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.
No related posts.
very well stated.
Great post. You hit the nail right on the head.
I was actually impressed that there was an acknowledgment of "misconduct" at all. emotional affairs even in the church are often not recognized.
I think a huge part of this problem is that we don't model and teach christians how to have healthy cross gender friendships, we just tell them to avoid them completely…it's the same reason we have so many premarital sex "issues", we don't teach healthy sexuality in the context of celibate singleness, all we teach is "don't do it".
As for whether this guy should be called an adulterer or not, I don't really feel the need to press for that label being applied, I'm just glad misconduct was recognized and hopefully a redemptive response is in the works.
BRAVO, Drew! Such ardent denunciations of our tendency to "make excuse with pretexts for sins" (Psalm 140:4, LXX) are most necessary, because in our sinful delusion we actually believe our own nonsense.
Drew, I am sorry, but as a linguist, not as a theologian, I cannot allow you simply to redefine the English language. The American Heritage dictionary defines adultery as "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse." This is not the same as what Jesus called "adultery in his heart". Both are serious sins, and I am not claiming that one is more serious than the other. But there is a distinction between them, and an important one in language, law and morality. As the study you mentioned confirms, there are three forms of infidelity. We need to allow the English language to make the distinction between them, and not insist that a word which is generally understood to refer to one of them in fact applies to all three.
I seriously think you are missing the spirit of what Jesus was doing with his reinterpretation of the commandment in question. He did not have access to The American Heritage Dictionary and so, that is a moot issue.
The distinction between them is to emphasize the impact of the emotional involvement in infidelity – even when that relationship does not include sex! Jesus radically removed the distinction between what I do with my body on the one hand, and what I do with my mind on the other. He was making an equation between the physical act of adultery and the investment one brings to the table in a relationship that does not maintain and support the covenant of marriage. The issue is the covenant of marriage and clearly the kind of relationship in which Bentley was involved carries the weight of this reinterpretation by Jesus.
My point is that we cannot dilute his offense by saying it "was only emotional". To say that Fresh Fire, or Bentley, was not trying to use this strategically in order to maintain favor is quite naive in my judgment.
I agree with you completely…I believe that Peter is clearly missing the entire point of what Jesus was trying to get across.
I do think that there is an important lesson here that you raise and that is a more holistic understanding of sex and human relationships in general. The church continues to fail in this regard.
Just to get your feedback, if you found that your husband was engaged in an unhealthy emotional relationship with another woman, how would you interpret that? Would you consider it infidelity?
[...] The "Emotional Relationship", or A New Way to Justify Adultery [...]
yes, I would consider it infidelity, but I have to say, I would not consider it adultery and would not feel the same about it as a physically intimate/sexual affair. I also have not seen, in my church circles, people dismissing emotional affairs. I do think it's important to make a distinction linguistically between adultery and emotional infidelity…not to excuse it but to be clear and honest about what's going on – - not least of which because they need to be dealt with differently.
May I ask how you believe they need to be dealt with differently, b/c I really don't see that (from a scriptural point of view or a personal one).
Makeesha, I am glad that someone else is backing me up, agreeing that there is still a need to make a distinction between physical and emotional relationships while not calling one necessarily worse than the other.
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.
update – add "excessive drinking" to the mix. I guess he really did look up to Paul Cain.
(Source – John Arnott)
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.
Do you have a URL or otherwise more specific source for this claim about Todd's excessive drinking?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Bill, the point is that there was a specific claim made in a newspaper based on an apparently unauthorised link of personal information about the private life of Todd and Shonnah Bentley, and which has not been confirmed in any authorised statement. Statements by the above people are in a different category because most of these people have specific pastoral authority over Todd, and I would expect that the others are passing on information from those with authority.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cheers.
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.
Peter,
Obviously those in "pastoral authority" really knew very little about Reverend Bentley.
First of all, the Ledger story was published directly as a result of Bentley announcing his problem to his staff. I think they did pretty well to keep quiet about it in the months previous; after Bentley called a meeting I'm sure they felt it was public domain. However, if you have a problem with that, take it up with Lynne Breidenbach. I might add that her position as "media spokesperson" placed her into the position of one who would feed information to the media, and I hope she was not expected to lie.
I don't think the timing is that important, but it appears that she was still an employee, in the position of media spokesperson, when she attended the meeting. Who can blame her for resigning? Let's be kind; I think you have been too harsh on her. Imgaine her turmoil.
C. Peter Wagner, one with so-called "pastoral authority" over Reverend Bentley, seems to appreciate what Breidenbach did. Because of this, Wager states:
"Most of you would be aware that the Lakeland Ledger broke the
news publicly that Todd and Shona have decided to terminate their
marriage…..This has taken the lid off of a number of related character
accusations against Todd that are now coming in which I might have dismissed previously, but no longer can do so off hand."
Praise God!
