It is time to stop calling this "adultery" and time to call it what it is, "abuse."
I believe JG is right as well as others, it is adultery and that category would be diminished by opting for the word abuse. But as well, that does not mean that the word abuse is not applicable, but it should not replace adultery. And this seems to be the implication of the hasty and posturing blog article by Ed Stetzer.
What I, and others whose comments I have begun reading at other websites, are concerned with is this rush to label it something before all the facts are in. It might be, after all is said and done, that even abuse is insufficient.
But again, one must wait for all the facts.
Now, let’s suppose the word abuse can be used, it will still need to be qualified. One must be careful not to assume contexts or meanings, even in using the word “abuse” without clarification.
2 thoughts:
1) One of my mentors, Dr. Frank Sells (gone to glory now), and easily one of the godliest, most knowledgeable men I have ever been privileged to know, would often implore us in dealing with anything, but especially sin, to “use the terms of Scripture.” I have found that to be excellent advice. Scripture is fully capable of communicating the horror of any sinful situation with us adding our 2 cents worth.
2) From the basic tenor of this thread I can’t help but wonder what we guys are gonna do if this guy (Schaap) actually repents. I’m not sure but that it would drop a serious wrench in the works for some of us if we found ourselves in a position of having to forgive and working together for his restoration in the body of Christ.
Lee
First of all I’m not at all convinced he is a Christian. I don’t know him at all but he has not lived as a Christian and he did not Pastor in a Biblical way. Matthew 7:16
For a moment, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He professes to be a Christian.
If he is a Christian and repents, he ought to be restored. But he should never pastor a church again. Never!
As an aside … I really hope we are praying for Cindy Schaap. Think about it …. her Dad was an adulterer - cheated on her mother … and now her husband has as well. (Not to speak of her brother!) So sad for her and for her children.
Restoration doesn’t involve the complete erasure of all boundaries. Someone who has predatory tendencies should never again be in a position of power and influence such as teacher or pastor, especially when a young person was involved. Ditto someone who has embezzled, or an alcoholic. It isn’t about punishment, it’s about not making provision for their flesh, and protecting the innocent.
Why does it have to be called one thing? As far as his wife was concerned, it was adultery. As far as the girl was concerned, it was abuse and rape. And as far as God is concerned, it was adultery, abuse and rape.
BTW, there is a blog, I think “stufffundieslike.com” that has excerpts of a sermon Schaap preached on July 8 in which he told dads in the congregation that their children were having sex and that, as dads, they didn’t know it. If you read the partial transcript, it is kind of racy and quite foretelling.
[Jonathan Charles]BTW, there is a blog, I think “stufffundieslike.com” that has excerpts of a sermon Schaap preached on July 8 in which he told dads in the congregation that their children were having sex and that, as dads, they didn’t know it. If you read the partial transcript, it is kind of racy and quite foretelling.
As I look back at the trail of preachers who’ve fallen into sexual sin, I’ve noticed a familiar pattern. In every instance it seems to take discovery and exposure or the threat of exposure to prompt confession. I only know of ONE instance that was an exception. A pastor I knew was counseling a woman, their conversation became emotional, there was physical expression of passion but no sex. The pastor went home and told his wife and then called the deacons together. He confessed his sin, resigned his position and had the church place him under discipline. All of this in 72 hours. He never returned to the ministry but raised his family and lived a faithful life.
What bothers me is that these men seem to be so hard of heart that it takes extreme measures to get them to confession and repentance and there aren’t enough Nathans to get the job done.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]As I look back at the trail of preachers who’ve fallen into sexual sin, I’ve noticed a familiar pattern. In every instance it seems to take discovery and exposure or the threat of exposure to prompt confession. I only know of ONE instance that was an exception. A pastor I knew was counseling a woman, their conversation became emotional, there was physical expression of passion but no sex. The pastor went home and told his wife and then called the deacons together. He confessed his sin, resigned his position and had the church place him under discipline. All of this in 72 hours. He never returned to the ministry but raised his family and lived a faithful life.
What bothers me is that these men seem to be so hard of heart that it takes extreme measures to get them to confession and repentance and there aren’t enough Nathans to get the job done.
Non-sequitur. Scripture makes it clear that exposure is a primary catalyst for repentance. Hence, the record of King David, and the whole of the process of church discipline given in Matt. 18.
Lee
[handerson]But I think that the larger issue is that there are actually multiple sins involved. (Adultery+ if you will…)
Now we are talking Biblically. I agree, there are multiple sins involved. There just about always are, when we’re dealing with adultery. In this instance, those other sins probably need to be addressed directly and to some extent publicly. I have no objection to that, though I think we should avoid language that in any way minimises the seriousness of adultery.
