Fair and Balanced

This site is certified 68% GOOD by the Gematriculator This site is certified 32% EVIL by the Gematriculator

Follow Me

Posting tweet...

Recent Posts

Stuff You Might Find Here

Living Social Bookshelf

The Ooze Select Blogger

Scribe Member

Archives

Stuff Elsewhere

Info/Log In

The “Emotional Relationship”, or A New Way to Justify Adultery

Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 2:43 pm Posted in Religion, Society

I never thought the issue of Todd Bentley’s affair would result in what looks like an intellectual screen to filter out the spirit of adultery and what it actually is.  Jesus was quite clear that adultery is not just a physical relationship, but is something that has its seat in the heart.  Sex without thought is the debasing of humanity into a primitive animal state where desires are fulfilled at the bequest of one’s inflamed desire.  Jesus’ point was that we cannot just look at this kind of affront to the importance of marriage.  His point is that when your covenanted desire that should always be directed towards your spouse is directed towards another, you have violated that covenant and therefore, have committed adultery.

Adultery is not just misguided sexual fulfillment ratified through physical intimacy, it is a breach of the union with your spouse which has its seat in the heart.  Jesus interprets the Law in order to reveal to us its spirit.  And the spirit of the Law is in the properly directed inclination of the heart which is a much deeper level than what one simply does with one’s body.

I continue to hear that Bentley’s “unhealthy relationship on an emotional level with a female member of his staff” is not adultery.  Why?  Because it was not, allegedly, physical?  This cheapens the notion of adultery and dilutes it in a way that dishonors the spirit of marriage and the spirit of the Law as Jesus would have us follow.

The entire notion of an “emotional relationship” is a new way to describe infidelity (e.g. adultery).  It is as if we as a society have given an untenable dualism of body and mind rational traction again.  The question is why?  It is my contention that we have done so because we know how prevalent it really is that men and others are finding intimate fulfillment in sources other than their spouses or partners.  While this is likely not totally novel, it is easier to do with the various means of private communication that are now available.  It is because of these various media in which such intimacy can occur unnoticed, that we now have the qualifier of “emotional” in order to make this kind of affair somehow of a lesser degree of offense against a spouse than a sexual relationship with another.

As Blow & Harnett (2005) discuss, “Studies show that participants disapproved of infidelity that involved sexual intercourse, disapproved less of emotional-only infidelity, and were most disapproving of relationships that involved both sexual activity and emotional connection (Glass & Wright, 1985; Thompson, 1984).”  Further, in the same article, “For example, for women there generally appears to be a greater emphasis on emotional connection than for men, whereas for men, there generally seems to be a greater emphasis on sexual experience.”  What is clear is that emotional infidelity is more often a response to dissatisfaction with the primary relationship than sex-only infidelity, while emotional/sexual infidelity is the clearest indicator of dissatisfaction.  Finally as most studies have focused only on emotional/sexual infidelity, more research needs to be done on emotional infidelity as a form of infidelity in and of itself.  Nonetheless, it is now accepted that infidelity (e.g. adultery) does take three forms of sexual only, emotional only, and sexual plus emotional.

What is clear is that the psychological damage of such a relationship is as pronounced or more so than a non-emotional, physical affair with a member of the opposite sex - especially for women.  The problem with the “emotional only” qualification is that it offers a screen which assumes that the impact of such involvement with a secondary relationship is somehow not “as bad” as other forms of infidelity.  It is a justification for the behavior even as the claim of “it was only sex” seeks to justify the impact of the behavior by lessening the blow.  But as a means to justify the behavior or not, it is clear that “just emotional” or “just sexual” are two forms that fall under the rubric of what we mean by infidelity.

Thus, the claim that Todd Bentley was somehow not an adulterer takes the bait of the relative justification of the act, rather than hold him accountable for his act of infidelity which is clearly in keeping with Jesus’ interpretation of adultery in the Sermon on the Mount.

Viewing 25 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    "Todd Bentley now carries the label of a liar and a deceiver."

    "Todd has been removed from public ministry until further notice. He has resigned from the ministry he founded, Fresh Fire, so he is no longer a part of that board. It has become clear that he indulged in periodic drunkenness. He has no intention at the moment of reconciling with Shonna, nor does she with him. Their marriage has been torn for years by his emotional attachment with at least one other female whose physical contact went beyond hugging and kissing and holding hands.

