m not saying that what we did before we met was right. I’m just saying that is how it is.
    Even Moses had to learn a few things the hard way, and he was still a great man of God.
    Then there’s Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Gideon ………. how many wives/concubines did these men have?

  21. Robert wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    How about an current divorce? Should the church do nothing? I will tell you how I think the church to handle it.
    I think the church should treat the couple as if they were adults fully capable of making their own decisions about their lives. I think the church should show compassion to people who are undergoing a painful process which, regardless of the circumstances, represents the death of the couple’s hopes that went into their marriage. I don’t think the church should provide marriage counseling that was not requested, and I particularly think it is a bad idea to call both of them to a meeting with the pastor at the same time.

    As for any sin, as long as the church told the couple what the bible said they had done enough. It is not the church’s job to literally stop sin. God doesn’t force the fruit out of Eve’s hand neither. God let Eve eat the fruit. If anyone want to disobey the words of a loving father, go ahead and see what happens.

    But if you see someone sinning outright, you should still approach that person even if that person didn’t ask for help. I know this is hard. But should we stand by and watch our brothers and sisters hurt themselves? Where is the love in that?

    The problem is when a divorcee start boasting about his/her divorce. Then the church must step in. Because now that divorcee is involving other members and perhaps even encouraging others to also get a divorce. This “Being proud of sin” cannot be inside the church.

  22. @ CHIPS:

    There is also that Paul advised younger widows to marry again, have some more kids, and manage a household. There is also that Paul said if the unbelieving spouse wants to go, let him/her go and that the believer was not bound by that marriage. There is also that there is no prohibition agains polygamy in scripture except for one level of ordained clergy.

    The way you have described the relationship with the Holy Spirit as analogous to marriage has a real flaw in the analogy. Paul stated that death terminated a marriage and the surviving spouse was free to marry. Death does not terminate the relationship between God and the person. The analogy has limited applicability.

    I think you are making way too much out of physical sexual activity. To say that there are rules about who does what when and with whom is one thing. To think that sex revolutionizes a person’s life and they are never the same again is not something that is seen in scripture or in real life.

    It is interesting that the story is that Ferdinand thought that once he had bedded Isabella she would let him be de facto the sole ruler of the two areas over which they ruled, but she was having none of it. The powers that be then had to work out a compromise for how to share the throne. So much for that fantasy.

  23. Nancy2 wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    What else can Tamar mean here?
    Maybe Amnon realizing what he has done to her, and to God? …… Instead of throwing her ou, realizing that what he had done was inexcusable …… apologizing, begging for forgiveness from both Tamar and God ………
    If a man forcibly rapes a woman, like Amnon did Tamar, pronouncing the couple man-and-wife doesn’t make everything all better.
    And what of Dinah, daughter of Jacob? She was raped by a Hivite prince …. Gen. 34?

    It is really pushing it to say Tamar is calling Amnon to repentance here. Because Tamar said directly “this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you have done to me!” So the greater evil is in “sending her away”.

    I didn’t say making the rapist marry the victim will fix everything. I said right from the beginning I disapprove of this law. I am just saying that God wrote it.

    But I had said enough on this topic. I don’t think further discussion will be fruitful.

    As for Gen 34, God didn’t approve for the brothers to kill the rapist. That’s why Jacob and his family have to run away.

  24. Lea wrote:

    @ CHIPS:
    You’re making some major logical jumps here. First, that’s kind of a terrible story all around. Second, it’s a different time. A woman who was raped like Tamar was ruined. Marriage (preferably before but after if that was the only option) was her only way of fixing that. That is not true in modern times. Amnon did not care, which is evil.
    CHIPS wrote:
    So if you divorce your spouse because you hate your spouse and view your spouse as trash, you had just committed a worst sin than raping her. Is this what Tamar is saying here? I doubt it.
    Tamar is not talking about divorce. To be married and divorced was more respectable than to be raped and discarded. Even as a kings daughter.

    So you agree with me that Tamar is indeed asking Amnon to marry her, after the rape. Because if he doesn’t marry her, she is “ruined”. And Amnon’s refusal to marry her is a greater sin than the rape itself. =)

  25. Nancy2 wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    I will admit that I am not married yet. But I am seriously dating someone.
    But it would be unfair to assume that someone married is automatically better and know more about relationships. If that is the case, the divorce rate won’t be as high as it is right now.
    I learnt a lot about relationships from the Bible. And God is the ultimate author. =)
    I have never had sex. And yes I know a marriage is more than just the sexual bond. I was pointing out what I read from the Bible. I am not speaking from life experience.
    I am very happy to hear that your marriage is wonderful. However you were a widow. So this doesn’t really count. The context is for those who had sex outside of marriage
    I don’t mean this as an insult, so please don’t take it that way. But, you have a lot to learn, kiddo! A successful marriage takes a lot of work!
    You don’t know me. I did have sex outside of marriage. After the death of my first husband, I took a little walk on the wild side. My second husband was not a virgin when we met, either, and he had never been married. What we did before we met has had absolute on effect on out marriage. We lived. We learned. We asked for and were given forgiveness, both from one another and God. Our experiences and mistakes (sins, if you will) have helped to make us wiser and stronger.
    I’m not saying that what we did before we met was right. I’m just saying that is how it is.
    Even Moses had to learn a few things the hard way, and he was still a great man of God.
    Then there’s Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Gideon ………. how many wives/concubines did these men have?

    I am totally with you here. God is wonderful and can cleanse of us all our sins and bad pasts. Like I told you guys I was addicted to exotic images and videos. I have a lot of other sins. But God has turned my life around. And now I have a wonderful GF. None of these would be possible without the healing and merciful hands of God. Even today I am far from perfect. But God is with me and he loves me. And so I try my best to love God back and love others just as I love myself. =)

  26. Bill M wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    I’m not saying that women should wear clothing intentionally to provoke weak men,
    I recall men of the Elizabethan era appreciated a well turned ankle.

    Lol! I was just thinking of the gown lace bodice removal for the evening soirée.

  27. Muff Potter wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    Now of course it isn’t a sin to get raped. The victim had no choice in the matter. However the action itself is bonding. The years of pain afterward is prove that the bonding exists.
    I’m gobsmacked. I really am. The broken teeth and noses. The vaginal tearing. Eyes swollen shut so that even the tears are no help. And finally, the mental anguish in the aftermath is supposed to be proof of god’s (small ‘g’ intentional) wonderful bonding via the sex act?
    You’ll have to do better than that. Circular reasoning, special pleading, and Hueying verses out of context ain’t gonna cut it with rational people who go by their conscience and moral compass within.

    Yeah. Me too. The action is bonding? You can’t help it but you and your rapist bonded?

    Oh Chip. I don’t even know how to respond to that. I give you a pass because I do think you want to understand and you are taking the whole issue very seriously as you prepare to marry. I get that and wish you well.

    But This is one reason it is simply best not to discuss the issue of sex anymore. People figured out what works for thousands of years without all the mental gymnastics of scripture interpretations.

    I am going to say something that is not going to make any sense at all to you and is gruesome. Trigger alert to victims!!!!

    So, Just file it away. I was told this by several rape crisis counselors years ago. Rape is not sex. There is no bond. You can be raped not using body parts and some are. Both sexes. In your scenerio, a body part has to be used on another body part. Do you see your problem? One would be bonding in your view and the other heinous violence.
    Both are heinous violence.
    Sorry guys. But

  28. CHIPS wrote:

    Remember that when Christians join with God in spirit, the Holy Spirit will be inside that Christian. And the Holy Spirit will NEVER leave. If we link it relatively, that would also mean that when a man and woman join in one body, their bond will NEVER end.

    So you might call it “physical joining during sex”. But what it is saying here is the two will still be bonded and will not separate. Just as the Holy Spirit will never leave you once it enters you.

    someone please tell me what religion this is?
    Does it come from a branch of any known religion?

    I don’t recognize this strange teaching at all.

  29. CHIPS wrote:

    I had heard real life stories where someone had a lot of different sexual partners before they were married. And now they are really struggling to find that deep sexual intimacy with their spouse.

    The high divorce rate for those with many different sexual partners is also evidence that sexual purity is important.

    I think you may be missing the point that the reason they had multiple sexual partners may point to difficulties they have with relationships to begin with. I.e., that may be a symptom, not the cause.

    Marriage is difficult, relationships are difficult. They take a tremendous amount of work and continuing growth. Sex is the caboose of the train, in my opinion. Mutual respect, kindness, etc, working together as co-equals; when the relationship is good, the sex follows. Not vice versa. I’ve been married 41 years. What we did before marriage is not of importance. How we value each other is important. Whether it is safe to trust each other is important.

    I think the statements about Christ and the church and marriage are merely an analogy to give us some sort of picture in mind, like God being called “Father.” There are limits to an analogy. It isn’t meant to be an idol.

    CHIPS wrote:

    To me it is clear that the greatest sin talked about here is that Amnon REFUSED TO MARRY her. That refusing to marry her after the rape is a worst sin than the rape itself.

    Goodness, I can’t believe you said that.

    Not only did he brutalize her physically, he then proceeded to take it to the next level, leaving her *completely* devastated, in every way that he could.

  30. Christiane wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:

    Remember that when Christians join with God in spirit, the Holy Spirit will be inside that Christian. And the Holy Spirit will NEVER leave. If we link it relatively, that would also mean that when a man and woman join in one body, their bond will NEVER end.

    So you might call it “physical joining during sex”. But what it is saying here is the two will still be bonded and will not separate. Just as the Holy Spirit will never leave you once it enters you.

    someone please tell me what religion this is?
    Does it come from a branch of any known religion?

    I don’t recognize this strange teaching at all.

    The ONLY DESCRIPTION of anything CHIPS is saying looks something like this from ‘The Moody Church’ of a pastor Lutzer and has to do with something called ‘soul ties’:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2666408/posts

    someone PLEASE tell me this is not evangelical Christianity ….. yikes!

  31. Christiane wrote:

    someone please tell me what religion this is?
    Does it come from a branch of any known religion?

    I don’t recognize this strange teaching at all.

    Sounds like tantric sex maybe? There were some I think in the emergent movement (I’m forgetting now) who were trying to bring the concept into Christianity from its Hindu/Buddhist roots in various writings, but it’s been a long time since I read about it and I may be getting it mixed up.

  32. CHIPS wrote:

    The problem is when a divorcee start boasting about his/her divorce. Then the church must step in. Because now that divorcee is involving other members and perhaps even encouraging others to also get a divorce. This “Being proud of sin” cannot be inside the church.

    You are making a wrong assumption that divorce is a sin. Sometimes it is the right thing. If a person must divorce in order to protect themselves or their children from violence, it is the right thing to do, not a sin. And there are many other circumstances where it is the best thing to do. This is a fallen world, we must always weigh things out and make the best choices we can.

    I guess I haven’t seen anyone boasting of divorce, though I’ve seen people who were relieved to be free from danger and harm, who began to live life and grow healthy again.

  33. Okay.

    What I have found out is that there is some kind of theology called ‘soul ties’, a term I have never heard before reading up on CHIPS comments

    I believe it comes from a Dr. Erwin Lutzer of ‘The Moody Church’, but he may have got ‘soul ties’ from other sources.

