The issue of adultery that I have been arguing over the past week continues to be associated specifically to Todd Bentley’s “unhealthy emotional relationship” with a member of his staff.  In order to be clear about what I am arguing, as I thought I had before, I want to bracket Todd Bentley’s issue out of the picture and focus on the question of whether or not an emotional relationship with someone can be properly defined as adulterous.  I think the answer is a resounding yes.  One argument is biblical, the other argument is psycho-social.  Both arguments are distinct, but intimately related here in terms of Christian praxis.

If we argue that adultery (affairs, infidelity, etc.) is limited to physical relationships, the only problem with adultery is that it is a physical relationship. Following this, can one then have the same kind of emotional relationship with someone as they would in the midst of adultery without the physical aspect present?  In other words, is the physical aspect of adultery constitutive of the emotional aspect of the same relationships and hence, the emotional aspect of that relationship is dependant upon the physical aspect of the relationship?  I would say, and I think this was Jesus’ point, that the answer is no.

The point that Jesus is making in the Sermon on the Mount is that breaching the sacred norms that the Ten Commandments establish happens first with the inclination of the will, the orientation of one’s mind, and is a matter of the heart.  The more radical aspect is that he associates the very orientation of the heat and mind with the breach of the commandment itself.  When he says, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart”, it is not to make a distinction between what one thinks and what one does, but to remove any such distinction.  Why?  Because all commandments hang together with loving God with all the heart, mind, and soul.  To argue the point that he is making a distinction between a sin of the body and a sin of the mind completely misses how Jesus interprets the commandments here and elsewhere.  This is one part of the argument that I do not think has been challenged and I would think that it is not a point that can merit any challenge that would claim even an equal portion of veracity here.  So what does this look like when we apply it to our own relationships?  I think this question is the source of the disagreements and debate here.

So when does a healthy friendship, even a very close one, with a member of the opposite sex cross the line? I think that if we are honest with ourselves and examine our relationships we know where that threshold is. If there is lack of clarity where that threshold is, I think it is a wonderful opportunity to discuss it with your spouse or partner. The fact that an emotional relationship can be characterized as “unhealthy” is the point here. If it is just a normal friendship with a member of the opposite sex that is not invasive, non-intrusive, and not a distraction from the emotional accounting that is given in the covenant of marriage to one’s spouse, then it would not be “unhealthy” would it?  So what makes an emotional relationship with someone “unhealthy”?

Every couple has their own boundaries to negotiate on this matter. Certainly a “swinging” couple has a different threshold than, say, Billy and Ruth Graham or Ronald and Nancy Reagan.  Nonetheless, there is are clear realtional boundaries in all relationships. One of those boundaries is the line that a couple draws between friendship and adultery.  There is a point where an emotional relationship with anyone can become something that is destructive to the health of a partnership with someone to whom one has covenanted their self.  If we have to characterize an emotional relationship we have with someone else as “unhealthy”, then we have to examine what makes it unhealthy and change that relationship or cut it off (Jesus’ language again) for the sake of the primary relationship that it is clearly harming.  Finally, lest we focus only on opposite-gender relationships (even if Jesus was clearly focused only there which we must stress) the same constellation of issues occurs in same gender relationships as well.

I am now quite convinced that many people are not quite confident of where this boundary is for their own well-being.  So where is that boundary for you and your own relationship?  My wife and I discuss it frequently actually and always have.  We are always aware of how our relationship is developing, we have become more open and honest with each other, and can talk about our wants, desires, needs, and vision of the future at any point in the day.  Clearly, as the divorce rate is at about 50% and holding strong in the US at least, it is reasonable to say that most relationships do not engage in this kind of dialogue even intermittently.  I think that is precicely why this particular issue is not clear.  I think it will become very clear if we each examine the sacred boundaries in our own relationships with our friends and loved ones.

I do not think that our common usage of the term “adultery” is at all what Jesus had in mind when he condemned it.  Am I redefining the term here?  I am.  But in a way that I think is faithful to the kind of life and the kind of relationships that Jesus commands us to have.  Even if you are not a Christian, the value of this particular and quite radical understanding of adultery is palpable.