    Enough said-maybe more details will be revealed later-but it was clearly immoral. All of this was skillfully concealed by lying and by swearing close associates who had observed his behavior to secrecy. "

    C. Peter Wagner
    • ^
    • v
    Well add "Todd Bentley has had a major meltdown" to the list, according to Bill Johnson.

    -Bill Fawcett, Harrisonburg, VA
    • ^
    • v
    There is a distinction between various types of adultery, I agree. But the distinction is a human one, not a divine one, as Jesus made clear. Adultery of any sort is a very serious sin.
    • ^
    • v
    update - add "excessive drinking" to the mix. I guess he really did look up to Paul Cain.

    (Source - John Arnott)
    • ^
    • v
    Do you have a URL or otherwise more specific source for this claim about Todd's excessive drinking?
    • ^
    • v
    Here it is.

    http://www.tacf.org/tacforghome/Visitors/Lakela...

    Still convinced this is all just gossip? Or is it that you just want to believe that it's gossip?
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for the link, to a model piece of advice on how to respond in this situation, including "Be slow to speak out publicly and to judge prematurely. It is time to treat these people with grace, like you would like to be treated when you fall or make a mistake."

    I assume that John Arnott has reliable information about Todd's drinking and permission to mention it. I am not sure whether "You may have already heard that Todd Bentley has announced his decision to separate from Shonnah, his wife" is intended to confirm that Todd made this decision or is simply reporting what has already been written. In any case it is no defence to a charge of spreading gossip that the gossip is in fact true.

    John concludes with "May I enlist your prayers for Todd and Shonnah and their children at this time, that God, the Great Reverser, will miraculously turn this situation around?" He has already enlisted mine.
    • ^
    • v
    Peter,

    I posted that link because you wanted the source of the statement regarding the drinking which was a new wrinkle that Arnott brought to the table.

    It appears that you are calling something gossip when convenient and others not gossip that are supportive of Bentley. Makes no sense. See Bill's post below which hits this issue spot on I think.
    • ^
    • v
    John Arnott has pastoral authority over Todd following the ceremony on 23rd June and therefore has a right to make a statement which the former employee did not have. That is what makes the difference.
    • ^
    • v
    Which means that he has a drinking problem too. Thanks for clarifying that for us. Remember that you had previously noted this was gossip as well until the link to Arnott was offered thus substantiating that, in fact, it is not gossip.

    The theory of one having authority over another as the condition for a proper dissemination of information is ludicrous. That sort of information control was certainly the operative rule in fascist states and it certainly the case among the shahs of governments in the Middle east such as Iran. They have religious authority over the subjects of the state. However, that role does not mean that what they say about other is just or true. I think you are starting down an even more inconsistent path here.

    The issue is if the claims made about Bentley are, in fact, true. Bill's point is that those like Arnott who legitimate those claims, in your view based on authority, have thus far corroborated what we have learned. As the story unfolds, we have not heard anything to the contrary.

    Thus, it appears that Bentley had a drinking problem, and sought separation from his wife. The separation may indeed have been mutual, but his actions are clearly the effectual cause of the outcome.

    The actions with the staff person are adulterous according to what Jesus has said and those words cannot be interpreted any other way it seems. Get over it. He is an adulterer with a drinking problem.

    My issue has never been Bentley himself. People screw up all the time. My issue has been the whining and spinning of his organization and various supporters who are diluting his indiscretion with terms like "getting refreshed" and that he is in a "good frame of reference". It's that kind of crap to which I am reacting directly.

    So say it with me now: Peter Bentley is an adulterer and has a drinking problem.

    This is why Buddhists believe that attachment leads to suffering. If you latch on to people like this who will fail you, then you get hurt. And Todd is the cause of that pain.
    • ^
    • v
    I never said that the drinking problem information was gossip. I asked for clarification of the source. When I found that John Arnott had written it I accepted it as reliable information disseminated with proper authorisation.

    I would normally claim that no one has the right to disseminate personal information about an individual's private life without their permission. But in view of the repeated calls from people like yourself for those in authority over Todd to make statements, they have made them. Maybe they should not have done and so I am guilty of gossip by passing them on. What do you think? Remember that if you accuse me you are also accusing yourself.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think this is gossip. It's information made public by persons and organizations that have supported him. I am commenting on what was already made public. The evidence points to everything I have written to be true.