    I think this may be a lead to what CHIPS has been trying to explain here in his comments.
    Has any person here from the evangelical Christian world ever been exposed to the teaching of ‘soul ties’ as presented by Dr. Lutzer on this site:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2666408/posts

    I need SOME reassurance that this is not traditional evangelical teaching. Please.
    And thanks for any help.

  34. CHIPS wrote:

    There are so many other examples. In John 5:14 Jesus said “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” Jesus is directly pointing out the fact that man was a sinner. So yes Jesus do point out sins, in a loving and gentle way. Why? Because if that man doesn’t repent and stop sinning, something worst MAY happen to that man. Jesus said this, not me.

    Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you.”

    Maybe Jesus was trying to protect the man from the consequences of actions rather than threatening punishment?

    Let’s say you own kid throw a rock at another kid he hates, causing massive bleeding to that other kid. Certainly that is a sin. What will you say to your kid?

    1) Say nothing. In fact tell your kid that he did nothing wrong and he should continue to throw rocks at anyone he doesn’t like.
    2) Condemn your kid. Say you are this close to disowning him. Say your son disgraced you and your family.
    3) Sit your kid down. Gently and patiently explain to him why he shouldn’t throw rocks at people, even kids he doesn’t like. That he is hurting someone. And hate only leads to more hate. Instead he should resolve anger and hate with love and mercy. How that can win me more friends. etc.

    4) Ask yourself why your child would want to throw a rock at someone and cause massive bleeding. What happened to fill him with this rage? Is this the behavior that has been modeled to him? Is he filled with frustration and anger from abuse?

  35. Christiane wrote:

    I need SOME reassurance that this is not traditional evangelical teaching. Please.
    And thanks for any help.

    I’ve never heard the concept before.

    Erwin Lutzer is a member of TGC I believe?

  36. CHIPS wrote:

    To me it is clear that the greatest sin talked about here is that Amnon REFUSED TO MARRY her. That refusing to marry her after the rape is a worst sin than the rape itself.

    Not understanding how you get here at all. Do you believe couples should be thrown in jail for 15 years for divorcing, but a person should get no time for rape? God does not say anywhere that a person gets bonded to his/her rapist. That is a sickening thought. You cannot paste scripture together from all over the Bible to make it say what you want . . . well you can, but you would be wrong.

  37. siteseer wrote:

    Erwin Lutzer is a member of TGC I believe?

    Does this mean that the TGC group recognizes the ‘soul ties’ teachings of Dr. Lutzer? I don’t understand what membership in the TGC group implies.

  38. CHIPS wrote:

    Did Jesus loved the church because the church was so lovable? Nope! The church is filled with terrible sinners. I am a terrible sinner. You are a terrible sinner. We all are. But God loves us even when we are terrible and keep failing him.

    “Such WERE some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:11

    The church is supposed to be filled with saints, not terrible sinners. Though I’ll admit sometimes I wonder…

  39. Lydia wrote:

    Rape is not sex. There is no bond

    I agree.
    Rape is an act of horrific violence and control of one person over the other.

  40. I have heard the “soul tiles” concept back during the 1980’s, in a charismatic, word of faith context. I have never heard it anywhere else until now.

  41. CHIPS wrote:

    Remember that when Christians join with God in spirit, the Holy Spirit will be inside that Christian. And the Holy Spirit will NEVER leave. If we link it relatively, that would also mean that when a man and woman join in one body, their bond will NEVER end.

    Matt. 22 ~~~~ Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
    26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
    27 And last of all the woman died also.
    28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
    29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
    30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

  42. CHIPS wrote:

    I think it is dangerous to down play the important of this “one body, one flesh”. You call it “physical joining during sex”. If this “one body, one flesh” business really isn’t that big of a deal, like you are suggesting, then why is it used to compare with “spiritual joining of Christians with God”? Spiritual joining of Christians with God is a big deal.

    Oh good gravy.

    Look, I did not say it wasn’t that big of a deal. It is in fact the single most physically intimate act we can experience. When done in the context of a loving relationship it’s an emotionally intimate experience as well. I’m simply denying that when Paul says the two become one flesh that he’s saying anything mysterious here.

    I think with Paul’s writings you have to keep in mind what his point is. In this case he’s saying Christians need to stay away from sexual immorality. Why? Because a Christian’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. When he said “the two become one flesh” he didn’t elaborate on that because he didn’t need to. His audience knew what he meant.

  43. Robert wrote:

    I have heard the “soul tiles” concept back during the 1980’s, in a charismatic, word of faith context. I have never heard it anywhere else until now.

    That’s “soul ties”, of course. But I suppose “soul tiles” makes almost as much sense.

  44. This has been one of the weirder threads, but I’ve only been following this site for less than a year.

    I think if CHIPS had used something like “impact” rather than “bond” it would have made a big difference. I do believe that the Bible stresses the importance of monogamy and abstinence prior to marriage, and this has been traditional Christian teaching from the beginning. But the soul-bonding wording is weird – yet commonly taught in evangelical circles. Our past relationships do have an impact on us, which might be what CHIPS is trying to describe. I’m one of those weirdos who was abstinent before marriage, which means that I did not carry memories of past sexual experiences into our marriage. My wife told her story here more than a month ago. The fact that she was raped before we ever met has certainly had an impact on our marriage (she said just now that she had no “bonding” with her rapist – but did have a traumatic imprint). We had to work together through the flashbacks as well as the teaching she had been under about both the bonding principle and being chewed gum. Thank God, we worked through this and spent this last week joyfully celebrating our 25th anniversary. I don’t know what it would have been like if her past was different, but I do know that we have become inseparable through the process of working through her trauma. I absolutely do not feel like I married a piece of chewed gum. I value my wife as my soul-mate and best friend.

  45. CHIPS wrote:

    And Amnon’s refusal to marry her is a greater sin than the rape itself. =)

    NO. Goodness. None of this is applicable now, you know.

    But he left her in a terrible position. She thought it was worse, as far as the impact on her life. Trauma can be got over, but the complete destruction of her position in society for all time was worse FOR HER. Not for all time.

    And a smiley face is pretty inappropriate, not that I have a problem with gallows humor but this is terrible awful no good story. Everyone is awful except the brother who murdered the rapist. He gets high fives from me. David, how all the comp men love so much, less so.

  46. Christiane wrote:

    Has any person here from the evangelical Christian world ever been exposed to the teaching of ‘soul ties’ as presented by Dr. Lutzer on this site:

    I brought up soul bonding initially because a friend mentioned it and I thought it was bonkers.

  47. Ken F wrote:

    Thank God, we worked through this and spent this last week joyfully celebrating our 25th anniversary.

    Congrats! May your 50th be even more enjoyable!

  48. Nancy2 wrote:

    Congrats! May your 50th be even more enjoyable!

    Thanks. And hopefully more timely. We had planned for a getaway in June, but had to defer it to Sep, and then had to defer it again until now. But it was worth the wait!

  49. @ Ken F:
    Congrats to you and your wife, KEN.
    I remember our twenty-fifth because it seems like yesterday …. we are at forty-eight and some months now …. time flies.

    Be happy. Be Blessed. 🙂

  50. Lea wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    Has any person here from the evangelical Christian world ever been exposed to the teaching of ‘soul ties’ as presented by Dr. Lutzer on this site:

    I brought up soul bonding initially because a friend mentioned it and I thought it was bonkers.

    Hi LEA,
    I am thinking that like so many terms in religious circles ‘soul ties’ has different shades of meaning for different groups;
    but what poor CHIPS describes being exposed to is very strange I think …. ‘bonkers’ is a good word for it

    I do hope CHIPS gets free of that teaching.

  51. Christiane wrote:

    time flies.

    Thanks for your kind comment.

    Sorry for this, but you reminded me of a great quote: “Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.”

  52. Nancy2 wrote:

    Congrats! May your 50th be even more enjoyable!

    Thanks. We are currently going through he transition of being true empty-nesters. The concept of “forming, storming, norming, performing” comes in to play at every major life transition. I feel good about our future based on how we have worked through our past.

  53. @ Muff Potter:
    Wonderful! Hope you make it to fifty and beyond.
    I nearly lost my husband last year to illness and I treasure what time God has left for us to share.
    🙂

  54. Lea wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    tell me honestly that you can say that in good conscience.
    Various and sundry strangers is a big jump, to me. Maybe you disagree. YMMV.

    I disagree only with you playing the “you guys card”, it’s not a fair characterization in the context of my posts. Maybe you disagree.

  55. Lea wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    tell me honestly that you can say that in good conscience.
    Various and sundry strangers is a big jump, to me. Maybe you disagree. YMMV.

    And, for that matter, if premarital sex is OK, if it’s not a sin, then why would you discriminate against someone who wanted to engage in lots of it? And if you think it is a sin, then what in the world is all this about?

  56. Law Prof wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    tell me honestly that you can say that in good conscience.
    Various and sundry strangers is a big jump, to me. Maybe you disagree. YMMV.

    I disagree only with you playing the “you guys card”, it’s not a fair characterization in the context of my posts. Maybe you disagree.

    I have nothing against you, I’m sorry if that bothered you. I know you and CHIPS differ on many things. I think my issue with this comment is a general one. You say one thing and it gets taken to extreme. Sex outside of marriage but within a relationship gets compared to sex with a bunch of strangers, or prostitution. You did one, chips did the other. So there was the linkage I made in my head between you, on this one thing. I do not believe those things are the same, and I never will.

    I do not appreciate words being put in my mouth though. I never said premarital sex was not a sin or that sex wasn’t a serious and intimate thing. I made comments about specific verses that I don’t think apply and how I think soul bonding is ridiculous.

  57. CHIPS wrote:

    Here we are just talking about sex between a BF and a GF. I think the bible is very clear that they will become one body, as I pointed out previously in verses like 1 Corinthians 6:16-18.

    The question is what significance you ascribe to that phrase in the Bible. Obviously, by becoming “one flesh”, it does not mean they become conjoined like twins. It does not mean they come to share the same genetic code. They are not one flesh in the physical sense, not at all.

    So what does it mean? It could mean nothing more than their offspring will share their flesh, their genetics, who will be the combo of the two parents, who become one flesh in their children. The Jews of millenia ago were very much into the notion of their heritage being through their children, many in the era before Jesus thought that would be the manner in which they experienced eternal life. This theory makes some sense from that perspective.

    It may have had something to due with the legal status of the two, becoming something like one person in the eyes of the law and society of that era (remember, women did not have separate, distinct rights then, in most cultures, they were seen as chattel).

    It may have been something entirely different, some idiom that had meaning to the audience of the day, that has been lost in time (such as Jesus speaking of having a “bad eye”, which scholars are left only to conjecture at).

    But what it most likely is not is a spiritual thing, namely, because it is clearly speaking of one “flesh”, not one spirit, and because this physical bond of marriage will not continue into Heaven, it’s a temporary condition, a fact which Jesus made abundantly clear when the Sadducees attempted to trap him.

    What you must under all circumstances do, CHIPS, is question the dogma you’ve been taught. Just because this-or-that speaker or pastor or writer teaches there’s some deep underlying spiritual meaning to this phrase–such as the soul ties concept, which is not in the Bible–does not make it so.

