The Elephant in the Forgiveness Discussion
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
In recent weeks several erroneous views of marriage and divorce have been presented, and this series culminates with the logical conclusion of where all the previous ideologies have been headed. Thus far we have seen a personal situation in which a man determined that God told him it was in his best spiritual interests to terminate his marriage (August 26, 2012). Then we noted (September 2nd) the fundamental problem that he and all others have on this subject—they are not willing to submit to the will of God in this area of their lives. In other words, they do not respect the Word of God and refuse to let it govern them with respect to marriage. Last week (September 9th) we noted that a couple, both of whom had an unscriptural divorce before they married, decided to remain together because it happened before they were baptized.
The Former Sex Offender
The articles referenced below were sent to me by someone within reading distance of The Dallas Morning News, who thought I might want to comment on this situation in Spiritual Perspectives; he was right. The newspaper published three articles concerning the "situation"—one is a news story, containing the facts of the matter, and the other two are opinion pieces with opposing views. The news portion appears on page one, although it was not the main headline. It certainly grabbed the reader's attention, however, on August 5th with the following title: "Sex Offender Preaches a Message of Grace." Unfortunately, the sordid details concern the Skillman Church of Christ (formerly known as the Skillman Avenue Church of Christ)!
Probably, those reading these articles are going to associate this incident with all churches of Christ—even though this congregation in no way represents or is typical of most of us. The question under consideration concerns whether or not a sex offender should be allowed to work full time with a church.
The two opposing views are represented by Jacquielynn Floyd and Steve Blow (with whom we have seldom been in agreement on anything). [See "Bible Bashing" (August 9, 1998), "Bible Bashing (2)" (September 20, 1998), "Dueling Obituaries—The Divisive Christ" (June 23, 2002), and "Homosexuality, Shakespeare, Gluttony, and Tolerance" (February 14, 1999).] At the top of the page on Section B-1, both writers express their opinion. Although Floyd believes in forgiveness, she adds:
But there is a difference between acceptance and self-induced amnesia.
And an offender convicted of sex with an underage girl 20 years his junior should not be holding a position of moral authority over even the most trusting and forgiving congregation (1B).
She cites a few reasons why she cannot totally trust Adair, one of which is that he was 35 when he persuaded a 15-year-old girl to run away with him to Las Vegas. She points out that "redemption does not equal blind trust" (8B) and declares that she also believes in common sense.
Steve Blow, however, insists that the man served his time in prison (1996-2005) and that grace should prevail. Although he acknowledges that sex "offenders don't get a free pass to the same level of trust they had before," all people deserve a second chance "to prove themselves as reformed and rehabilitated" (8B).
It is painful to say it, but Steve Blow is right on this one. Both columnists agree that caution must be exercised, but to deny the man a second chance after he paid the penalty the court assessed him and underwent sex offender therapy before being paroled is to remove redemption from the Gospel. However, this is not the subject about which we are primarily concerned.
A Few More Details
Before we get to the elephant in the columns, it may be worthwhile to provide a fuller account of Adair's actions, and these are provided on page 25A, which includes three pictures, a timeline, and details that cover the entire page. Let's consider a modified timeline based on the one in the Dallas Morning News.
1980 – Chuck Adair marries his high school girlfriend.
1982 – He graduates from David Lipscomb College.
1984 – After working in the Nashville areas as a youth minister, he was hired in that same capacity by the Skillman congregation.
1990 – He begins working as a youth minister for the Garnett Road Church of Christ in Tulsa.
1991 – He starts his own non-denominational church in Tulsa after leaving Garnett Road.
1992 – After this effort failed, he moved to the Golf Course Road Church of Christ in Midland, Texas.
This brief interruption is to point out that some people thought his behavior was inappropriate during the six years at Skillman. Even though he was in his late 20s and married, he had a great deal of physical contact with young girls. One of his defenders said: "The girls would just throw themselves in his lap, they loved him so much." And that didn't raise any red flags? Uh, he also gave names to at least one teen girl's breasts, which she thought was funny at the time but now finds "disturbing" (25B). Furthermore, while in Tulsa, he had an affair with a college student, which no one else was aware of at the time. She taught the high school students in the new congregation he began.
1994 – At the age of 34, Adair resigned from the Golf Course Road church after having an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year old girl. He planned to stop seeing her but did not, and their relationship escalated into a sexual one.
1995 – They fled to Las Vegas. "An alert was issued on America's Most Wanted; eleven days later he was arrested. His first wife divorced him after 15 years of marriage.
1996 – Adair was convicted of the sexual assault of a child and began serving his sentence.
1998 – The girl with whom Adair had fled turned 18 and married him while he was in prison.
2000 – She divorced him at the age of 20.
2005 – Adair undergoes therapy before he is released from prison at the age of 45. He becomes a member again at Skillman.
2006 – The Skillman Church uses him as a substitute adult Bible class teacher, and he occasionally fills in as a guest speaker.
2007 – Adair begins a prison ministry and marries a woman who is a member of the congregation. Her age is not mentioned, but they now have two children.
2010 – Skillman hires Adair as leader of ministry and coordination.
2012 – Adair continues in these same capacities.
What was missing?