    But you are welcome to consider all of this gossip. In which case you have been a willing participant by continuing to instigate my responses here.

    This is all a boil that's better to be lanced than "refreshed". And no, that's not a metaphor calling for a "sentence upon" Bentley.

    But you are welcome to end with a sentence upon me as you have threatened to do. Go for it. I really don't care if you do. If you do, I will let you know if your vou dou works at some point down the line.

    Cheers.
    • ^
    • v
    Drew, if my death sentence works you won't be in a position to let me know! But of course my point is not that anyone will die, but that it is not for us to decide which sins are most serious. We should leave such things to God, and seek to lead those who fall to repentance and restoration.
    • ^
    • v
    If you are remotely serious about pronouncing a death sentence for me ... wow. I'll have my wife tell my sons about it. It's a good way to win people for the Gospel. Wow.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, Drew, my exclamation mark was intended to signal that I was not all that serious. But I did learn to start gospel presentations with "the wages of sin is death", which is of course true although I would not start there these days. Gossip is one of those sins. But if you are a true Christian the second half of that verse applies to you as to me.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, we can state with surety that he was not faithful to his wife.

    FA’ITHFUL, a.

    1. Firm in adherence to the truth and to the duties of religion.

    Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. Rev. 2.

    2. Firmly adhering to duty; of true fidelity; loyal; true to allegiance; as a faithful subject.

    3. constant in the performance of duties or services; exact in attending to commands; as a faithful servant.

    4. Observant of compact, treaties, contracts, vows or other engagements; true to one’s word. A government should be faithful to its treaties; individuals, to their word.

    5. True; exact; in conformity to the letter and spirit; as a faithful execution of a will.

    6. True to the marriage covenant; as a faithful wife or husband.

    7. Conformable to truth; as a faithful narrative or representation.

    8. Constant; not fickle; as a faithful lover or friend.

    9. True; worthy of belief. 2Tim. 2.

    (websters 1828).

    This by virtue that Todd Bently filed for legal separation, stage 1 in a Canadian divorce.

    I don't hold too much hope for this affair to be continued to be defined as an "unhealthy relationship on an emotional level" since it was only a few days earlier that the official version was that Todd and Shonnah were "experiencing significant friction in their relationship."

    Regardless, I find covenant breaking disturbing.
    • ^
    • v
    Bill, you too are guilty of gossip for passing on the claim that Todd filed for legal separation. See what I wrote on another thread about gossip deserving death. Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.
    • ^
    • v
    Peter,

    Don't you think that is rather judgmental passing on gossip about me being a gossiper?

    I suppose we should all stop reading the mainstream charismatic press (Charisma), and pro-Bentley sources such as his website, his board member's statements , personal correspondence from Peter and Doris Wagner, TACF website, in-jesus.com, Patricia King (I had friends at her conference last week), statements from John Arnott, Che Ahn and Bill Johnson, MSM Newspaper articles and so on.

    These sources were credible enough for you to pass on the claims of many unsubstaintiated healings and resurections when it served your purposes. Now you deny these same sources? How very odd.

    Todd Bentley agreed to be accountable (apostolicly aligned) to Johnson, Ahn and Arnott. I don't know Johnson and Ahn, but I've met Arnott and he seemed like an honorable man. I don't think any of them are liars, as you wan't to imply. These men have seen fit to openly discuss the situation and state as fact what you deem allegation.

    Please clarify for me: Are any of these indiviuals listed below guilty of gossip and deserving death based on their statements concerning Bentley's moral failings?

    John Arnott
    Che Ahn
    Bill Johson
    Peter Wagner
    Doris Wagner
    Ken Greter (FFM board)
    Michael Bullett (FFM board)
    Val Andres (FFM board)
    Barbara Rail (FFM board)
    Archie Binnie (FFM board)
    Patricia King
    Heather Clark
    Ryan Wyatt

    You might want to reconsider your statement above, because to the public it apears that you have appointed yourself the gatekeeper of truth who can discern what and what is not appropriate to discuss. You have placed yourself at odds with the men and women listed above.

    -Bill Fawcett