Good question.

First I will say that I personally stopped caring a long time ago on whether or not “gay marriage” would become “legalized”. I *think* it was Ron Paul who put it best when he said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that the question wasn’t whether or not gay marriage should be legalized but whether government should be involved with any marriage PERIOD! I actually had a problem with governmental interference with marriage (“legalised” marriage) long before I heard that comment but for some reason couldn’t put it nearly as well as he did. However, I’ll get back to the point of the question.

Although I will say that I’ve heard some good arguments from others about what the Bible MAY have been saying about homosexuality….I will say that I go about this with an open mind and spirit but so far I still do not believe that this lifestyle is within God’s will for anyone’s life.

We all have a free will to choose. Just because we make a choice doesn’t mean it’s the right one but it’s our freedom to make that choice. So quite frankly, whatever choices and lives we lead are between each individual and God. As far as Christians supporting any legislation on this….I guess it would depend on *how* they “support” it and what they feel their convictions are. Even though I’ve stopped concerning myself on whether legislation will pass or not, I still would not be able to support it *spiritually* as I feel it’s not Biblical. Not to mention that although legislation – or *worldy* law – may prove that it’s beneficial for the physical and emotional well-being of the gay community….it’s interesting how it doesn’t mention (or maybe it does) the *spiritual* well being of the minority’s family. At the end of the day – when it’s not healthy spiritually, it’s not healthy for the mind or body either. It would be interesting to know what KIND of studies they did and HOW they conducted them.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22)
What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. (Romans 7:7)

The law is important…whether state law or biblical (which functioned as a similar legal system back in the day) the law is made for unbelievers.

I struggled with this question for a long time, thinking that it didnt really have anything to do with the church and christianity and that they should just do it and keep us out of it. But then I realized that if they don’t know that it’s wrong, they will not know that it is sin, and they will not know the righteousness of God. I think that the picture of Jesus Christ and his bride as the church is a picture of marriage from a christian perspective. If Jesus wasn’t choosing a bride, our salvation would be impossible. We must support marriage between men and women also because of this analogy of Christ’s relationship with his church.

Abrazos,
Wes

I think Julie has a good point in separating the “legal” and “spiritual” aspect of the same-sex marriage. From a “legal” point of view, the USA Government – as a secular nation – has the responsibility to ensure the well being of all its citizens. Therefore, if the government grants legal rights and tax breaks to male-female marriages, it should then grant the same rights to same-sex marriages.

With that stated, I also believe that same-sex marriages are contrary to the teachings of the Jesus Christ. Yet, at its core, Christianity is about a personal decision to following the King of Kings. As such, attempt to regulate or force people (Christian and non-Christians) to following the moral guidelines of God will ultimately fail. Granted, people will LOOK like they are following the regulated “rules” – but unless they are doing so out of a personal conviction, then their actions are worthless (from an eternal perspective).

In other words, I believe the church is in error whenever it tries to force people to follow their rules – or their understanding of the Bible.

Note: From a practical viewpoint, the only thing that is happening in fighting Prop 8 is that Christians are pushing away the very people who need them. The church is called to go to the outcast, poor and sick – not build a wall around themselves and push everyone who disagrees away.

This is an incredibly important topic for a variety of reasons, not hte leaast of which is the fact that the care and well-being of actual people is directly involved.

I tend to favor the separation of church and state in matters of marriage, but my question here was a little different. I’m wondering if Christians have an ethical obligation to support gay marriage given the possibility that it tangibly benefits people’s well-being.

Wes - I think it’s an important thing you’re wrestling with. My question to you is, what is the image of righteousness that witnesses to the world? Is the the biblical law, secular law, or something else?

Thanks everyone for your comments.

“But then I realized that if they don’t know that it’s wrong, they will not know that it is sin, and they will not know the righteousness of God.”

Here’s the thing though – there may be a small percentage of those who don’t know it’s sinful (according to a view most hold of the Bible) BUT most gay people DO know what the Bible says because plenty of Christians and church goers HAVE informed them. I’ve never met a single gay person so far (granted it’s not like I’ve known a slue of them in my lifetime but I’ve known a few) nor have I yet to see a homosexual on tv (interview, etc.) who didn’t have a good understanding that most Christians view the Bible as stating their lifestyle wrong.

I’m not saying we should sit still and be quiet. I actually do believe that when the moment presents itself – and out of love, of course – that we need to share with them what God puts on our hearts. I’m just saying that I highly doubt most homosexuals are in the dark over what the common belief is over the word of God.