  58. Lea wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Lea wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    tell me honestly that you can say that in good conscience.
    Various and sundry strangers is a big jump, to me. Maybe you disagree. YMMV.
    I disagree only with you playing the “you guys card”, it’s not a fair characterization in the context of my posts. Maybe you disagree.
    I have nothing against you, I’m sorry if that bothered you. I know you and CHIPS differ on many things. I think my issue with this comment is a general one. You say one thing and it gets taken to extreme. Sex outside of marriage but within a relationship gets compared to sex with a bunch of strangers, or prostitution. You did one, chips did the other. So there was the linkage I made in my head between you, on this one thing. I do not believe those things are the same, and I never will.
    I do not appreciate words being put in my mouth though. I never said premarital sex was not a sin or that sex wasn’t a serious and intimate thing. I made comments about specific verses that I don’t think apply and how I think soul bonding is ridiculous.

    You’re not bothering me, I’m not a Ming vase, it’s OK. I use hyperbole because it’s a time honored rabbinical method of discussing and debating, Jesus used it, of course.

  59. siteseer wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    The problem is when a divorcee start boasting about his/her divorce. Then the church must step in. Because now that divorcee is involving other members and perhaps even encouraging others to also get a divorce. This “Being proud of sin” cannot be inside the church.
    You are making a wrong assumption that divorce is a sin. Sometimes it is the right thing. If a person must divorce in order to protect themselves or their children from violence, it is the right thing to do, not a sin. And there are many other circumstances where it is the best thing to do. This is a fallen world, we must always weigh things out and make the best choices we can.
    I guess I haven’t seen anyone boasting of divorce, though I’ve seen people who were relieved to be free from danger and harm, who began to live life and grow healthy again.

    As I said if there is sexual immorality or abuses involved, it is indeed the right thing to do to get a divorce. Such divorces are NOT sinning.

    But if these is no sexual immorality nor abuses, that divorce IS a sin. Now the definition of sexual immorality and abuses can be debated. But that would be a different topic.

    On the surface it might be hard to tell apart a sinful divorce from a “lawful” divorce. The husband will say one story and the wife tells another. It is really not the pastor or the church’s job to be the judge. The church is there it LOVE them. So like I said all the church need to do is point out Matthew 19:3-10. The church can tell them how it is interpreted as per the church. And if the couple refuse to say anymore and proceed with the divorce, the church must LOVE them. No more question will be asked.

    If the couple wants to share more, the church can discuss more with them. But once again even if the couple disagree with how the church views sexual immorality and abuse, and decided to proceed with the divorce, the church must LOVE the couple. No matter how wrong and sinful the divorce is (assuming it is sinful), this is NOT ground for discipline or excommunication. A church must NOT kick people out for sinning (even if it is a sin). Else everyone will need to be excommunicated, since EVERYONE sins. Instead LOVE them and give them MORE support.

    So when is excommunication called for? That is when a person boast about such sinful divorces (an other sins), and tell other churches members to also engage such sinful divorces. Then the church must step in to stop it.

    Here is an example. Let’s say Tom divorced his wife Julie JUST because she is a bad cook. That was the only reason. Now I am sure most of us here will disagree with Tom. We will call his divorce sinful. And so the church will disagree with Tom. However even then, the church must not excommunicate Tom on that divorce. The church do not excommunicate members just because they sinned. Instead the church will love Tom (and Julie) even more.

    However let’s say Tom starts talking to other members in church and asking them how well their wife cooks. And if a member says that his wife is also bad at cooking, Tom will encourage them to also get a divorce. Tom tells everyone how his life is so much better now without that bad cooking wife Julie. Tom boasts about his divorce from Julie and is very proud of it. And tells every other members to do the same. In THIS kind of cases, the church must step in to rebuke Tom, at first privately, because Tom is hurting other members’ marriage.

    What is the difference? When Tom divorced Julie, it was his personal and private sin. Now the church might not agree with him, but it was private. But now Tom is making it public. And he is hurting others in their theology and faith.

    It can start off with 1 on 1 sessions with Tom for weeks, sometimes months. God is patient and gentle with us, so we must also be patient with Tom. The person tell Tom that it is ok if he personally believes that his divorce is lawful. But he must not go public and tell everyone else to also get a divorce because of their wife’s bad cooking. Because that is not the stance of the church.

    It is ok to have different theologies. It is ok if Tom believe certain sins are not sins. But it is NOT ok for Tom to be proud and ACTIVELY go tell everyone to also go sin like he is doing.

    If these 1 on 1 discussions doesn’t get anywhere, we have to get 2 or 3 people involved. That will go once again for weeks or months. At this stage the church should encourage Tom to talk to other Christians outside of church and see what they think. See if Tom can find anyone that agrees with him.

    And if nothing good come from that, we have to eventually get the whole church involved and rebuke Tom publicly. And if even then Tom refuse to repent, we have no choice but to remove Tom from the membership. This would be months or even years after Tom first started publicly boasting about his sinful divorce.

    We aren’t being mean to Tom. We aren’t trying to abuse him. But Tom was HURTING OTHER members and he was going all proud and public about his sins. If we let him run amok, we aren’t loving the OTHER members. And this is the ONLY kind of scenario where an excommunication is warranted.

  60. Lea wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Oh Chip.
    Ha. I think Chip is a baby. And a baby christian. Talk to me in 20 years.

    This was quite painful for me to read personally, especially from someone on this site. So I apologize in advance if the following sounds very mean. Let me be clear to you that being mean is not my intention. But I have to let this out.

    I thought we are all against elders abusing younger Christians. So we are back to square one now? That so-called “elder” Christians just “knows better” automatically than younger Christians?

    If 20 years of Christian “experience” automatically makes that Christian mature, we won’t see so many elder and pastor abuses today. And it is up to us “younger” Christians to educate ourselves AHEAD of time so we do not get abused by such elders.

    I found that a lot of “elder” Christians fall into one of the two problems.

    1) They add too much to the bible. A lot of man-made traditions and rules.
    2) They remove too much from the bible. So even the words of God are twisted to either mean something else or pretended to not exist.

    I am not claiming I know everything. I don’t. And yes I am quite a bit younger than you. But my goal is to NEITHER add nor remove any word from the bible. I face every word in the bible head on. And being in a Seeker Sensitive church has allow me to do that. Being in the LOVE of Jesus has allow me to read every word head on, even if they might be disturbing and doesn’t make much sense on the surface.

    Just as that example where God said kill the girl if she doesn’t’ scream out when getting raped. Do I just run away and pretend that verse doesn’t exist? I faced it head on and realize that LOVING God is saying the Girl should always scream for help in the city, even if there is a knife on her neck.

    EVERY word of God, no matter how DISTURBING, has SOMETHING to TEACH us. Can you face the truth in the word of God HEAD ON like that? Can you take the words of God literally and consider that it means what it say? I doubt it. You remove the words of God so much, that now to you sex before marriage is not even a sin. What has the past 20 years of “Christian Experience” gotten you?

    Another thing is if a young Christian knows nothing, whose fault is it? Must every Christian be 50 years old before they know anything about Jesus? Must every young man and woman have sex with multiple partner before finding out that it is bad? Must every young man and woman go into huge debts before they know it is bad?

    Where are the elders? What was the elders doing? Why didn’t the elders MENTOR young Christians to pass on their knowledge and experiences?

    Isn’t the goal of a church to make the next generation, those 18-30 years old, as knowledgeable and experienced with Jesus and his LOVE as the last generations’s 50 year olds?

  61. Law Prof wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    Here we are just talking about sex between a BF and a GF. I think the bible is very clear that they will become one body, as I pointed out previously in verses like 1 Corinthians 6:16-18.
    The question is what significance you ascribe to that phrase in the Bible. Obviously, by becoming “one flesh”, it does not mean they become conjoined like twins. It does not mean they come to share the same genetic code. They are not one flesh in the physical sense, not at all.
    So what does it mean? It could mean nothing more than their offspring will share their flesh, their genetics, who will be the combo of the two parents, who become one flesh in their children. The Jews of millenia ago were very much into the notion of their heritage being through their children, many in the era before Jesus thought that would be the manner in which they experienced eternal life. This theory makes some sense from that perspective.
    It may have had something to due with the legal status of the two, becoming something like one person in the eyes of the law and society of that era (remember, women did not have separate, distinct rights then, in most cultures, they were seen as chattel).
    It may have been something entirely different, some idiom that had meaning to the audience of the day, that has been lost in time (such as Jesus speaking of having a “bad eye”, which scholars are left only to conjecture at).
    But what it most likely is not is a spiritual thing, namely, because it is clearly speaking of one “flesh”, not one spirit, and because this physical bond of marriage will not continue into Heaven, it’s a temporary condition, a fact which Jesus made abundantly clear when the Sadducees attempted to trap him.
    What you must under all circumstances do, CHIPS, is question the dogma you’ve been taught. Just because this-or-that speaker or pastor or writer teaches there’s some deep underlying spiritual meaning to this phrase–such as the soul ties concept, which is not in the Bible–does not make it so.

    Thanks for you insightful post. I was considering it. But Paul said when someone have sex with a prostitute, the also become one flesh.

    So it cannot be a baby. There is no indication that Paul is talking about baby being born out of wedlock or the problem of single-motherhood here.

    And it cannot be a legal status. There won’t be any status between the man and the prostitute. If there was, that prostitute won’t be a prostitute anymore.

    I agree that there is no marriage in heaven. Marriage is only for this world and this life time. So when I say a bond of body and flesh (even if then exist), I was only talking about on this earth.

    Perhaps the bond is indeed only flesh and not with spirit. That of course doesn’t make it any less important.

    Either way I think I spoken enough on this topic. It seems this topic brings about a lot of negative emotions. And it is a very touchy subject. Thanks for your inputs. =)

  62. Lea wrote:

    You say one thing and it gets taken to extreme.

    This is a very good comment. I’ve noticed that when threads here get heated it’s most often related to people assuming extremes that the poster may not have intended. It’s as if one person comes on and recommends a low-salt diet, and then gets accused of pushing a no-salt diet. Which causes others to assume that the dissenters are pushing for an all-salt diet.

    I was tempted to weigh in on this thread earlier, but was spending a great vacation away with my wife and did not want to get sucked into where this thread was going. We realized that this was our first vacation since before we had kids where it was just for the two of us. Now that the kids are out of house it’s nice to rediscover ourselves.

  63. CHIPS wrote:

    Perhaps the bond is indeed only flesh and not with spirit. That of course doesn’t make it any less important.

    Back in my single days (more than 25 years ago), I pretty much believed what you seem to believe. But I was rescued from that over the years through the experience of marriage, raising children, and having my faith tested over and over through life trials. I’m pretty sure that you won’t hold the same beliefs that you hold now by the time you get to my age. It’s good that you engaged here. Putting your thoughts out into the public is a great way to get needed feedback.

  64. @ Law Prof:
    I vote for the idiom we probably don’t get in full. Many moons ago I was trying to read up on the whole “image of God” concept and there was some delving into ezer kenegdo and mibbesari ubasar (flesh of my flesh) all related in a sort of allegorical idiom that we would understand as a sort of reflectiontion of each other and our image of God on earth. It was above my pay grade but makes total sense when we couple it with the purpose to subdue the earth.

    We are to reflect God on earth as His image and we were created/formed man/woman as a reflection to one another. Partners, in His image, might be a good word for us today. It is often translated as “suitable” which doesn’t really capture the expansiveness of the concept. The Ezer is a sort of warrior with you to work to subdue.

    Some of the ancient idioms are too bizarre to try and explain.

  65. Lea wrote:

    I brought up soul bonding initially because a friend mentioned it and I thought it was bonkers.

