Philosophical Theology

There is danger in not defining sin in biblical terms. This secular practice has unfortunately infiltrated the church and led to much confusion. A related problem is reasoning by false disjunction. For instance, if one is a superior, which is to say of riper age, of greater grace, or more eminent in stature, his greater sins somehow atone for the sins of his prey. (WLC 151) In other words, by establishing the guilt of the superior, the participating party necessarily becomes a victim without remainder. But why should we accept that the two disjuncts are mutually exclusive? Are we so afraid of implying a false moral equivalency that we cannot identify sins of inferiors biblically?

In a recent case before the PCA’s Philadelphia presbytery it is reported that:

In light of evidence arising that led to the charge of Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse, the Presbytery removed the charge of Adultery. Clergy Sexual Misconduct, an online resource recommended by the PCA’s DASA (Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault) Committee clarifies this distinction:

What is CSM not? An affair. Clergy sexual misconduct is often mislabeled as an “affair” if either the pastor or the victim is married. Many people view clergy sexual abuse as merely a pastor cheating on his wife with a church member. However, an affair is a relationship between two people who have mutually consented and are participating without any form of manipulation. This is not the case with CSM. The sexualized so-called “relationship” has arisen within asymmetrical power dynamics, where the spiritual leader occupies a more powerful and dominant position in relation to the victim.

The relevant session of the church within the presbytery had this to say:

The Session would like to add a point of clarification to the Presbytery statement. We understand Spiritual Abuse and Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse to be clear violations of the 5th commandment, which is “honor your father and your mother”, and the 7th commandment, which is “you shall not commit adultery.” Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse is a more specific form of adultery, therefore it was not necessary to prosecute an additional charge of adultery against [Elder’s Name].

The first quote states without ambiguity that CSM is not an affair. Assuming that an affair is equivalent to adultery, CSM never constitutes an adulterous relationship. Yet the second quote suggests that adultery was indeed committed, at least by the man. However, if a church were truly opposed to this growing sentiment, it would not practice no-fault adultery for one of the offending parties. (Obviously, practice, not words, is the best indicator of doctrinal conviction. We can apply the same principle to the rampant no-fault divorce in the church.)

General principles that transcend any particular church or denomination:

At the very least, any church that drifts from clear biblical language provides at least an occasion for equivocal thinking, poor communication, disunity among members, inconsistent practice and constant revision, even within the same denomination. But let’s consider how the first popular sentiment can actually work itself out in practice when consistently applied (by any church).

The first position portrays the participating party as a victim, in turn releasing her from complicit adultery and the possibility of receiving loving ecclesiastical censure for violating the seventh commandment. The reason being, an illicit physical relation that involves a superior is not an “affair” because it is not mutually consenting due to manipulation arising from asymmetrical powers and dominance. Surely, critical theory ideas (intersectionality), which often jettison biblical language and beg crucial questions, have dire consequences. (In passing we might ask: With respect to those in authority, has a middle ground been carved out between rape and an “affair”? That just seems too clever by half.)

CSM has several ramifications:

An adult who has been allured and succumbed to sexual temptation by a superior has not committed adultery because she has been “groomed”. She is invincibly ignorant and doesn’t know she should seek help per Deuteronomy 22:24. She simply is a victim ipso facto. In such instances, there is no solution. There’s no free agency, at least of any relevance. Because there is no censurable transgression, there is no dire need for the victim’s repentance. Consequently, personal shame and heartache is beyond one’s control and gospel reach. This is akin to the Arminian who reasons that if God has determined sin, or led one into temptation through secondary causes, like a superior(!), a certain class of sinner-saint may not be held accountable.* At the very least, when God provides a way of escape, it is from biblical temptation, not secular grooming. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Reductio ad absurdum:

Let’s see where such thinking leads, if we’re consistent:

1. The victim lives in unrepentant adultery because there is no past sin of adultery from which to repent. Consequently, the woman is denied the cleansing power of the gospel. 

2. The victim cannot seek her husband’s forgiveness for adultery because the charge of adultery doesn’t apply, at least to her. Consequently, the female’s marriage is denied God’s peace through biblical reconciliation.

3. The victim cannot seek forgiveness for lying to her friends and family to cover up adultery. Therefore, the church is denied full spiritual communion with one of its members. Consequently, the unity of the Spirit and bond of peace is violated. 

4. The victim cannot seek her lover’s wife’s forgiveness because there was no chargeable offense. Consequently, the woman’s lover’s wife is expected to pity “the other woman” who did nothing wrong.**

5. The victim cannot seek her lover’s forgiveness for her part in the relationship because she did not commit adultery. Consequently, she’s denied forgiveness from someone she violated.

6. The victim has to reinterpret or suppress her initial cries of anguish for wandering aimlessly and grieving the Holy Spirit. Her sorrow can no longer be seen as tears of guilt, let alone contrition, but as tears of victimhood. Consequently, she must convince herself that any sorrow for sin is misguided because she isn’t an adulterer. (Proverbs 5:6; Ephesians 4:30)

7. The victim must convince herself that she hasn’t resisted the conviction of the Holy Spirit. In the context of adultery, she cannot cry out to God: “How I hated discipline. How my heart spurned correction! I would not obey my teachers or turn my ear to my instructors.” (Proverbs 5:12,13)

8. The husband of the victim has to live under the tension of knowing that his wife sinned grievously against him, but he may not express his concerns lest he blows her cover and is seen as unsympathetic and misogynistic. He must bear his burden alone while playing along with an ecclesiastical charade; yet in more Spirit filled moments he knows the pain of being sinned against by his adulterous wife. Consequently, the husband is denied the liberty to divorce his wife for adultery and the blessing of forgiving her for the same. 

Biblical precept:

Whether every manifestation of CSM plays out consistently misses the point. The point is, the Bible informs us not to allow our hearts to turn toward the tempters, to stray into their paths. (Proverbs 7:25) Secondly, we may not spin the sin. Yet this ecclesiastical application of critical theory implicitly denies such biblical wisdom. After all, when one of sound mind, who is both free and of age, may be exempt from a censurable offense, God’s prescriptive warnings needn’t be heeded. Indeed, they don’t even apply!

Closing:

This sort of Diane Langberg approach to ministry needs to be abandoned by churches.*** It’s unloving to sinners who need to repent of sin and receive God’s forgiveness in order that they might heal.

Elders who are too cowardly or doctrinally confused to confront in a loving, pastoral way adultery, divorce and the like need to man-up, internalize the doctrines they have vowed to uphold, and learn to apply them compassionately yet precisely in pastoral ministry. Otherwise, demit the office. This soul-murdering in the name of refuge needs to stop. In exchange, sessions must love their sheep according to biblical precept by pursuing them in their wanderings with abounding love that is walled in by biblical knowledge and discernment. (Philippians 1:9) This will require a working understanding of basic doctrine that should not have to be debated and learned on the job.

Do not lay hands upon anyone too quickly and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.

1 Timothy 5:22

* This sort of critical theory paves the way for the Tim Keller gospel. 

** By these calculations, a White House intern in 1995 did not owe the First Lady an apology for having an adulterous relationship with the President. Instead, the First Lady should have pitied the victim.

*** At the very least, let’s at least abandon the heretical teachings on the doctrine of impassibility.