CAM Molestation Issue

[ABC 123]

I am a fierce champion of marriage, but I agree with Ken here. Serial pedophilia is way beyond the scope of "normal" infidelity in marriage. It is layer upon layer of deception and evil.

[RZehr]

I agree with you.

Their church doesn't see it that way. They rejoiced that he "repented" and over the "healing" of their marriage. Their marriage takes precedent over all else. Absolutely everything else.

So... did you want her to divorce him? to say he is a worthless person? To get remarried? What exactly do you think she should have done? What would Jesus have wanted her to do?

My advice to her would have been to divorce him, change her name back to her maiden name, and start her life over someplace new. That doesn't necessarily mean seek out a new husband. But rather, focus first on herself and her children. But of course that is something that should be her decision, not that of her congregation or anyone else.

No one is a completely "worthless person". But some people do forfeit the unconditional love that marriage requires through their actions. I would think that being a serial sexual predator over decades (along with the endless lies and deceptions that requires) would fall into such a category. He probably wasn't just betraying his vows by molesting children. He was probably constantly and deliberately lying to her over decades about what he was doing, where he was going, etc. etc. That is just as much of a betrayal of trust.

Don't you mean to say "...forfeit the conditional love..."?

[Ken]

So... did you want her to divorce him? to say he is a worthless person? To get remarried? What exactly do you think she should have done? What would Jesus have wanted her to do?

My advice to her would have been to divorce him, change her name back to her maiden name, and start her life over someplace new. That doesn't necessarily mean seek out a new husband. But rather, focus first on herself and her children. But of course that is something that should be her decision, not that of her congregation or anyone else.

No one is a completely "worthless person". But some people do forfeit the unconditional love that marriage requires through their actions. I would think that being a serial sexual predator over decades (along with the endless lies and deceptions that requires) would fall into such a category. He probably wasn't just betraying his vows by molesting children. He was probably constantly and deliberately lying to her over decades about what he was doing, where he was going, etc. etc. That is just as much of a betrayal of trust.

Don't you mean to say "...forfeit the conditional love..."?

No. I mean you are playing semantic games. I guess there are always conditions. I love my wife unconditionally, through better or worse, through sickness and in health. But I suppose that is conditional on her making the equal and opposite commitment. Otherwise it really isn't a real marriage despite what the paperwork might say. You can't really have a real marriage if only one party is making the commitment.

[Soloist]

No one is a completely "worthless person". But some people do forfeit the unconditional love that marriage requires through their actions. I would think that being a serial sexual predator over decades (along with the endless lies and deceptions that requires) would fall into such a category. He probably wasn't just betraying his vows by molesting children. He was probably constantly and deliberately lying to her over decades about what he was doing, where he was going, etc. etc. That is just as much of a betrayal of trust.

Don't you mean to say "...forfeit the conditional love..."?

No. I mean you are playing semantic games. I guess there are always conditions. I love my wife unconditionally, through better or worse, through sickness and in health. But I suppose that is conditional on her making the equal and opposite commitment otherwise it really isn't a real marriage despite what the paperwork might say.

The marriage vows give up any exception for divorce and there is no conditions given at time of marriage.

[Ken]

Don't you mean to say "...forfeit the conditional love..."?

No. I mean you are playing semantic games. I guess there are always conditions. I love my wife unconditionally, through better or worse, through sickness and in health. But I suppose that is conditional on her making the equal and opposite commitment otherwise it really isn't a real marriage despite what the paperwork might say.

The marriage vows give up any exception for divorce and there is no conditions given at time of marriage.

Sure, but in real life divorce has always existed going back to biblical times, and is sometimes necessary if one person abandons all pretense of being faithfully married. In effect, the divorce has already happened. The only thing missing is the paperwork.

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Do you not think that applies in this case?

[Soloist]

Sure, but in real life divorce has always existed going back to biblical times, and is sometimes necessary if one person abandons all pretense of being faithfully married. In effect, the divorce has already happened. The only thing missing is the paperwork.

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Do you not think that applies in this case?

I don't think it applies. When you give an oath of "till death do us part" you have bound yourself before God in a higher requirement then is given in Scripture.

[temporal1]

5 posts above! ^^^
Well, this has attention.

I see Jeriah's wife out and about once in a while. I am always filled with pity how they cinched her tighter into her "marriage" by making her renew her wedding vows to him.

As I recall, this was done so he could renew his marriage vows and then claim he was going to be faithful to his wife going forwards.

Personally I believe the marriage bond is broken after this degree of sexual immorality.

I agree with you.

Their church doesn't see it that way.
They rejoiced that he "repented" and over the "healing" of their marriage.

Their marriage takes precedent over all else. Absolutely everything else.

(i think) this is a key point the Book of Hosea can help with.

Hosea had every reason and right to divorce Gomer. He did not. But. He did not remain in his active role in marriage.
Why? What happened?

God removed Gomer. He removed her, He challenged her. He broke her down. Hosea did not fix Gomer. God did.

Only after Gomer was 100% submitted to God, wanting no other, did God restore their marriage. God returned Gomer, on His terms.

It seems to me it’s easy to overlook the details of “how God works.”
God loves marriage. On His terms.

Hosea had faith to carry on in his life - taking direction from God, remaining faithful to God first.
With God authentically at center, Hosea endured. Then was rewarded. All were rewarded because of Hosea’s unfaltering faith. (My takeaway.)

This is serious, hard stuff. IRL, mistakes are made, all around. Mistakes are understandable.
However. When answers are sought, there they are. For the asking.

JMast’s wife, family, and friends have been put in hell over his sins. God is not blind or uncaring. Hosea models Jesus’ love for His Father. Most of us fall short.

(i would not) “restore” the JMast marriage as described above.
(i would appreciate) seeing JMast (separated) for whatever time required for God to (heal) him. i have no idea how long or if ever this would happen. but, i think God at center is the only way. there is no legal or church measure to determine when or if this has happened.

JMast’s wife would be wise to renew her vows - with God. and follow God, 100%.
This makes JMast’s sins his to answer for. With God. JMast needs to answer to secular courts and victims. But God, first, no escape. No double talk. No legal language gymnastics.

i think this is The Way for all of us in every matter. Faith is not the easy path.

[Ken]

Sure, but in real life divorce has always existed going back to biblical times, and is sometimes necessary if one person abandons all pretense of being faithfully married. In effect, the divorce has already happened. The only thing missing is the paperwork.

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Do you not think that applies in this case?

I don't think it applies. When you give an oath of "till death do us part" you have bound yourself before God in a higher requirement then is given in Scripture.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Jesus didn't create some sort of 2-part test where the morality of divorce depends on which exact words you recited in your marriage vows. The vow of "till death do us part" is not biblical and, in fact, comes from the Book of Common Prayer written by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, in 1549: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer So the words "till death do us part" were not even written until 1500 years after the death of Christ. I see no biblical evidence that a marriage would be any different legally or spiritually if you left those exact words out of your vows, or used different vows entirely. I don't think we even know what kind of vows were made during Jesus' time. And I don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference to the commitment of marriage or the morality of divorce.

[temporal1]

I don't think it applies.
When you give an oath of "till death do us part" you have bound yourself before God in a higher requirement then is given in Scripture.

It’s OT, but the Book of Hosea spells out how God views marriage. Read as an allegory of Jesus Christ, it’s humbling. With no murky areas.

[ABC 123]

I am sitting here trying to imagine the psychological issues for a wife in a situation involving a spouse who is a serial pedophile. I could not in good conscience advise her that she must endure intimacy with a man like that.