    I’ve noticed over recent years a sexualizing of the concept Paul gave of Christ and the church being similar to marriage. Like this post by John Piper (who else) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/e2medianetwork/2016/10/ask-pastor-john-is-it-sinful-to-watch-porn-with-my-spouse/

    I just never felt like sex was the point of Paul comparing Christ and the church to marriage.

  66. CHIPS wrote:

    Here is an example. Let’s say Tom divorced his wife Julie JUST because she is a bad cook. That was the only reason. Now I am sure most of us here will disagree with Tom. We will call his divorce sinful. And so the church will disagree with Tom. However even then, the church must not excommunicate Tom on that divorce. The church do not excommunicate members just because they sinned. Instead the church will love Tom (and Julie) even more.

    Okay, I think I see a little more what you are saying. Let’s look at this a little further, though. Tom is going to divorce his wife because she doesn’t cook meals up to his standards. Is Tom otherwise a loving, devoted husband? No, that isn’t possible. If Tom would divorce his wife, who I assume does not want to be divorced, because of such a thing, then Tom has sin issues that go way beyond divorce. He is a user and abuser. If he overcomes his sinful desire to divorce his wife for his own selfish reasons, is everything now good? No. If Tom doesn’t divorce his wife for her cooking, is she forced to stay with him? Someone who has no further value for her than the meals she cooks for him to eat? If she wants to live in a situation where she is valued and appreciated as a human being, is she in sin if she leaves this selfish man?

  67. CHIPS wrote:

    Either way I think I spoken enough on this topic. It seems this topic brings about a lot of negative emotions. And it is a very touchy subject. Thanks for your inputs. =)

    Thanks for the comments you shared. You got me to thinking and that is always good. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have no negative emotions about it, it’s just a discussion.

  68. Ken F wrote:

    We had to work together through the flashbacks as well as the teaching she had been under about both the bonding principle and being chewed gum. Thank God, we worked through this and spent this last week joyfully celebrating our 25th anniversary. I don’t know what it would have been like if her past was different, but I do know that we have become inseparable through the process of working through her trauma. I absolutely do not feel like I married a piece of chewed gum. I value my wife as my soul-mate and best friend.

    And that’s what it’s all about! Congrats you two and I wish many more happy years to you!

  69. @ siteseer:

    You seem to want clear cut rules for every circumstance. The churches (in some churches that would be the priest) have what is called the pastoral option. I do not know if you have read up on that or not, and I do not know if you know the theological foundations for that concept, but I think that this may be part of what is going on here.

  70. Lydia wrote:

    @ CHIPS:
    What do you do with allowable polygamy in the OT?

    God was quite clear in Deuteronomy 17:17 that even a king is not allowed to marry multiple wives. If even a king isn’t allowed to do this, then even less so for an average citizen.

    Of course kings being kings couldn’t care less what God said.

    I don’t think the OT ever allowed polygamy. It was just describing polygamy that happened. And every polygamy in OT always end in disaster. The wife always end up fighting each other. The kids always end up fighting each other. Husband(s) are murdered so the king can steal the man’s wife to become wife #304, because lust knows no bounds. etc.

    Now God can redeem sin, so God can redeem polygamy and make something good out of it. But the act of polygamy itself is a sin.

  71. @ CHIPS:
    It was such a barbaric culture God allowed polygamy and regulated it to protect slave women and cast off women. This is hard for us to wrap our head around because we leave out the ancient context. Polygamy was not Gods intention at all. But we have Abraham, David, Jacob, Solomon, etc who were Polygamous. It is mentioned in Mosaic Law with specifics.

    Like Divorce, it is not from God but He tolerated it because of hardness of hearts. Yet We see in the OT where God commands monogamy.

    I am simply stating fact. I am not defending it or condoning it. I am thinking of your position on “bonding” when it comes to women who had no other options or were attacked.

  72. siteseer wrote:

    I just never felt like sex was the point of Paul comparing Christ and the church to marriage.

    It is ridiculous. And this is going to sound brutal but when hundreds of young seminary Neo Cal church workers invaded churches, that is all they talked about. In every way shape and form. Youth pastors over do it, big time. They made it the center of all existence as if they discovered some mystical secret none of us know. I heard “smoking hot wife” hundreds of times. Even the older guys like Mahaney and Driscoll could not shut up about it.

    I won’t go into the reasons why I think this has been so.

  73. Lydia wrote:

    siteseer wrote:
    I just never felt like sex was the point of Paul comparing Christ and the church to marriage.
    It is ridiculous. And this is going to sound brutal but when hundreds of young seminary Neo Cal church workers invaded churches, that is all they talked about. In every way shape and form. Youth pastors over do it, big time. They made it the center of all existence as if they discovered some mystical secret none of us know. I heard “smoking hot wife” hundreds of times. Even the older guys like Mahaney and Driscoll could not shut up about it.
    I won’t go into the reasons why I think this has been so.

    Didn’t Tim and Kathy Keller write a book relating sex to Christ and the church, or some such?

  74. Nancy2 wrote:

    Isaac was not a polygamist.

    I believe (but am open to correction) that Isaac was the one and only lone solitary monogamist to actually be described in the Bible as loving his wife. FWIW

  75. Dave A A wrote:

    I believe (but am open to correction) that Isaac was the one and only lone solitary monogamist to actually be described in the Bible as loving his wife. FWIW

    Isaac is the only one I can think of. There are other men in the Bible who loved their wives (Jacob and Rachel, Elkanah and Hannah come to mind) but they were polygamists.

  76. siteseer wrote:

    I just never felt like sex was the point of Paul comparing Christ and the church to marriage.

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Didn’t Tim and Kathy Keller write a book relating sex to Christ and the church, or some such?

    Most thinking people of faith don’t see it this way at all. Denny Burk has even stated that the purpose of sex is not pleasure, but to glorify God. Huh?…Ooookay…whatever floats yer’ boat I guess. There is no end to what can be manufactured from the pages of Scripture. I believe I said as much in a previous comment, but by way of a more colorful euphemism.

  77. CHIPS wrote:

    Perhaps the bond is indeed only flesh and not with spirit. That of course doesn’t make it any less important.

    I accept your correction regarding the prostitute example Paul gave, I think you’re right and I was wrong in that.

    But in any event, it does seem kind of apparent that it’s flesh and not spirit, inasmuch as it says “flesh”, not “spirit”, and it also seems to be that in 1 Cor 6, Paul’s contrasting union in the flesh, which one can have with anyone, even a prostitute, and being one in the spirit with the Lord. There appears to be a real contrast going on there between verses 16 and 17 (not unlike the contrast between flesh and spirit described in John 3).

    “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.’ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.”

    Just my thinking on this.

  78. Muff Potter wrote:

    Most thinking people of faith don’t see it this way at all. Denny Burk has even stated that the purpose of sex is not pleasure, but to glorify God. Huh

    I have so many questions for Denny. Like ……..
    Why do churches have pews and not bedrooms?
    How are we going to “glorify” God in Heaven for all eternity?
    Do you think God is a porn addict?

  79. CHIPS wrote:

    I thought we are all against elders abusing younger Christians. So we are back to square one now? That so-called “elder” Christians just “knows better” automatically than younger Christians?

    Personally, I’m against a caste system within the church (organized or otherwise) which claims the right to lord over those who aren’t part of their elite club. Often, it’s not a case of the older or more mature Christians abusing the younger. In fact, in a lot of cases the “elders” are even younger (in age and in the faith) than their victims. Their status is based on cronyism, not their age, gifts or maturity. And that’s what leads to abuse. This might very well be a factor in the Pete Wilson case.

    Chips, I’m not surprised that Lydia called you out. I’m not sure what books and sermons have influenced you, but I hope you will question them seriously. When you say that sex between a loving (but still unmarried) couple is the same as sex with multiple total strangers, and the same as prostitution, you are dangerously close to sin levelling. That’s an attitude I can’t agree with, and I imagine a lot of commenters here have a problem with it, too.

    And then you talk about “spirit bonds” and rape victims being “bonded” to their assailants for life. I’m sure that’s absolutely the last thing that any victim of rape or molestation needs to hear. Whatever “one flesh” means, I can’t accept that it applies to survivors of violent crime.

    I realize that this all started with your response to Muff Potter, when he demanded to see exactly where sex before marriage is condemned in the Bible. But you’ve gone far beyond that point of doctrine now. If you insist on speaking beyond your experience, please don’t be surprised when those who’ve been through life longer try to bring you up short.

  80. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    And then you talk about “spirit bonds” and rape victims being “bonded” to their assailants for life. I’m sure that’s absolutely the last thing that any victim of rape or molestation needs to hear.

    CHIPS,

    I recommend you do some research about Elizabeth Smart who was kidnapped from her family’s home in Utah as a minor, held hostage, and raped for nine months. She criticizes Purity Culture teachings for teaching people that they are like a ‘chewed up piece of gum’ if they’d had sex outside of marriage and ‘who would want that?” Elizabeth said that people should be taught that they have value…no matter what happens.

    And she would beg to differ with you about the whole ‘bonded’ thing. She is happily married and has a child. She is bonded to her own family, not her rapist.

  81. Nancy2 wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    Most thinking people of faith don’t see it this way at all. Denny Burk has even stated that the purpose of sex is not pleasure, but to glorify God. Huh
    I have so many questions for Denny. Like ……..
    Why do churches have pews and not bedrooms?
    How are we going to “glorify” God in Heaven for all eternity?
    Do you think God is a porn addict?

    You rock, Nancy2.

  82. CHIPS wrote:

    Just as that example where God said kill the girl if she doesn’t’ scream out when getting raped. Do I just run away and pretend that verse doesn’t exist? I faced it head on and realize that LOVING God is saying the Girl should always scream for help in the city, even if there is a knife on her neck.

    OMG! I missed this earlier. Now the OT pagan culture is our guide to responding to rape? God commands all women for all time to scream when she is told she will die gruesomely if she does? That is your biblical takeaway?

    The goal is to survive. Period. And that is whatever works in the midst of a violent horror.

    You do need some life “experience”. Put down your Bible. You need more real life experience before reading it, it seems. Unless you are getting these interpretations from some teacher. Then, run!

    Btw, I think you jumped to the conclusion Lea was talking about church elders.

    I am not real understanding of such bizarre thinking when it comes to the issue of barbaric crimes against people.

  83. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    And then you talk about “spirit bonds” and rape victims being “bonded” to their assailants for life. I’m sure that’s absolutely the last thing that any victim of rape or molestation needs to hear. Whatever “one flesh” means, I can’t accept that it applies to survivors of violent crime.

    Rape isn’t alway physically violent, either. What about victims of “date rape”, when the victim is drugged to a state of unconsciousness by the attacker and doesn’t remember much, if anything, about the rape?
    In either case, rape is not an act of “bonding”. It is an act of violence, where the attacker exhibits absolute physical control over the victim.

  84. Thanks, Velour. I wanted to touch on that, too.

    CHIPS wrote:

    Just as that example where God said kill the girl if she doesn’t’ scream out when getting raped. Do I just run away and pretend that verse doesn’t exist? I faced it head on and realize that LOVING God is saying the Girl should always scream for help in the city, even if there is a knife on her neck.

    No. Just no. This I can’t agree with, Chips. In a previous comment, you even went to far as to say that every woman should value her purity above her own life. I can’t accept it because that is a horrible and cruel thing to say, and I refuse to worship a cruel god.