Since it appears that Wagner, the Apostolic Three, and Strader were all either blissfully ignorant or in denial, I think the body of Christ owes a great deal to the Ledger for exposing this behaviour. For Reverend Bentley's sake, and for the sake of the gospel, it needed to be dealt with. However, I suppose once you file a legal document (public record) it would have been impossible to have kept this thing under wraps anyhow.
Your point WAS NOT that there was a report in a specific newspaper, your point was that in repeating information plastered all over the internet by the names listed above I was gossipping. Spin it all you want, your posts are above for all to read.
You stated "Bill, you too are guilty of gossip for passing on the claim that Todd filed for legal separation" I'm waiting for your apology.
As an aside, you stated "But in view of the repeated calls from people like yourself for those in authority over Todd to make statements, they have made them." I think there is more to the story.
In C. Peter Wagner's correspondance of August 12, he stated :
Todd was officially,publicly aligned with the Revival Alliance, so the three of youshould definitely make some kind of statement, probably sending it to Steve Strang.
The statements released by Johnson, Arnott, and Ahn appear to be a result of this directive from "Pope Wagner." In that letter he also stated:
Let's not sweep this under the rug with a "touch not God's anointed" as has been done with so many similar issues in our morally soft charismatic environment.
Personally, I see God's redemptive hand in the way this thing unravelled. It may actually provide impetus to not only redeem Bentley's life, but indeed to reform the "morally soft" Charismatic movement.
Bless you , Peter, May God pour out his richest blessing on you.
-Bill
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.
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.
Well add "Todd Bentley has had a major meltdown" to the list, according to Bill Johnson.
-Bill Fawcett, Harrisonburg, VA
Lynne Breidenbach as a spokesperson was expected to tell the press what she was asked to tell them and when she was asked to tell it. I am not suggesting she was asked to lie, but it doesn't seem that she was authorised to reveal at that particular time matters about the private life of Todd and Shonnah Bentley. It may be for the best that this did come out, but that does not excuse Lynne, or those who copied what she said, for gossiping. I note that John Arnott refers to the "inappropriate" timing of the announcement, which was of course forced on Fresh Fire by Lynne.
Who has said anything about a legal document or Todd filing for legal separation? None of the respected leaders involved with this matter has even hinted at this. This rumour comes only from "The Ledger", which also seems to have given false information about who left who, see this post. Indeed my point was that by spreading this unreliable information, the public release of which was not authorised, you were gossiping. There is nothing for me to apologise for. If it is true that Todd has filed for legal separation, there should be a public record of that. Where is it?
I can agree with you in hoping that this will lead to restoration of Todd and reformation of the charismatic movement.
"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
" but it doesn't seem that she was authorised to reveal at that particular time matters about the private life of Todd and Shonnah Bentley."
Well, based on the reports now that "All of this was skillfully concealed by lying and by swearing close associates who had observed his behavior to secrecy. "
It appears that Bentley pretty much had his associates intimidated. Wagner's statement that Bentley is a liar and deciever could not be any stronger.
I would suppose that as an employee she could not have revealed that. We owe her a debt of gratitude for exposing this unholy alliance.
Joyner's spin on the affair (pun intended) is laughable,
Joyner:
"He assured me that he had never committed adultery, and that there was no “other woman” that caused his separation. Some of his leaders who I talked to also confirmed that Todd had not been in any immoral relationship."
Wagner:
"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."
In fact if Joyner is basing his information from a freshsfire source, remember that on 8-12 they told us
"We want to affirm that there has been no sexual immorality on the part of either Todd or Shonnah, nor has there EVER BEEN." (conviently fogetting that Todd Bentley is a convicted sex offender).
Then a few days later they discover "Todd Bentley has entered into an unhealthy relationship on an emotional level with a female member of his staff."
Joyner is telling us that Todd told him that there was "no other woman"? So the freshfire board, Arnott, Ahn, Wagner, and Johnson, along with th Ledger, are just making this stuff up?
Drink the Kool-Aid, Peter. Drink the Kool-Aid.
For the record, and back to the original thread topic, "physical contact" (which goes) " beyond hugging and kissing and holding hands" is adultery, I don't care what Bill Clinton says.
[...] summer to some rather curious defenses of Todd Bentley and rather curious flexibility regarding what stands for adultery. I called him a loser as well. Finally, I held Fresh Fire Ministry's covering for him [...]
I consider emotional adultery is more serious that physical adultery. Emotional adultery last longer and is a lot more profound that the other form of adultery, it also harder to heal from because sometimes the subject doesn't want to be a part of it but can't oppose to it either…
I consider emotional adultery is more serious that physical adultery. Emotional adultery last longer and is a lot more profound that the other form of adultery, it also harder to heal from because sometimes the subject doesn't want to be a part of it but can't oppose to it either…
Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum! http://www.canno-tmake.com/
I agree on this, I am currently engaged in an emotional adultery which I am trying to end the relationship. But because of the emotional investment between the two of us, it becomes more difficult for us to forget each other and let him focus to his wife.