The answer for all of us lies in the revealing power of the Holy Spirit for our individual lives. Its frustrating to me but its true that God works in weird ways. I have not been praying about this discussion, which I feel ashamed of, but I have prayed about the issue. Just to be honest.

Julie-They know that the Bible is against homosexuality, but they do not believe it to be truth or relevant. Don Miller said “what I say I believe is not what I believe, what I believe is what I do.” I think this statement is very true, so while they know it to be in the Bible they do not believe in it. And yes, everything should be out of love, absolutely.

Jason-To your original question: if the findings are true that lesbian couples are having the most success raising children then I would say that the church is structured in a wrong way regarding the raising of children. Maybe children need multiple women to be a key part in their upbringing. I believe the Acts church had a more communal atmosphere and would deal with this issue. To your latest question: I believe the image of righteousness that witnesses to the world is a personal testimony of what Jesus can do in someone’s own life. But this person must be unchanging and uncompromising in character, not thrown about by the different ideas and fabs of this culture, rather transformed to have the mind of Christ.

To me, separation of church and state is ok, but should there be a separation of church and state within oneself? Or separation of legal and spiritual side of oneself? The biblical law should be a model for modern day secular law, and in many cases it is. This is because God’s law is the best, always, even if we don’t think it is, or we don’t like it. After all, it wasn’t written for Christians, because we are under grace and live by the Spirit. Rather, it was written for the unbeliever.

Think about John the Baptist, the greatest man who ever lived (according to Jesus.) When Herod was married to his own brother’s wife John called him out on it and pointed out his wrong, he didnt say that Herod just needed more love and free coffee before he could see the power of God. It’s interesting, and it eventually cost him his life. When we see homosexuality, shouldn’t we act in the same way? Isn’t this part of love? “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” 1 cor 13:6

By the way, the conversation is a lot of fun for me, I hope everyone is also in high spirits. There is no point in discussing if someone is being angered or hurt.

Jason, do you advocate Gay marriage?

Thank you.

Matthew - Yes and no. Perhaps I’ll delve further into that in a follow up post, but for now I’m more interested in the question I posed in this post. I’d be very interested in your thoughts…

Answer: In now way should Christians use something “positively impacts the physical and emotional well-being of a minority group of men, women, and children” when it refers to sodomy.

Lets be frank here.

Gay is not the correct word, nor is homosexual [that is scientific], the correct word for this is sodomite.

We are not to comprimise biblical mandates for the sake of “peace”.

This whole notion sounds very ‘emergent’, which really is a demon in itself.

I’m always frank. For example: You’re not going to get much traction here with an argument like, “sounds emergent.”

Moving on…I’m sure you wouldn’t limit your argument to sodomy Matthew, otherwise you’d be allowing for same sex female partnerships and same sex male partnership that excluded sodomy – or any homosexual partnership that simply excludes sexual activity altogether. I don’t mind using a different word, but sodomy just doesn’t work for this topic. Gay works, homosexual works, same-sex works. Use whatever word or phrase you like as long as it’s accurate and dispassionate. My question isn’t about advocating sodomy. Sodomy occurs inside and outside of all kinds of relationships, married, unmarried, hetero, homo, etc.

So we’re back to the original question, and it’s fundamentally an ethical question.

The legal fact is that same-sex marriage would improve homosexuals access to health care and other benefits for their partners, and now some social science seems to indicate that same-sex marriage benefits the children of same sex households. Given these benefits, do Christians have an ethical duty to support same-sex marriage?

Jason: What is your source for building your own ethical belief system?

The life and teachings of Christ.

“do Christians have an ethical duty to support same-sex marriage?”

Well, given the fact that insurance companies WON’T cover anyone whom is NOT a dependant (spouses, children) – (and I don’t know if some insurances will cover spouses in the state where “common law marriages” are still legal) – which I find ridiculous. If you’re able and willing to pay for the benefits, you should be able to buy coverage for anyone you d****d well please. AND given the fact that every government in the world is arrogant enough to think they actually have the power to control marriage through some ridiculous document (yeah, like signing a document makes your heart any more committed to this life long commitment). Give ALL of those facts as they are put in place the way they are I would have to say that my own answer is:

Yes and no.

Yes because it WOULD *legally* give gay couples more access to healthcare plus “legal” marriages for gays would also protect any children that would come along. Besides gay people are – *people*. And all people should be treated fairly not only under God but under that laws of humanity.