    And my refusal to accept your interpretation doesn’t mean that I am “running away” from the Bible, or from this part of the Torah. It means that I interpret it differently. My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Moses penned this long before DNA or other forensic tests existed, and that if there were no witnesses to the alleged crime, there needed to be some standard for determining the truth of a woman’s accusation of rape. This, sadly, was the best that Moses could do. But I refuse to accept this as a standard for today, or to read this verse as though it has some deep spiritual meaning, or admonishment for women everywhere.

    From what I understand, nearly every victim of rape struggles with irrational feelings of shame, guilt and worthlessness after being used and discarded. The very last thing she needs is to be bombarded with the idea that God is angry with her for choosing to save her life rather than her “purity”. I will not be a party to that kind of cruelty, and I hope that you won’t either.

  85. CHIPS wrote:

    I am not claiming I know everything. I don’t. And yes I am quite a bit younger than you. But my goal is to NEITHER add nor remove any word from the bible. I face every word in the bible head on. And being in a Seeker Sensitive church has allow me to do that. Being in the LOVE of Jesus has allow me to read every word head on, even if they might be disturbing and doesn’t make much sense on the surface.
    Just as that example where God said kill the girl if she doesn’t’ scream out when getting raped. Do I just run away and pretend that verse doesn’t exist? I faced it head on and realize that LOVING God is saying the Girl should always scream for help in the city, even if there is a knife on her neck.

    I take everything in the Bible seriously but I would urge you not to constantly drill down to a single verse and assume that it means to be employed in all places and in all times within the limits of a single sentence. That is grade school level reading. Take the big picture. I always suggest that people step back and figure out what was really going on in this time and place.

    The Old Testament demonstrated to us that we could not follow God perfectly and did an awful job following him imperfectly. The OT points out to us just how screwed up we all are. Let me show you what I mean. In a society in which God was revered, men would protect women from rape. Yet the culture was so screwed up that a woman who screamed would have a high probability of not being assisted. That is what we see in our society today. You may or may not know of the famous Kitty Genovese case in which a woman screamed and people heard her and ignored her. This led to her death.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

    God allowed people to defend themselves when attacked. So why would he say that a woman should cause herself to be killed when she screamed? Do you really think that a woman’s virginity is more important than her very life? Is there anything in the Bible that seems to indicate that? Of course there isn’t.

    Also, it is evident that a woman who is being raped should exhibit concern about the action. In other words, if she was involved in an illicit relationship she would not be screaming, fighting, crying etc, When you take the word *scream* literally* than that would prelude a woman who cried, fainted, went into a fugue state, etc. Do not take the word scream in a wooden literal sense or you will miss the big picture.

    God is the defender of those who are raped. It is an abhorrent act. To think that God wants a women assure her death by screaming when being raped doesn’t make one bit of sense if one looks at God in the big picture.

  86. @ CHIPS:
    Awhile back you claimed to believe that women are more spiritually deceived than men. I have been writing this blog for over 7 years and can testify that are lots of men who are just as spiritually blind and stupid. Until you can come up with a statistical analysis on this statement, you are taking the Apple/Snake incident way beyond its intent.

  87. Muff Potter wrote:

    Most thinking people of faith don’t see it this way at all. Denny Burk has even stated that the purpose of sex is not pleasure, but to glorify God. Huh?…Ooookay…whatever floats yer’ boat I guess.

    That has been one of the clever marketing tactics along with promised power for Piper, Driscoll, Mahaney and the other creepy leaders of that movement to attract young men.

  88. okrapod wrote:

    You seem to want clear cut rules for every circumstance.

    I do? I think I must not be communicating well if that is what you are seeing.

  89. okrapod wrote:

    Error. Big Error. I meant to reference CHIPS, not you. Sorry about that. I got it just backwards.

    OH! okay then! that makes more sense. 🙂

  90. CHIPS wrote:

    So when I say a bond of body and flesh (even if then exist), I was only talking about on this earth.
    Perhaps the bond is indeed only flesh and not with spirit. That of course doesn’t make it any less important.

    Hi Chips,

    So if I’m understanding you correctly, the “one flesh” term relates to sexual intimacy and the “bond” it creates. If that were true, what of a time, for example, that one or the other serves in the military and is absent for a period of 2-3 yrs.? Has that bond been broken? Or is the bond you speak of retroactive?

    I think we have to do a lot of twisting to believe the “one flesh” means a physical union. But it makes a lot of sense to see “one flesh” as a “team” or “partnership” with similar values, goals, and beliefs. This enables an environment of peace and unity with both in accordance with one another just the same as the relationship believers have with Jesus.

    What do you think? Can “one flesh” be more appropriately, logically understood as a team or partnership?

  91. CHIPS wrote:

    I was considering it. But Paul said when someone have sex with a prostitute, the also become one flesh.

    If we understand one flesh as a team or partnership, then Paul’s mention of a one-flesh union with a prostitute makes more sense. In other words, what fellowship has light with darkness; i.e. different values, beliefs, etc.

    Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? 2Cor. 6:14-16

    Notice Paul speaks of harmony, commonality, and agreement. These are the same virtues/behaviors in a one-flesh team/partnership.

  92. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    This I can’t agree with, Chips. In a previous comment, you even went to far as to say that every woman should value her purity above her own life. I can’t accept it because that is a horrible and cruel thing to say, and I refuse to worship a cruel god.

    In my state (California) there is a nation-wide search, with the help of the F.B.I., for the East Area Rapist/Golden State Killer. He raped some 60 women and girls and murdered 12 people (men and women) from the 1970’s to the 1980’s. There’s a $50,000 reward from the F.B.I. for information leading to his arrest and conviction.

    He broke into married peoples’ homes and raped moms in front of their children, threatening to kill the mother and her child(ren) if she didn’t cooperate. To save her child(ren) and herself she cooperated.

    He tied them up.

    The East Area Rapist/Golden State Killer went on to rape women in front of their husbands, putting dishes on the husband’s back and telling the husband that if he heard the dishes move, he would murder his wife, cut off a piece of her and bring it back to her husband.

    EAR/GSK went on to bash couples to death, after raping the woman.

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/help-us-catch-the-east-area-rapist

    So they should have screamed in the face of this maniac and gotten the whole family killed? They should have idolized ‘purity’ over life? Oh, I’m going to go ahead and scream in front of this maniac and escalate his anger and get everybody harmed including the children.

    I think you’ve misunderstood the Scriptures.

  93. Victorious wrote:

    If we understand one flesh as a team or partnership, then Paul’s mention of a one-flesh union with a prostitute makes more sense. In other words, what fellowship has light with darkness; i.e. different values, beliefs, etc.

    And what was Paul talking about? Temple prostitutes serving a pagan god and rituals?

    How about all of the people we have today (and throughout time) who have been kidnapped, threatened, and are trafficked into prostitution? In my state (California) law enforcement is now being trained to handle these cases very differently and get them out of trafficking, not arrest them for prostitution.

  94. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    I can’t accept it because that is a horrible and cruel thing to say, and I refuse to worship a cruel god.

    Nor can I worship such an ego-maniac. In my opinion, said god (small ‘g’ intentional) has much more in common with the gods of the Egyptians and the gods of the Canaanites. The God of Abraham isn’t anything like them.

  95. CHIPS wrote:

    Under this law she must ALWAYS scream for help.

    Two points:
    1) We are no longer under this law.
    2) We all need to remember that Fight or Flight are not the only two pre-programmed responses. There is also a pre-programmed freeze response. Under many circumstances the victim simply freezes, which can be a very effective survival tool. A victim should never be shamed or disbelieved for freezing.

  96. Muff Potter wrote:

    In my opinion, said god (small ‘g’ intentional) has much more in common with the gods of the Egyptians and the gods of the Canaanites.

    Yes, and also very much like the Greco-Roman view of god. That view of God starts as an abstraction – the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, a necessary vice contingent being, etc. That god is then christianized by bolting onto it the concept of trinity in an ill-fitting sort of way. But the God revealed in the Bible is first and foremost relational. There was never a time when God existed solely as god and not as Father, Son, and Spirit.

  97. Hi CHIPS and other Wartburgers,

    By the way, the Courage Conference was just held in Virginia last weekend about sexual abuse. It can still be seen online and there is a PDF handout online too. Tickets are $20.
    It covers the sexual abuse of boys and girls, men and women.

    Some of you may be interested in watching it. Boz T. (attorney) spoke. The event was put on by Ashley Easter. Lots of great speakers.

    http://www.ashleyeaster.com/blog/online-viewing-tickets

  98. CHIPS wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Lydia wrote:
    Oh Chip.
    Ha. I think Chip is a baby. And a baby christian. Talk to me in 20 years.

    This was quite painful for me to read personally, especially from someone on this site.

    Ah. I missed this due to weekend.

    CHIPS, what I am saying is that you read young. Not that I am ‘old’ exactly, but after time passes and you have a few more experience you realize (hopefully) that you maybe didn’t understand everything as well as you thought you did once. That is what I meant.

  99. And in conclusion- after over 13 hundred comments– Pete Wilson has a rather larger social media presence than Wartburg Watch, with over 55 thousand followers on Twitter and 61thousand on Facebook. Before he became An ex-pastor Sept 11, he stopped posting for 3 weeks, with his last tweet, “Whatever it is for you, I’m praying you’ll be able to give your baggage to God as you seek to live wild & free!” coming on Aug 21. (We trust he was NOT thinking of his wife as the “baggage” here.) On Sept 14th he resumed posting and everyone was good again. TWW posted these accusations on Oct 24, and, coincidentally, Pete has again gone silent to his 55-61 followers.
    The last tweet this time was one about trying to forgive those who persecute him, which he quickly deleted.
    I’m sure his many thousands of fans would appreciate an update, such as “Been very busy with the great new job as cheerleader to leaders, and Brandi and I are happily getting settled into our great new church family together!”

  100. Lydia wrote:

    Btw, I think you jumped to the conclusion Lea was talking about church elders.

    You’re right. I was not thinking about church elders at all. I was thinking about live experience, as Serving in Japan mentioned.

  101. dee wrote:

    Also, it is evident that a woman who is being raped should exhibit concern about the action. In other words, if she was involved in an illicit relationship she would not be screaming, fighting, crying etc,

    Yes. I think the whole point of that was to protect against false accusations, as in this system the consequences for willing sex outside of marriage were dire. So they wanted proof and this was kind of all they had.

  102. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    I thought we are all against elders abusing younger Christians. So we are back to square one now? That so-called “elder” Christians just “knows better” automatically than younger Christians?
    Personally, I’m against a caste system within the church (organized or otherwise) which claims the right to lord over those who aren’t part of their elite club. Often, it’s not a case of the older or more mature Christians abusing the younger. In fact, in a lot of cases the “elders” are even younger (in age and in the faith) than their victims. Their status is based on cronyism, not their age, gifts or maturity. And that’s what leads to abuse. This might very well be a factor in the Pete Wilson case.
    Chips, I’m not surprised that Lydia called you out. I’m not sure what books and sermons have influenced you, but I hope you will question them seriously. When you say that sex between a loving (but still unmarried) couple is the same as sex with multiple total strangers, and the same as prostitution, you are dangerously close to sin levelling. That’s an attitude I can’t agree with, and I imagine a lot of commenters here have a problem with it, too.
    And then you talk about “spirit bonds” and rape victims being “bonded” to their assailants for life. I’m sure that’s absolutely the last thing that any victim of rape or molestation needs to hear. Whatever “one flesh” means, I can’t accept that it applies to survivors of violent crime.
    I realize that this all started with your response to Muff Potter, when he demanded to see exactly where sex before marriage is condemned in the Bible. But you’ve gone far beyond that point of doctrine now. If you insist on speaking beyond your experience, please don’t be surprised when those who’ve been through life longer try to bring you up short.

