A Response to The Other Ashley Madison List No One Is Talking About

The Shadow·
ApologeticsChurch LifeCulture

I appreciate this opportunity for dialogue.

The article The Other Ashley Madison List No One Is Talking About raises so many questions, and appears to underestimate the totality of sin which affects every pastor (and every person), every day (TULIP), that it’s difficult to know where to begin.

The question is, How do we know who has been faithful and who hasn’t? What if someone is the victim of an abusive marriage, has a personality disorder, or unintentionally falls in love with someone else? Or, for example, when marriage vows are made under false pretenses, is that a real marriage? What if you’re engaged to one person, and then meet someone else and find out that you’re really in love with the other person, and end up breaking off your engagement? Would that constitute adultery?

The Bible provides us with some clear guidelines when regarding the sin of adultery. Jesus says, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” It is worth remembering that Jesus’ whole point is that we can’t keep the law. We all sin. Further, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.’” Jesus tells us that the prostitutes and tax collectors are closer to the kingdom than the self-righteous. From the Bible’s point of view, self-righteousness is considered one of the worst sins. “The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people–robbers, evildoers, adulterers–or even like this tax collector.’”

Why be uneasy about the grace extended to a fallen and repentant brother? King David is the prime example of one who stumbled (in many sins, including adultery) and yet God blessed him. Are you referring to a chronic unrepentant character issue rather than a momentary fail in a pastor? “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

The article also appears to promote the idea of an hierarchical order of sin. Do we balance one sin against another, one pastor’s adultery against another’s gluttony, greed, or self-righteousness? Is an addiction a form of unfaithfulness—drinking, eating, lying, smoking, gaming, internet? Where do the comparisons stop? Is this not heaping more burden on the victim? Surely the victim is deserving of fervent assurance of forgiveness.

It is worth noting that the whole “double honor” appears dubious in light of the fact that the idea of the professional pastor in a modern church is not even a biblical one. Is “double honor” more reserved for experience, age, learning? If someone has a masters or doctorate should they be paid more?

I conclude with this consideration: We can’t wallow in what we as pastors do. Every one works—teacher, nurse, doctor, plumbers, even attorneys—all do sacrificial things most people don’t know about. It’s just life. Being a Christian is the minimal requirement of a disciple, not a recipient for a kingdom badge. Why should we be rewarded for being who we are called to be? Why not let the wheat and tares coexist and let Jesus be the dispenser of the double honor, if that’s so important to us?

As for the owners of Ashley Madison, it is good to remember, “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Respectfully,
The Shadow

Latest posts by The Shadow (see all)

Previous ArticleThe Other Ashley Madison List No One Is Talking About
Next ArticleHow to Kill a Christian (The 1st Martyr) Pt 2 | TMBH 30
The Shadow

Related Posts

4 Responses

  1. Thanks for your detailed response. I wish you had included some of your thoughts on the questions I posed, but let me touch on the questions you responded with instead.

    A few things for clarification—

    First, in your opening paragraph you wonder about my view of the totality of sin. Rest assured I’m well acquainted with total depravity and fully affirm it. I think, at this juncture, you’re confusing/conflating the general affects of the fall with the particular walk of individual saints in their progressive sanctification. There’s a huge difference between saying “we’re all sinners” and “we all just committed adultery.” The fact is, we are all sinners, but not all of us committed adultery. Some of us (pastors and lay people alike) are still being faithful.

    ***Agreed, but we are all sinners and we all commit different sins. It appears you are hyper-focusing on the sin of adultery. It appears one must pass the adultery test to be accepted as a pastor. As I wrote earlier, we read in Matt. 5:28 that Jesus said “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” It would be difficult to find someone who could throw that first stone. There are other sins that go unchecked because they are not as easy to point a finger at—the less black-and-white issues of pride and arrogance, feelings of spiritual superiority, gluttony and other forms of self-indulgence. Should any pastor who has been prideful, superior, or gluttonous be removed from pastoral leadership? Or should we see these sins as acceptable—not “filthy rags”? If any man who has ever looked upon a woman with lust in his heart should be removed from ministry, I would respectfully suggest that the Gospel message has been lost in that theological framework.