Some of those details had to be given to proceed with this article. What was never mentioned? What was never commented on? Neither of the opinion columns nor the factual story ever came close to stating the single, most pertinent piece of information. Of course, what was presented was a worthwhile subject to consider, but no one commented on the fact that Chuck Adair has no right to be married to anyone!
It would probably be too much to expect those who comment on religion for a newspaper to have noticed it. In our society today—even among those claiming to be Christians, marriage and divorce, as taught in the Bible, is largely ignored. That God intended marriage to be permanent is still known by many people, but evidently it is not taken seriously. "Oh, we're going through a divorce," is all anyone really wants to hear, and everybody congratulates the divorced individual then introducing his "new" wife or her "new" husband. If society abides by the "no-fault" concept, then why should the church not follow suit?
What God legislates through the New Testament is the way it actually is; the leaders of our nation and the various states choose to regulate marriage in a way different from what God commanded. When it comes to a difference in philosophy between God and men, true Christians will follow God (Acts 5:29). What did Jesus teach in Matthew 19:9?
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12).
The second passage is included because: 1) it provides a look at the subject without the "except" clause (thus enabling us to see what it looks like both ways), and 2) it states the same thing for the wife as it does for the husband if she initiates the action. Let us now consider the points that these verses combined make.
Applications of Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12
1. God designed that marriage be a permanent relationship between a man and a woman.
2. If a man divorces his wife and marries any other woman, he commits adultery.
3. If a woman divorces her husband and marries any other man, she commits adultery.
4. There is one and only one condition in which adultery would not be committed when two people divorce and marry again, and that situation exists when one partner has already committed porneia (fornication). In that instance, the husband (who has not committed fornication) or the wife (who has not committed fornication) may divorce the one who is guilty and marry another (of a different gender) without committing adultery.
5. If a man puts away his wife (not for fornication), anyone who marries her commits adultery. Likewise, if a woman divorces her husband (not for fornication), anyone who would marry that husband is also committing adultery? Why? The reason is that, when a couple divorces without fornication having been committed, God counts them as still married to each other. Therefore, any new union is unauthorized, and both parties live in adultery.
6. Jesus does not address the situation in which a Christian does not seek a civil divorce and fights against it, but the mate obtains one anyway and begins to live with or "marry" another.
7. Jesus does not address the one who is guilty of committing the fornication. When he or she is divorced, the marriage is terminated; so the guilty person (whatever he does henceforth) cannot commit adultery. But that individual lacks any authority whatsoever to marry again. The innocent party has authority from Jesus to marry another person, but the guilty party does not.
In the case of Chuck Adair, his first wife divorced him because he was guilty of fornication (see number 4 above). She is entitled to marry another and still be acceptable in the sight of God. He, as the unrepentant guilty party, has no authority to marry anyone (see number 7) above. He is guilty of fornication—and that with a minor, for which he was sent to prison. The facts could not be clearer.
So while the articles in the Dallas Morning News emphasized whether or not Adair should be forgiven as a sex offender and allowed to be a minister, no one raised any questions (that were reported) about the validity of his marriage. We must have authority for everything that we "do in word or deed" (Col. 3:17). Jesus authorized Adair's first wife to marry again (if she so chooses), but where is he authorized to do the same? He is not.
If two people agree to a no-fault divorce but are not authorized to marry again, by what logic can a person who is clearly guilty of fornication possibly be allowed to enter into the privilege of marriage? When the leaders of the Skillman Church heard that Adair wanted to marry one of the ladies in the congregation, they should have immediately stepped forward and advised him that he was not eligible. They should have counseled the woman to find someone else. Who performed the ceremony for this couple? In a sense, it matters not because the congregation evidently approves of it, and they hired him to be a minister—something no one would do if they thought he was in an invalid marriage. The Skillman Church is therefore not Scriptural in the way that they approach the institute of marriage.
The Trend
The sad truth is that the Skillman Church is not the only congregation that has given up trying to uphold what Jesus taught on the subject of marriage and divorce. Their name would not have been given except that it is now a matter of public record via its appearance in a newspaper that reaches a large audience. Many other congregations share these views. They will not only accept as members those who have been divorced and married again before they became Christians; they will also accept as members those who did so after they became Christians. Those who committed fornication, leading to the breakup of the marriage, who have married again, are also welcomed.
In effect, the Lord's teaching on this subject has been expunged from the Bible. One wonders if such groups ever teach on the marriage passages. If they deal with them at all, it would only be to "explain them away." A few men have gone to great lengths to try to justify marriages that are not authorized by God. They juggle the Scriptures in the air like a professional and catch them in such a way that some are greatly impressed with their act. Paul's words aptly describe such fellows:
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing… (1 Tim. 6:3-4a).
The folderol that some have presented defies logic, and its purpose is not wholesome. A congregation that accepts those guilty of fornication (and unauthorized to marry again) or those living in adultery is not an example of forgiveness; it is an example of a denial of what the Bible teaches. Those puny attempts to justify a sinful relationship are not teachings that uphold godliness; rather they promote iniquity.
Those who have committed sins relating to marriage may have forgiveness, just like those guilty of any other sin. But that blessed mercy and grace does not allow the guilty to enter into another marital situation. There is a reason it is called by many holy matrimony. Faithful churches will uphold the sanctity of marriage.