    Yes we have to remember how this conversation started. A poster here asked me about rape and fresh bond. So I was OFFERED an opportunity to explain to him/her why I believe my views. I wasn’t trying to impost my views on another person.

    And so far I hasn’t read any solid biblical evidence against my point of view. I understand totally that my point of view on this topic is disturbing. So my apologies here if anyone is disturbed. But just because something is disturbing it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Once again I am not trying to make anyone believe what I believe about this topic. I am explaining why I believe what I believe.

    I personally think it is very important to become a church community where differences in theologies are “accepted”. And by accepted I do not mean that everyone must believe in what you say. Instead I mean that it is ok to have different point of views and STILL be brothers and sisters in the love of Christ.

    For example let’s go back to the basics of having sex before marriage. Now I might not agree with sex before marriage. In fact I will say most church will be against sex before marriage. However I will DEFEND your rights to have the opinion that sex before marriage is ok. And the church should also defend your rights. And if someone ask your for your opinion, or the topic just comes up in a small group discussion, you are free to express your opinions.

    A church must NOT discipline members for sinning. And a church must NOT discipline members for differences in theology. Anyone that believes in the saving grace of Jesus is a brother and sister. If there is sin, let us firstly MOURN for that person. Then we LOVING, GENTLY and PATIENTLY restore each other. If there is differences in theology, let us listen to each other and consider each other’s views. No one knows everything.

    The problem is when someone “aggressively” go around telling everyone in the church that sex before marriage is ok. That means no one even ask that person about it, and the topic wasn’t even up, but that person is so proud and so boastful that he/she have to tell everyone. It is like every time you talk to someone, you bring up how sex before marriage is ok and how you are having sex with your BF/GF every night. Then you are leading other Christians astray. And the church must step in.

    On the topic of differences in sexual immortality, perhaps I wasn’t clear. I was just saying that if a man have sex with a prostitute, he does become ONE FLESH with her. This was clearly written in the bible. And if he have sex with his GF, he too become ONE FLESH with his GF. That is all. There is indeed a difference between a BF sleeping with his GF, than him having sex with a prostitute. But this still DOESN’T mean that the BF can have sex with his GF before marriage. The difference ISN’T justification for sex before marriage. The difference is only talking about the difference levels of sexual immortality.

    For example Tony is having sex with his GF, which is sexual immortality. Then we have David which flew to Thailand to have sex with child prostitutes. There is NO way Tony is in the same level as David. Of course not. But that doesn’t mean Tony is right. He is still a sinner. A sinner CANNOT just point at a greater sinner, and say that he is ok. This self-righteousness attribute is what Jesus warned against many times. We are all sinners on various levels and we must all repent.

  103. BTW when I say a church must NOT discipline members for sinning, I didn’t mean that a church shouldn’t point out a person’s sins. Now for minor sins we should bear with each other, and some sins are so minor they aren’t worth mentioning. But for big sins, we should ALWAYS point them out.

    Else that person walks in darkness and ends up hurting themselves. So if you knows a Christian is having sex outside of marriage, of course you should point it out.

    Point out each other’s sins. But do not discipline unless that member is bringing harm to other members, by being proud and boastful, and aggressively spreading his false and dangerous believes to other church members.

  104. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Thanks, Velour. I wanted to touch on that, too.
    CHIPS wrote:
    Just as that example where God said kill the girl if she doesn’t’ scream out when getting raped. Do I just run away and pretend that verse doesn’t exist? I faced it head on and realize that LOVING God is saying the Girl should always scream for help in the city, even if there is a knife on her neck.
    No. Just no. This I can’t agree with, Chips. In a previous comment, you even went to far as to say that every woman should value her purity above her own life. I can’t accept it because that is a horrible and cruel thing to say, and I refuse to worship a cruel god.
    And my refusal to accept your interpretation doesn’t mean that I am “running away” from the Bible, or from this part of the Torah. It means that I interpret it differently. My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Moses penned this long before DNA or other forensic tests existed, and that if there were no witnesses to the alleged crime, there needed to be some standard for determining the truth of a woman’s accusation of rape. This, sadly, was the best that Moses could do. But I refuse to accept this as a standard for today, or to read this verse as though it has some deep spiritual meaning, or admonishment for women everywhere.
    From what I understand, nearly every victim of rape struggles with irrational feelings of shame, guilt and worthlessness after being used and discarded. The very last thing she needs is to be bombarded with the idea that God is angry with her for choosing to save her life rather than her “purity”. I will not be a party to that kind of cruelty, and I hope that you won’t either.

    I disagree when you say God is cruel if he ask a girl to scream and try to fight off the rapist. Because I believe that God is ALL LOVING when he ask a girl to scream and try to fight off the rapist.

    Here is why: Deut 22:24 was directly in the bible. But yet we know God loves us when he send his son Jesus to die for us.

    Now once again it doesn’t mean I agree with it in today’s world. I understand the fear that the girl faces when there was a knife on her neck. So of course I am not going to condemn her. And that law doesn’t apply anymore to Christians.

    What I am trying to point to is what God is saying. To me God is saying that the girl actually INCREASES her chance of survival if she screams and try to fight off the attacker.

    Let’s say a rapist comes with a knife to a girl and say “Let me tie you up and rape you. Then I will let you live.” What should the girl do?

    The girl can obey the rapist and HOPE he doesn’t kill her. And yes there is a chance that if she screams and struggles that rapist will end up killing her.

    However how about the other side? That the girl can obey the rapist and he WILL STILL kill her? That if the girl screams, someone might come to her support? That if the girl fights, the rapist might end up running away? Should we just ignore this other side and pretend these “good” results cannot happen?

    God is saying DO NOT rely on that psychopath rapist to have mercy on you. Chances are he will kill you either way. He will tie you up, rape you and kill you. Instead scream for help and try to fight him off. And RELY ON God to protect you in that process.

    And if a BF or a husband see this scenario, he should charge at the rapist to protect his spouse. Dare that rapist to fire his gun in the city. And the girl should run away and go get help. Do not fear death in these scenarios. To more you fear death, the more likely you will end up dying. Instead rely on God more.

    Look at the case of Todd Kohlhepp. This guy has zero mercy toward his victims. He kills every single one of his victims. So if this guy points a gun at you and say for you to tie yourself up, what would be your best bet to SURVIVE? Of course it is to scream and try to fight back. If you let him tie you up, you are 100% dead. This guy has no mercy. So why are you expecting any? You are MUCH better off relying on God, by screaming and trying to fight him off.

    Anyways you guys don’t have to agree with me. Please read Deut 22:24 for yourself. Consider what I said. Then put yourself in that scenario with some psychopath like Todd Kohlhepp. He is right there point a gun at you. He tell you to tie yourself up. He “promised” to let you live after he has his way with you, which you know deep inside he is lying and he will end up killing you anyways. Do you obey this psychopath and hope he has mercy on you? Or do you scream and fight? Read Deut 22:24 again. Decide for yourself.

  105. CHIPS 

    I am tied up in some other matters but I wanted to address your comment. In fact, most men who raape women do so for a sense of control. It is a means to overpower the woman. It is highly likely that the rapist will hurt the a woman if she does not cooperate with him. In your argument, you put a woman’s virginity above her life and that is not what God does. You claim that you are a lot younger than many of us. I suggest that you read your Bible from a big picture than try to hammer a single passage into a rule. “Wome whould always fight off their rapist, even if they might get killed” because that is precisely what will happen if women follow your never to be opposed *ruke.* The Bible is not meant to be interpreted in a wooden litera sense. 

    I am thinking about posting you argument on Twitter so you can see the reaction it get from Christians.

  106. CHIPS wrote:

    To me God is saying that the girl actually INCREASES her chance of survival if she screams and try to fight off the attacker.

    Oh Chips! This is so individual, to the rapist. Sometimes fighting is best. Sometimes it isn’t. Someone in that situation has to judge, in a split second. I don’t think that’s what this was about at all.

  107. I think one thing CHIPS has not considered, or may not even be completely aware of, is the fact that the scripture she keeps referring to is part of the Mosaic Law……… the same set of laws that permit divorce, forbid eating “unclean” food, exclude non-Israelites from joining the community for 3 generations, command stoning for various sins, command widows to marry the deceased husband’s oldest brother, and so on.

  108. Lea wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    To me God is saying that the girl actually INCREASES her chance of survival if she screams and try to fight off the attacker.
    Oh Chips! This is so individual, to the rapist. Sometimes fighting is best. Sometimes it isn’t. Someone in that situation has to judge, in a split second. I don’t think that’s what this was about at all.

    I live in a very rural area. Who is going to hear a rape victim scream out here?
    The law CHIPS keeps speaking about was written for the Israelites, who basically lived in a large, nomadic tent city in the wilderness.

  109. dee wrote:

    CHIPS 
    I am tied up in some other matters but I wanted to address your comment. In fact, most men who raape women do so for a sense of control. It is a means to overpower the woman. It is highly likely that the rapist will hurt the a woman if she does not cooperate with him. In your argument, you put a woman’s virginity above her life and that is not what God does. You claim that you are a lot younger than many of us. I suggest that you read your Bible from a big picture than try to hammer a single passage into a rule. “Wome whould always fight off their rapist, even if they might get killed” because that is precisely what will happen if women follow your never to be opposed *ruke.* The Bible is not meant to be interpreted in a wooden litera sense. 
    I am thinking about posting you argument on Twitter so you can see the reaction it get from Christians.

    Yes the rapist might hurt the woman more if she doesn’t comply to his rape demands. I am not doubting that. But we have to also consider the opposite side. Which is that EVEN if the woman complies what what the rapist says, there is no guarantee that he will let her live. Rapists kills their victim all the time. And worst yet, rapists often torture their victim for months or years before killing them. Todd Kohlhepp is a prime example of this. So is Robert Pickton.

    Now I know the sociality has been telling the girls that, if a rapist come with a knife, just let him has his way. Every churches has been teaching the girls that. But does this actually work? How has the girls complying to Robert Pickton “kept” them alive? It didn’t. In fact complying to Robert Pickton guaranteed their doom. And he killed 50.

    If you want to post it on Twitter, please go ahead. However I would appreciate it though if you do not take my words out of context. Be sure to mention the likes of Robert Pickton. Ask these Christians to explain to me (and all of us) how complying to Robert Pickton’s demands would keep the girls alive. I am all ears.

  110. Lea wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    To me God is saying that the girl actually INCREASES her chance of survival if she screams and try to fight off the attacker.
    Oh Chips! This is so individual, to the rapist. Sometimes fighting is best. Sometimes it isn’t. Someone in that situation has to judge, in a split second. I don’t think that’s what this was about at all.

    When a girl is facing Robert Pickton, I will say it doesn’t really matter where she is. Even if she is in a rural area with no one to hear her, her best bet to survive is to scream and fight. Robert Pickton didn’t show any mercy for his past 40 victims, and you are victim #41. You think Robert Pickton will show you mercy and let you live?