    “Some of us…” Any pastor who says “Yes, I am worthy” is generally viewed suspiciously. Most pastors usually respond, “But for the grace of God, go I,” not, “Yes, I am worthy of double honor.”

    Second, you ask a very important question about “how we can know” if someone has been faithful. Well, I guess I would respond with two questions. First, Would you say Tullian Tchividjian has remained faithful to his wife? If you say “yes” how do you know? If you say “no” how do you know? The second question I would ask is, “Where would we go to find Biblical qualifications and expectations for elders.” The answer is the Bible. If we can determine that someone is qualified to minister, I would imagine we could just as quickly determine their faithfulness to the office. If they have disqualified themselves then we know that they have not remained faithful.

    ***Again, this is not exclusive to the realm of sexual sin. Because one is technically qualified for the office, it does not follow logically that in his heart he is faithful to the office. Why would you imagine that?

    Third (just as a quick side note) I never said I was uneasy about the grace extended to a fallen brother. In fact, I went out of my way to explicitly state that was not what was making me uneasy (see par. 3 & 4 of my post). What makes me uneasy (see par. 6 of my post) is that we continue to give the honor due to faithful men, to men who have demonstrated themselves to be unfaithful.

    ***Using this standard of measure, you would then be uneasy to the grace and honor extended to David (adultery), Paul (murder), Peter (lying), and so forth.

    Fourth, you state that “The article also appears to promote the idea of an hierarchical order of sin.” The Bible explicitly affirms such a hierarchy when talking about future judgment, and church discipline. Jesus explicitly affirms a hierarchy of judgment when telling the people it will be worse for them than Sodom (see Mat 11:24; Mar 6:11; Luk 10:12), God also demonstrates such a hierarchy when he kills Ananias and Sapphira (and no one else). Paul, similarly, utilizes a hierarchy in his discipline of the man who slept with his mother-in-law in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-5). Other examples could be given but again I think your conflating the depravity of man (we’re all sinners) with the actual sins that we each commit individually (we don’t all sin the same way, and subsequently will be and should be treated differently depending on severity).

    ***Yes, there’s a hierarchy of sin, but who determines within a particular context which is better or worse? Again, adultery appears to be the sticking point for you. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead because they were liars—lying is a sin that Scripture does explicitly call out (cf Proverbs 6) as a sin that God “hates” and is also described as an “abomination”. Should every pastor who lies be defrocked? When Jesus spoke against a specific sin, it was usually that of pride, self-righteousness, or an unforgiving spirit, as is well documented by his interaction with the Pharisees—not the sins of the “tax collectors and sinners” (and adulterers) he was known for “cavorting” with, to the condemnation of the religious leaders. We know that it was the righteous religious leaders who were ultimately responsible for murdering Jesus—not the “sinners”.

    Finally, and probably more to the heart of my post, is that you seem to think we should not give faithful pastors double honor (or any honor?). I’m not sure if the argument is that “the office no longer exists” or what. I’m a little confused by the way you treat the role of elder/pastor as exactly the same as “any other job.” I think you’ll be hard pressed to support that Scripturally.

    ***I apologize if my statement led you astray. There is the calling of the Shepherd, not the Executive Pastor role model (paid staff position) of the modern church. Honor to whom honor is due, yes. But all to say, if we’re believers, we’re all called to be Christians wherever God places us. We shouldn’t expect to be paid more for fulfilling our calling. No, I don’t believe a man should receive more money simply for not cheating on his wife.

    Ultimately, my heart was simply to encourage folks to get their eyes off of the indiscretions of a few unfaithful men, and pour themselves into the godly pastors who love and serve their local flock. I’m not sure why anyone would be against that but I guess there’s always one… hiding in the shadows.