[Lee]1) One of my mentors, Dr. Frank Sells (gone to glory now), and easily one of the godliest, most knowledgeable men I have ever been privileged to know, would often implore us in dealing with anything, but especially sin, to “use the terms of Scripture.” I have found that to be excellent advice. Scripture is fully capable of communicating the horror of any sinful situation with us adding our 2 cents worth.
Do you mean to say he thought that Scripture is sufficient to define, diagnose, and describe sin? What a novel idea. I agree. :)
How about if, instead of adopting a word “abuse” that a godless society uses with all kinds of meanings (many of which are contrary to Scripture), we use Scriptural terms to describe these other sins that Schaap and others like him have committed? Larry made a good start by going to Scripture.
[Lee][Ron Bean]As I look back at the trail of preachers who’ve fallen into sexual sin, I’ve noticed a familiar pattern. In every instance it seems to take discovery and exposure or the threat of exposure to prompt confession. I only know of ONE instance that was an exception. A pastor I knew was counseling a woman, their conversation became emotional, there was physical expression of passion but no sex. The pastor went home and told his wife and then called the deacons together. He confessed his sin, resigned his position and had the church place him under discipline. All of this in 72 hours. He never returned to the ministry but raised his family and lived a faithful life.
What bothers me is that these men seem to be so hard of heart that it takes extreme measures to get them to confession and repentance and there aren’t enough Nathans to get the job done.
Non-sequitur. Scripture makes it clear that exposure is a primary catalyst for repentance. Hence, the record of King David, and the whole of the process of church discipline given in Matt. 18.
Agreed. Ron’s point is true to an extent, though — it is tragic that it always seems to take “getting caught.” But part of God’s mercy to sinners is that they so often “get caught” by “coincidences” or accidents. We shouldn’t need to get caught, but praise the Lord that we have a God who doesn’t always wait for us to take the first action in getting us straightened out.
Ron,
I think the solution to your question - and I wondered about this myself - is that the familiarity with the Word seems to drive some to harden their hearts against the grace that they should be experiencing. Either that, or their motives are so base and carnal that they simply don’t care about what they say any more…the ‘ministry’ is just a job for them and they aren’t believers at all.
I was listening to a John MacArthur CD one time and he commented on this subject in that message - he didn’t understand how a preacher of any kind could harbor sin of that magnitude and still climb the steps to preach every Sunday and Wednesday without being utterly miserable or despondent. I heard that a few years ago, and it’s something that I think of every time I hear another story of a pastor who chooses to sin. The only solution that I can think of is that they simply got to the point where they weren’t convicted about sin any more - as if there was no indwelling Spirit to correct them in the first place. That’s the only thing that I can think of that would fit, but to be honest with you, I would almost rather NOT believe that than believe the only explanation that I can come up with.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[JG]Not to mention that Mr. Bean’s source of information is his individual world and no further per his post “I know of”. Who knows how many men have voluntarily removed themselves without public knowledge? It could be far more than his tiny sample. And indeed, what a good God whose mercy extends to every fall, not just those we acknowledge in their midst or before others discover it.[Lee][Ron Bean]As I look back at the trail of preachers who’ve fallen into sexual sin, I’ve noticed a familiar pattern. In every instance it seems to take discovery and exposure or the threat of exposure to prompt confession. I only know of ONE instance that was an exception. A pastor I knew was counseling a woman, their conversation became emotional, there was physical expression of passion but no sex. The pastor went home and told his wife and then called the deacons together. He confessed his sin, resigned his position and had the church place him under discipline. All of this in 72 hours. He never returned to the ministry but raised his family and lived a faithful life.
What bothers me is that these men seem to be so hard of heart that it takes extreme measures to get them to confession and repentance and there aren’t enough Nathans to get the job done.
Non-sequitur. Scripture makes it clear that exposure is a primary catalyst for repentance. Hence, the record of King David, and the whole of the process of church discipline given in Matt. 18.
Agreed. Ron’s point is true to an extent, though — it is tragic that it always seems to take “getting caught.” But part of God’s mercy to sinners is that they so often “get caught” by “coincidences” or accidents. We shouldn’t need to get caught, but praise the Lord that we have a God who doesn’t always wait for us to take the first action in getting us straightened out.
James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
Abuse is contact without consent. Ethically, in a counsellor-counseled relationship, such as a doctor-patient or spiritual counsellor, the counsellor has a type of power over the situation that makes real consent impossible. Such relations are often considered abuse, regardless of age.
Discussion