No to the point that – well, no marriage is a marriage anyway until and only if it is blessed by God (in my view). Whether your straight, gay, bi, whatever. Just like there are MANY heterosexual marriages out there NOT being blessed by God, neither (do *I* believe) that homosexual marriages would be blessed by God. So spiritually, you can be against it while legally you can support it because of specific rights.

BTW Wes – “but should there be a separation of church and state within oneself?”

My knee jerk reaction is to say “yes” but what exactly do *you* mean by your statement?

In answer to you r question Jason; No.

What a silly and utter ridiculous notion it is to think that a Christian is to go against what God and His Word teaches in order to cater for sin.

Julie: I just mean that if I believe gay marriage would is wrong, should I still vote for gay marriage to be legal? The comment from Ardell seemed to say that if one were to believe that gay marriage is wrong, he should still separate that belief in order to promote the common well being of the country, and vote accordingly. I believe that God is in charge of the common welfare of the people; also that Paul believed the origins of homosexuality are not ‘godly.’ If one believes that gay marriage should not be allowed, that person should vote against it. If the majority votes for gay marriage, I won’t fight it, you won’t see me on Pennsylvania Ave; but if I have to vote, I’ll do it with my own values that are united, not split between spiritual and political.

Jason: So red letters? Matthew to John? Or did you mean something else by that?

Jason: Sorry I keep thinking of stuff after I hit submit. I’ve read scientific research that says it is healthy for male teens to masturbate. This is pretty impossible to do without lusting, isn’t it? But if it’s science, is it ok to go at it? I’ve got a youth group full of guys that would love to hear that, but it doesn’t seem ethical to teach that to them. I also realize Jesus taught on the issue of lust, but I’m mainly commenting on the idea that same-sex parenthood is better for children so we should accept it.

Matthew - Right. Thanks for the tone, that really helps convince me.

So, are you saying that preserving a commandment, rule, law, or institution is more important than taking care of people, even when it’s quite clear that preserving it will actually harm people and breaking it will actually help people?

It’s an old question really: Is it okay to lie if it’s the only way to save someone’s life? Is it okay to steal food if it’s the only way to feed your family? Etc, etc.

Wes - Sorry man, I just caught up to your comments.

Uh, yeah. Matthew to John. I don’t limit myself to the gospels, but Jesus is the foundation of all superior ethics.

I really like how you’re processing this and I really like your comments about family life in the first century. I think there’s good insight there, and I think there’s an important discussion we could be having about the state of heterosexual marriage as an entirely inadequate comparison. In that sense the church has really failed to provide an alternative image.

I also really like your comment about not being separated within oneself. I think that’s a huge issue, and one that goes back several hundred years.

Also, regarding JTB, I think that’s a very good example of how the church can and should stand as a prophetic critique of culture, but nowhere do we see John lobbying to change the Roman Empire or advocating the exercise of Kingdom authority over secular power structures. In fact, Jesus and Paul seem to display a kind of apathy toward secular powers. Also, nowhere is there any indication in scripture that the law of God should be exercised via secular powers. I would argue quite the opposite. The church is meant to be a conspicuous contrast society to the surrounding powers, not a means of conquering them and converting them into an extension of the church or the Kingdom.

So, while there ought not to be a division within oneself, scripture does rather vividly portray is as sojourners, or aliens and strangers living in a foreign land, and demonstrating a foretaste of the coming Kingdom.

Matthew: Maybe it was supposed to be utterly?

Jason: Ultimately, I don’t think that taking care of someone is what you are proposing. I understand they can get better health benefits, yes, but do you think Paul or even Jesus was concerned with health when righteousness was on the line? Jesus said that if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. Paul said to hand the sexually immoral Christian man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. Maybe they aren’t worried about healthcare? I realize that Paul is addressing the church, but it’s just to reinforce that righteousness is a big deal, even regarding death or something of the like.

So no, it’s not Ok to lie or steal unless the Holy Spirit permits it (like when the early disciples broke out of prison, they were content until God intervened.) Lying and stealing are just signs that a person is not trusting the Lord to provide. He will be our source for food when it is scarce, and for money when we are in need. Look at all he provides for the sparrow : )

Also, I disagree with your statement about John. John the Baptist, in my opinion, was exercising authority over secular power structures when he righteously scolded Herod for marrying his brother Phillip’s wife. Herod was the legislative, and judicial branch for that local section of the Roman Empire, and undoubtedly a non-believer. I agree that the church is meant to be a contrast society, but we need to be aggressively contrasting.

I am disheartened to hear of individuals like Matthew, who claims to be a preacher use words of mocking and derision in discussions on Jesus…of all topics. And his usage of the the word “sodomite” is not just loaded, but grossly ignorant of lesbians and some gay men who do not engage in “sodomy”.