    ***Unfortunately, our good intentions can get skewed. The article instead seemed to highlight the indiscretions of a few to spotlight the “goodness” found in those who follow a particular prescription for righteousness. I would rather encourage folks to get their eyes off of the indiscretions of a few unfaithful men and focus on a God of infinite grace and mercy, and pour themselves out for him—not begrudge the repentant the chance to be washed clean in the blood of Jesus. Let’s examine the condition of our hearts towards our brothers and sisters who fall and repent.

    Thank you for your dialogue.

    1. “I would rather encourage folks to get their eyes off of the indiscretions of a few unfaithful men and focus on a God of infinite grace and mercy, and pour themselves out for him—not begrudge the repentant the chance to be washed clean in the blood of Jesus.”

  2. Thanks for the response!

    I wanted to touch on a few things here just for clarification.

    First, in your opening paragraph you wonder about my view of the totality of sin. Rest assured I’m well acquainted with total depravity and fully affirm it. I think, at this juncture, you’re confusing/conflating the general affects of the fall with the particular walk of individual saints in their progressive sanctification. There’s a huge difference between saying “we’re all sinners” and “we all just committed adultery.” The fact is, we are all sinners, but not all of us committed adultery. Some of us (pastors and lay people alike) are still being faithful.

    Second, you ask a very important question about “how we can know” if someone has been faithful. Well, I guess I would respond with two questions. First, Would you say Tullian Tchividjian has remained faithful to his wife? If you say “yes” how do you know? If you say “no” how do you know? The second question I would ask is, “Where would we go to find Biblical qualifications and expectations for elders.” The answer is the Bible. If we can determine that someone is qualified to minister, I would imagine we could just as quickly determine their faithfulness to the office. If they have disqualified themselves then we know that they have not remained faithful.

    Third (just as a quick side note) I never said I was uneasy about the grace extended to a fallen brother. In fact, I went out of my way to explicitly state that was not what was making me uneasy (see par. 3 & 4 of my post). What makes me uneasy (see par. 6 of my post) is that we continue to give the honor due to faithful men, to men who have demonstrated themselves to be unfaithful.

    Fourth, you state that “The article also appears to promote the idea of an hierarchical order of sin.” The Bible explicitly affirms such a hierarchy when talking about future judgment, and church discipline. Jesus explicitly affirms a hierarchy of judgment when telling the people it will be worse for them than Sodom (see Mat 11:24; Mar 6:11; Luk 10:12), God also demonstrates such a hierarchy when he kills Ananias and Sapphira (and no one else). Paul, similarly, utilizes a hierarchy in his discipline of the man who slept with his mother-in-law in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-5). Other examples could be given but again I think your conflating the depravity of man (we’re all sinners) with the actual sins that we each commit individually (we don’t all sin the same way, and subsequently will be and should be treated differently depending on severity).

    Finally, and probably more to the heart of my post, is that you seem to think we should not give faithful pastors double honor (or any honor?). I’m not sure if the argument is that “the office no longer exists” or what. I’m a little confused by the way you treat the role of elder/pastor as exactly the same as “any other job.” I think you’ll be hard pressed to support that Scripturally.

    Ultimately, my heart was simply to encourage folks to get their eyes off of the indiscretions of a few unfaithful men, and pour themselves into the godly pastors who love and serve their local flock. I’m not sure why anyone would be against that but I guess there’s always one… hiding in the shadows. 😉

    1. I’m not sure what you mean. Some sins aren’t just black and white, nor are all as righteous as you.

      What about? “Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.” James 4:17

      “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.” Romans 7:15

      Summa Theologica — Saint Thomas Aquinas
      We must now consider the distinction of sins or vices: under which head there are nine points of inquiry:

      (1) Whether sins are distinguished specifically by their objects?

      (2) Of the distinction between spiritual and carnal sins;

      (3) Whether sins differ in reference to their causes?

      (4) Whether they differ with respect to those who are sinned against?

      (5) Whether sins differ in relation to the debt of punishment?

      (6) Whether they differ in regard to omission and commission?

      (7) Whether they differ according to their various stages?

      (8) Whether they differ in respect of excess and deficiency?

      (9) Whether they differ according to their various circumstances?

Comments are closed.