    Now of course we have no idea if that rapist “just” want to rape, or he is Robert Pickton. But how can anyone tell? Should we “learn” discerning who is just a rapist and who is a Robert Pickton? No way!

    When I read Deut 22:24, I believe God is saying to always fight, no matter if he is “just” a rapist or he is Robert Pickton. In other words girls should assume every rapist is Robert Pickton. You guys are free to interpret it another way.

  111. CHIPS wrote:

    How has the girls complying to Robert Pickton “kept” them alive? It didn’t.

    Serial killers are not representative of all rapists!

    Sometimes fighting is absolutely best. Oprah was talking about not letting someone take you to a second location if possible 10-20 years ago. Date rape can sometimes be shut down for fighting.

    And sometimes fighting is dangerous. Sometimes it is useless. Sometimes people just shut down and can do nothing else.

    Have you ever read the gift of fear? Very useful perspective on listening to your instincts in these cases. I will listen to that before I listen to a young guy on the internet.

  112. CHIPS wrote:

    But how can anyone tell?

    Paying attention to cues, verbal and non verbal.

    Not everyone is Robert Pickton, whoever that is.

  113. Lea wrote:

    gift of fear

    Excellent book by Gavin de Becker, an expert about violence. He and his company advise government, celebrities, and individuals about safety.

  114. Nancy2 wrote:

    I think one thing CHIPS has not considered, or may not even be completely aware of, is the fact that the scripture she keeps referring to is part of the Mosaic Law……… the same set of laws that permit divorce, forbid eating “unclean” food, exclude non-Israelites from joining the community for 3 generations, command stoning for various sins, command widows to marry the deceased husband’s oldest brother, and so on.

    Once again I am not saying the Mosaic Laws applies today. If the girl didn’t scream out and got raped, of course we won’t accuse her of any wrong doing. Instead we should love and support her, gently heal any damages done to her.

    However I believe every word of God has something to teach us. We cannot just throw the whole OT away. Because if we do that, why can’t we throw the NT away today? We are 2,000 years away from the NT, so NT also doesn’t apply at all.

    I am not telling the girls to scream and fight against Robert Pickton because I am cold-hearted or insensitive. Quite the opposite! I am telling the girls to fight against Robert Pickton because that is their BEST BET to survive.

  115. CHIPS wrote:

    Here is why: Deut 22:24 was directly in the bible.

    This is one of the Mosaic Laws, along with over 600 more laws. Do you believe that all Christians have to live according to Mosaic Law?

  116. Lea wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    You guys are free to interpret it another way.
    Are you sure that wouldn’t be a sin? *snark*

    Depends. Am I sinning do disagreeing with everyone here? 😀

    I still loves all of you. =)

  117. CHIPS wrote:

    I am not telling the girls to scream and fight against Robert Pickton because I am cold-hearted or insensitive. Quite the opposite!

    OK, you may be sincere but you have no clue what you’re talking about.

    I do have experience with this. I was held hostage as a child and threatened with being murdered. By the grace of God, I kept my wits about me and I remained super calm which the situation required with that man.

    Had I screamed, it would have just escalated the situation.

    I have taken full body, full force, self-defense classes for months in which we were attacked by men in heavily padded suits who unleashed profanities on us as well starting at Week 3. This was to ‘inoculate us’ since many people freeze when criminals start swearing at them. I have learned to scream like a drill sergeant, order people to do things, and I have used my voice to protect others and myself.

    That said, every situation requires that we use our brains and not act impulsively.
    There are plenty of dangerous situations that require stealth, calm, logical behavior and not screaming.

  118. Nancy2 wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    Here is why: Deut 22:24 was directly in the bible.
    This is one of the Mosaic Laws, along with over 600 more laws. Do you believe that all Christians have to live according to Mosaic Law?

    No. Christians do not live according to the Mosaic law. But all Mosaic Law has something to teach us. They are wisdom from our loving God.

    Acts 15:28-29 is the the “conclusion” of all the Mosaic Law.

    28 For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and ours—to put no greater burden on you than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. You will do well if you keep yourselves from these things.

    The only other two things are the Greatest Commandment and the Great Commission.

  119. CHIPS wrote:

    Mosaic Law has something to teach us

    Maybe the love, grace, and mercy showered upon us by Jesus crucifixion and resurrection ……. maybe that the veil was rent between Jew and Gentile, between Mosaic Law and grace; that Jesus is our Prophet, Priest, and King

  120. CHIPS wrote:

    However I believe every word of God has something to teach us. We cannot just throw the whole OT away. Because if we do that, why can’t we throw the NT away today? We are 2,000 years away from the NT, so NT also doesn’t apply at all.

    CHIPS, the OT tells us of all the things that did not work to make people righteous. The law failed. It could not make people good. It could not save. It did not bring about a good society. It did not guide the people to know or accept their own God when he came to them. Here is something to consider from the OT- the Israelites wanted to go back to slavery in Egypt because they missed the leeks and onions. Isn’t this similar to wanting to hold onto the failed law instead of fully trusting Jesus Christ? He saved us and set us free. Should we tell him, sorry, I liked some things about being in slavery, I think I’ll hang onto them?

    After he gave himself for us, Jesus sent his own Spirit to guide us. Let the compassion he pours into your heart guide you rather than trying to make those archaic rules work.

    The OT was supplanted by the new and I assume it will remain so since the NT carries us through the end of time.

  121. siteseer wrote:

    After he gave himself for us, Jesus sent his own Spirit to guide us. Let the compassion he pours into your heart guide you rather than trying to make those archaic rules work.
    The OT was supplanted by the new and I assume it will remain so since the NT carries us through the end of time.

    Yes!

  122. CHIPS wrote:

    I disagree when you say God is cruel if he ask a girl to scream and try to fight off the rapist.

    That’s not what I said. I said it was cruel for you to say this:

    Sexual purity is enough to risk your life for, as per God. Don’t just let a rapist take it away from you. Ignore that knife he has at your throat.

    And that it’s even more cruel to insist that this command comes from God. It is evil and wrong to say that a woman must always choose her “purity” over her own life.

    God is saying DO NOT rely on that psychopath rapist to have mercy on you. Chances are he will kill you either way. He will tie you up, rape you and kill you. Instead scream for help and try to fight him off. And RELY ON God to protect you in that process.

    So let me get this straight: According to you, God instituted this law because He wanted a woman to increase her odds of surviving an attack. He wanted her to survive. But if she didn’t scream and survived the attack, her punishment was death!? That makes no sense at all.

    CHIPS wrote:

    Now I know the sociality has been telling the girls that, if a rapist come with a knife, just let him has his way. Every churches has been teaching the girls that.

    “Every church”? I’ve never heard any pastor, or anyone else in church, teach anything like this.

    Rapists kills their victim all the time.

    No, they don’t. If that’s true, then why are there so many accusations of rape from living survivors?

    Elizabeth Smart survived her ordeal precisely because she didn’t cry out or resist. That kept her alive until police found her.

    In fact complying to Robert Pickton guaranteed their doom. And he killed 50.

    Wrong again. He was convicted of the deaths of 6 women, and suspected of the murder of an additional 20. And how do you know that he raped them beforehand?

    Please get your facts straight. And again, learn from those who’ve seen more of life than you have.

  123. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    I disagree when you say God is cruel if he ask a girl to scream and try to fight off the rapist.
    That’s not what I said. I said it was cruel for you to say this:
    Sexual purity is enough to risk your life for, as per God. Don’t just let a rapist take it away from you. Ignore that knife he has at your throat.
    And that it’s even more cruel to insist that this command comes from God. It is evil and wrong to say that a woman must always choose her “purity” over her own life.
    God is saying DO NOT rely on that psychopath rapist to have mercy on you. Chances are he will kill you either way. He will tie you up, rape you and kill you. Instead scream for help and try to fight him off. And RELY ON God to protect you in that process.
    So let me get this straight: According to you, God instituted this law because He wanted a woman to increase her odds of surviving an attack. He wanted her to survive. But if she didn’t scream and survived the attack, her punishment was death!? That makes no sense at all.
    CHIPS wrote:
    Now I know the sociality has been telling the girls that, if a rapist come with a knife, just let him has his way. Every churches has been teaching the girls that.
    “Every church”? I’ve never heard any pastor, or anyone else in church, teach anything like this.
    Rapists kills their victim all the time.
    No, they don’t. If that’s true, then why are there so many accusations of rape from living survivors?
    Elizabeth Smart survived her ordeal precisely because she didn’t cry out or resist. That kept her alive until police found her.
    In fact complying to Robert Pickton guaranteed their doom. And he killed 50.
    Wrong again. He was convicted of the deaths of 6 women, and suspected of the murder of an additional 20. And how do you know that he raped them beforehand?
    Please get your facts straight. And again, learn from those who’ve seen more of life than you have.

    You have to separate what “God said” from what “CHIPS believed”. I am just pointing out Deut 22:24 to you. God said stone the girl to death BECAUSE she did not cry out for help to defend her sexual purity. I didn’t make this up!

    Do I personally support this law. No I don’t! Am I saying this law apply today? Of course not! I already said that we are NOT to condemn the girl if she didn’t cry out. Instead we have to lovingly and gently heal and restore her both physically and psychologically. Similarly I am against the stoning of the stubborn son (Deut 21:18-21).

    So how then should we read this? We have two ways:

    1) This law doesn’t apply today and has nothing to teach us.
    2) This law NEVER applied. But it has something to teach us.

    If we go with 1, we are saying God used to be cruel. That’s why he wrote unjust/unreasonable laws for the ancient Israelite. Yet today he is not cruel anymore.

    I refuse to believe #1. Because I believe God is all loving. Else he won’t have sent himself (Jesus) to die for us.

    Instead I believe in #2. That is these “cruel” laws never applied, but all these “cruel” laws something to teach us. For example a father would almost never stone his stubborn son to death. And similarity a village won’t stone a raped girl, who didn’t cry out, to death. Yet these laws has something to teach us.

    Why do I think these laws NEVER actually applied, even back in the ancient days? There were prostitutes everywhere. We don’t see them getting stoned. (Read Hosea as prove that there were prostitutes in Israel.) Plenty of non-virgin girls got married and wasn’t stoned, for example Rahab.

    BTW the stoning is never for being a non-virgin. The stoning is for the deception for pretending to be a virgin. That’s why these things happens after a husband had sex with the girl (wife). If a girl had sex with a man, and then came out and tell everyone, her life would be spared.

    At the very least if we read Deut 22, we see that EVERY non-virgin girl has an out. She can say she was raped in the wilderness by an unknown stranger, who she will never see again. And no one can punish her. No one is going to challenge her and claim that she had sex willingly. And her future husband has no say on it anymore.

    There is also of course the mercy from the husband. Now if a non-virgin girl is deceptive and is found out by the husband, the husband has every right (back then) to stone her to death. But was there mercy? Yes there was! That’s why Joseph, when he found out that Mary was pregnant, wanted to divorce her quietly. Mary being pregnant would have been clear evidence that she slept with someone else. (Matthew 1:19) Now an angel later on come to Joseph to tell her to marry Mary. But even without the angel, Joseph had no intention of killing Mary. Joseph was a loving and merciful man.