Politically, I think what Julie said regarding the government’s overall role in marriage is misguided (and has led to the current predicaments) but since we’re here, it’s a ever worsening mistake to prevent gay couples from acquiring the same legal rights as straight couples currently have under the law. It’s a PR disaster for Christianity that is hugely unsubstantiated spiritually (I would argue).

@Jason: As for proclaiming truth, you said that Jesus and Paul displayed great apathy towards rulers and authorities…and you also said:

“The church is meant to be a conspicuous contrast society to the surrounding powers, not a means of conquering them and converting them into an extension of the church or the Kingdom.”

I wholeheartedly agree. I actually just wrote a recent lengthly blogpost on this.

@Wesley
Regarding your statements on Herod. Herod was religious, or posed as a religious man. He attended the religious festivals (such as Passover and Sukkoth) so it would have been well within John the Baptist’s rights to criticize a fellow Jew, moreover an observant Jewish ruler, of his shortcomings as a spiritual and moral model (as most prophets had done so with Israel/Judah’s past Kings–which if we all remember was a system of government that God warned/did not want in the first place). In doing so JTB is not providing us, here in our constitutional republic, with an example of how to proclaim truth to our secular leaders…let alone to our gay & lesbian neighbors whose eyes and ears may not acknowledge to live under the laws of a faith they do not adhere to.

That said, I do agree with your suggestion that the Church’s current approach to child rearing may be wrong. Seeing as the Church sees high rates of adultery and divorce, and seeing that we Americans have this idea of raising children in secluded, independent one house-one family structure …I don’t think it’s any surprise that having two moms may be more beneficial. I’d be interested in a report that looks at kids who come form cultures where multiple neighborhood/community mothers help in raising the child, and comparing that to kids of female same-sex parents. Also I think the Church is really out of line, or at least making foolish hypocrites out of itself, when it prevents same-sex parents from adopting, but does not make any promises to ensure that there is no lack of homes when it comes to kids in foster care/orphanages/waiting for adoptions.

Lastly, I’d like to share a quote I heard today from my political professor.
“One must be always cautious when told to think of the children when asked for support of some bill or piece of legislation. No smart politician or lobbyist will miss a chance to remind the voters of consequences and implications for the future of society and its most vulnerable.”

I don’t think loving gay parents who have children is wrong. I do think we are called and commanded to love and support regardless of their background. I don’t know if we should affirm the righteousness of their relationships–I honestly don’t know enough. But I do think it would benefit the Church to live up to their call to help and love these parents (a myriad of ways to do so) and maybe the Church could even learn about some method of doing parenting differently.

“Politically, I think what Julie said regarding the government’s overall role in marriage is misguided”

How so?

KJ, that was beautiful…thanks for the correction with Herod too…I was hoping Jason would have some insight on that but you beat him to it. It makes sense to love, and I really enjoy that and want to do that, but I dont think that loving includes condoning. But you’re right, I dont think we know enough. We should seek God’s counsel.

I really appreciate that almost everyone’s comments here have been positive, even with in disagreement. This is a touchy subject, to say the least. I’ll just leave these notes:

KJ - Thanks so much for pitching in. Your professor’s quote is something that will stick with me because it rings so true, and chastens us in every corner of the political spectrum.

Wes - KJ beat me to it indeed. I still think you’re wrestling with a very important and difficult line regarding the way Chrisitians impact culture and how we live that out as members of a Republic – which, as KJ pointed out (and I think Julie has pointed out here before) is not something that is addressed in scripture. I’ll just reiterate that there’s a significant difference between speaking prophetically to secular power and wielding secular power. I think the BIble is clear we are to do the former, and equally clear about the dangers of the latter (as is church history).

Regarding your masturbation question, the Bible doesn’t seem concerned about masturbation at all. I suspect the ancient Jewish position would be that it’s a misuse of the body (not an unimportant point to our original topic). Having said that, most commandments and laws are meant to curb otherwise healthy activities that, in excess, becomes harmful, and most abuses of moral laws come when we treat as absolute those condemnations that are meant to curb excessive behavior. This is true of food, wine, sex, etc. Sabbath is the classic example. As I read the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ words about lust are not meant to provide us with a helpful guideline for determining what is and isn’t a sin (i.e. masturbation must be sinful because it involves lust), but rather is meant as an incisive explication of our deeply sinful condition. I think there’s a difference.