    There are certainly many unwritten cases where a husband discovers that his wife was deceitful and wasn’t a virgin. He had every right to stone her as per the law, but out of mercy he decides to just hide it and continue to love her as his wife. And that was pretty much the whole Gospel message right there.

    Just as there were certainly many fathers has stubborn sons, but that fathers love the sons too much to stone them. That is also the whole Gospel message.

    So what is God teaching us in Deut 22:24? Two things:

    1) Sexual purity is important. There can be no excuses. In fact you should value sexual purity more than your own life.

    The context here is for BF/GFs who is thinking of having sex. God said even if a rapist wants to rape you in the city, you must resist. If that is how important sexual purity is, why then would a GF give herself away to her BF? Emotions? Feelings? Doesn’t matter!

    Is the point here to stone the girl to death? Nope! Because the girl ALWAYS has an out. If she said she was raped in the wilderness by a stranger 2 weeks ago, and just now gather up enough courage to tell everyone, NO ONE can challenge her. God DIDN’T say go to that spot to gather evidence against her. God said take it at her word and just trust her.

    So this point is more about the relationships between BF and GFs, that sexual purity is very important.

    2) Screaming and fighting against the rapist is your best bet to survive.

    I said enough on this already. Now of course the girl has to use her head and see the situation. Even if she is to push the knife away and fight, she has to look for the right opportunity.

    God is telling the girl to remember Deut 22:24. And consider the rapist is someone like Robert Pickton. And then think about her best course of action.

    (BTW Robert Pickton confessed to killing 49 women on his farm, to an undercover inmate. Robert was saying he wanted to kill just 1 more to make it 50. The court only sued Robert Picton for 6 murders. But it is obvious to everyone that he killed many many more. There were plenty of DNA samples of many women on his farm. )

  124. CHIPS wrote:

    1) Sexual purity is important. There can be no excuses. In fact you should value sexual purity more than your own life.

    This is nonsense.

  125. Lea wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    1) Sexual purity is important. There can be no excuses. In fact you should value sexual purity more than your own life.
    This is nonsense.

    Indeed.

  126. CHIPS wrote:

    So what is God teaching us in Deut 22:24? Two things:
    1) Sexual purity is important. There can be no excuses. In fact you should value sexual purity more than your own life.
    The context here is for BF/GFs who is thinking of having sex. God said even if a rapist wants to rape you in the city, you must resist. If that is how important sexual purity is, why then would a GF give herself away to her BF? Emotions? Feelings? Doesn’t matter!

    I’m over 40 years of age and still a virgin because I have never married, and I’m not sure what to make of your views there.

    I don’t think I’d argue that my sexual purity is worth more than my life, but, I find the idea of being raped so hideous and repugnant, I might be willing to fight off a rapist rather than be raped, even if that means I die in the process.

    Some times, men rape other men – especially in times of war, or in prisons. Do you believe that a man should value his own sexual purity over his own life?

    CHIPS wrote:

    Now I know the sociality has been telling the girls that, if a rapist come with a knife, just let him has his way. Every churches has been teaching the girls that.

    Serving Kids replied:

    “Every church”? I’ve never heard any pastor, or anyone else in church, teach anything like this.

    I don’t know if this is still the thinking on the topic or not, but years ago, when I saw TV news segments or online articles about rape prevention, some of the experts did tell women to take it on a case- by- case basis, which might mean not fighting back.

    Meaning, if a woman sensed her ONLY means of saving her life was not to actively resist being raped (by slapping, punching, biting, kicking, etc, the attacker), to take that route.

    The experts said anything that keeps you alive is justifiable, so don’t feel bad or guilty if you did not fight back because you got the feeling that would keep you alive.

    (But there again, that was the last information I remember reading on this issue, maybe the advice has changed in the years since.)

  127. Daisy wrote:

    maybe the advice has changed in the years since.

    Advice can only give probabilities and tactics. It will never be able to look someone in the eye and make a split second decision.

    But I don’t think I’ve heard a thing preached on this subject that I can recall.

  128. Lea wrote:

    Advice can only give probabilities and tactics. It will never be able to look someone in the eye and make a split second decision.

    That is why the advice at the time told women to rely on their gut if they found themselves being raped. It’s going to depend on the individual context, it’s not blanket advice for every single instance to fight back.

  129. Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics
    https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

    From RAINN:

    Men and Boys Are Also Affected by Sexual Violence

    As of 1998, 2.78 million men in the U.S. had been victims of attempted or completed rape.5
    About 3% of American men—or 1 in 33—have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.5
    1 out of every 10 rape victims are male.8​

  130. Lea wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:

    1) Sexual purity is important. There can be no excuses. In fact you should value sexual purity more than your own life.

    This is nonsense.

    I think further discussion on this is pointless. Some people here think having sex outside of marriage is perfectly ok. Another here thinks that divorce is perfectly ok if the marriage “just aren’t” working out. And they find every single excuse to justify premarital sex and divorce. And they DRAG this discussion into the MUD, by bringing RAPE into the picture. And when I try to talk to them about rape, they keep on taking my words out of context.

    If you quote just ONE more sentence of my post, you would have understood what I was talking about.

    Ok I will make it easy for you by quoting it for you:
    “The context here is for BF/GFs who is thinking of having sex. God said even if a rapist wants to rape you in the city, you must resist. If that is how important sexual purity is, why then would a GF give herself away to her BF? Emotions? Feelings? Doesn’t matter!”

    Look. I am not your neo-Calvinist. I am against church abuses just as much as you do. And I am not trying to be mean to you. But that doesn’t mean we agree on everything. But that would actually be ok.

    What I do not appreciate is that you take my words out of context. I am trying to have a civil and detailed discussion with you. But you just quote one sentence from my post, totally out of context. You just cut off my post half way through to prove whatever you are trying to prove.

    Here. Jesus clearly say get revenge. So go ahead and kill all your enemies. -_-

    ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ (Matthew 5:38)

    BTW this is not the first time you quoted just ONE sentence from my post out of context. You did this so many times.

  131. CHIPS wrote:

    a father would almost never stone his stubborn son to death.

    Care to elaborate on almost never? Gove examples on why he would beyond attempting to save his or another’s life.

  132. @ CHIPS:
    I want to give you a broad warning here. Your comments have disturbed me for awhile now. You use a technique of stating the absurd and then pulling back and saying “but of course, this cannot be applied.”

    Here is the deal. Women who have been raped are victims of an evil individual. She has the right to fight him off and no one else(ed. correction) has any business quoting Deuteronomy to say she didn’t do it right.

    I have heard your arguments and believe that you are taking a legalistic point of view which you will then say isn’t true.

    Since this post has nothing to do with rape and the issues surrounding it, not does it have anything to do with father’s sometimes toning their kids, I am asking this conversation to stop. I am putting you into moderation and will approve your comments if you get back to the business at hand.

    I do not want TWW to give more of a platform to this than I already have. Good night!

  133. dee wrote:

    Good night!

    Heh, heh, heh.

    Good Night to misunderstanding the Old Testament and its times of darkness.

    Good Night to jumping to faulty legalistic conclusions concerning the Old Testament and the Old Covenant and applying it to all times, beating it in place with the club of patriarchy.

    Good Morning to the New Things (Isaiah 48:6) God did through Jesus Christ and the New Covenant and New Creation (2 Cor 5:17 & Gal 6:15).

    (This adds nothing to the conversation. It’s just one of my little place holder comments so I can come back later and see where I left off reading.)

  134. Mara wrote:

    dee wrote:
    Good night!

    Good morning, ex-Pastor Pete! How’s the wife?
    (This adds nothing to the conversation.)

  135. dee wrote:

    @ CHIPS:
    I want to give you a broad warning here. Your comments have disturbed me for awhile now. You use a technique of stating the absurd and then pulling back and saying “but of course, this cannot be applied.”

    Here is the deal. Women who have been raped are victims of an evil individual. She has the right to fight him off and no one else(ed. correction) has any business quoting Deuteronomy to say she didn’t do it right.

    I have heard your arguments and believe that you are taking a legalistic point of view which you will then say isn’t true.

    Since this post has nothing to do with rape and the issues surrounding it, not does it have anything to do with father’s sometimes toning their kids, I am asking this conversation to stop. I am putting you into moderation and will approve your comments if you get back to the business at hand.

    I do not want TWW to give more of a platform to this than I already have. Good night!

    I respect your decision.

  136. Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher UNITED STATES

  137. EChurch@Wartburg What is the name of your church, business or organization you have established? Are you a Christian? Do you own a home? Do you volunteer? Do you encourage other to excel? Stop judging!

    “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

    Eugene

  138. @ Eugene:

    Well, scripture also says this. . .

    Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

  139. Eugene wrote:

    What is the name of your church, business or organization you have established?

    Why does this even matter?
    What does it have to do with anything going on here of anywhere else?

    They aren’t bringing in any money.
    They aren’t asking old ladies to tithe to them out of their meager social security checks.
    They aren’t living the high life off the backs of the working poor or robbing the college educations from the children of the middle class.
    They aren’t buying acres of property and building million dollar homes from any money they scam from their brothers and sisters saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” or, “The Bible clearly states…”

    Just exactly who are you trying to compare them to with this sentence? What the heck are you wanting to prove to us except that you haven’t a clue about anything going on here?

  140. Eugene wrote:

    Are you a Christian?

    Why does anyone here have to defend or prove their standing with God to you?
    What higher plane do you think you live on that you can ask such a question?
    Have you been granted some divine gift that makes you the judge and keeper of men’s souls?

    This is between the individuals here and God just as your salvation is between you and God. I could ask you the same question but I know that is really none of my business.

    By asking this question you are putting yourself in the place of God.
    By asking this you elevate yourself to a position of judging the eternal salvation of others.

    Then you turn around and whine about the people here judging the outward fruit of people and ministries that are destroying lives.

    Talk about blind hypocrisy.

  141. Eugene wrote:

    “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
    Eugene

    I think you’ll find that quote was not authored by anybody under the name of “Eugene”.

  142. Eugene wrote:

    EChurch@Wartburg What is the name of your church, business or organization you have established? Are you a Christian? Do you own a home? Do you volunteer? Do you encourage other to excel? Stop judging!
    “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
    Eugene

    Awww, the cultic Thought Stopping techniques being employed. “I know a clobber verse [Scripture verse] to hit you over the head with. So there.”

    Guess what? It’s not going to work. The tactic you just employed is like a codependent in an alcoholic family practicing the ‘no talk rules’. Lean closely, the problem still exists. Gasp. Yes, it does.

    We’re adults. We can judge plenty of things in life and are expected to. To do otherwise is to enable. https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php

  143. Dave A A wrote:

    Mara wrote:
    dee wrote:
    Good night!
    Good morning, ex-Pastor Pete! How’s the wife?
    (This adds nothing to the conversation.)

    A+

  144. Eugene wrote:

    Do you encourage other to excel? Stop judging!

    Do you use excel? Do you use power point? How about word? Stop Judging!

    *equally relevant*

  145. Eugene wrote:

    For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
    Eugene

    How is this scary? If you come down on abusive people and are not abusive, that seems like a perfectly ok deal.

  146. Eugene wrote:

    EChurch@Wartburg What is the name of your church, business or organization you have established? ……. Do you own a home? ……. Stop judging!

    Are you judging TWW by brick and mortar standards? Do they have to own and conduct business out of a physical building to be Christians?

    Are you taking verses out of context to justify behaviors of yourself or someone else?
    “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”