But to answer your fundamental question, Yes. I think any prohibition should be lifted at exactly the point at which keeping that prohibition becomes actually harmful to real people. Otherwise, we break the common sense purpose of the prohibition itself. It’s what we mean when we say, “He kept the letter of the law but broke the spirit of the law.”

Julie - I didn’t mean to ignore you in this conversation. I know you lean pretty strongly libertarian – and I sympathize with that perspective – so I don’t know that I have much to add to what you’ve said.

Everyone - It’s interesting to me that this conversation moved in the direction of how we express the will of God and wield power as voters in a Republic. That’s not the question I posed, but it’s an obvious undergirding issue, so it was a very appropriate sidetrack.

There are other related and valid issues that could be discussed, including whether the Bible really does condemn monogamous homosexual relationships, whether State marriage really is (and should be) religious, etc. But we’ll have to leave those for another discussion.

Thanks again.

Jason: I totally agree with your position on the Matthew 5 reference, but it isn’t taught like that. Actually a few months ago I feel like God revealed that to me, but it’s easy for me to forget because everyone focuses on that.

Also, did you know onan is the hebrew word for masturbation? He is the one who “spilled his seed” in Genesis and God killed him…(or “kept his essence” if youve seen Dr Strangelove) a biblical fact that only a public university like OSU would care to teach I think : ) My student friends at Liberty and Lee are cut short on these fun details…

Also, not to drag this on, I know you just kind of said goodbye to the discussion but your last comment really helped me to understand where you’re coming from and I totally believe it to be true, its very insightful for me.
“I’ll just reiterate that there’s a significant difference between speaking prophetically to secular power and wielding secular power.”
This is where the Holy Spirit is key for all of us, moment by moment, and when it comes time to vote, our voice should be led by the Lord.

i’m quite surprised how Christians sacrifice being ‘good news’ for being ‘biblical’ in some way. Jesus crossed many boundaries to demonstrate, proclaim and be “good news”; this calls us – as jason has pointed out – to go beyond the legalities to the Spirit of Him who gave the Law: you have heard it said…but Jesus says…

No problem Wes, I haven’t closed this discussion completely.

It’s true that Onan’s name has become synonymous with masturbation as coitus interuptus (how’s that for an odd phrase?), but to fair, the Jewish community is at least as divers regarding how to understand these issues as Christians.

Glad to have your contributions here Wes, please feel free to keep pitching in on this or any other discussion : )

I have been reading for a while but have never commented. I think all the comments about the subject of gay marriage and gays raising families were very insightful. I think that if a relationship is healthy and happy, children can thrive in all kinds of situations. I wonder though how that ‘family’ or relationship would do over the course of a regular lifetime with the ups and downs and losses and financial problems and so on. If those relationships are securlar they have no spiritual support. My sister always used to say that you become a Christain first and then the holy spirit will work to change your heart. Not that I believe that it doesn’t take a lot of ‘work’ to become more like Christ, but the bible is clear about what we are to do. And I think that over-intellectualizing sometimes gets us into trouble. So I agree that Christ first and when it comes to others, Christ only. Rules we set for others only bind our own hearts. I don’t think man’s judgement or laws should govern us one way or the other except for our own convictions in our own life. The rest is all about souls.

Thanks for your comments Becky. Well said.

Actually, the situation with Onan didn’t seem to be about masturbation (at least from what I’ve gotten from the story – and I just went back to re-read it). Onan was having sex with his sister in law at the time (which kinda defeats the purpose of “flying solo”) in order to produce an offspring for his brother. However, he allowed his semen to spill on the ground so he would NOT produce that offspring (for he knew it would not be considered his). God took this as “wicked in (his) sight” and put Onan to death also.

I don’t think that Onan’s death was because of masturbation (as he was having sex with the woman anyway) but because of his disobedience to God.

Julie: I wholeheartedly agree…its just interesting that onan is the word for masturbation now, according to a Hebrew professor that I know in OSU. Was he masturbating? Was he just using her? Doesn’t matter, he was being evil in regards to what God expected of him…

To see that one who will not comprimise in regards to gay marriage be slandered on a comment thread is concerning.

I tell you, all you “post- whatevers” and your “emergent” types better start putting God first and stop allowing culture to dictate your theology.

Jason – is Fuller still rank liberal in it’s theology and is Vinyard still all Wimber’ed out? I would really like to know.

In His grip,
Matthew

Matthew-You are seeming so angry…Im still voting no on gay marriage, but its interesting to listen to, and fellowship with, other believers…we are all using biblical references and you havent used any…thats so strange to me. Do you know why you believe what you believe?

Wes

Hello.

Be careful how you interpret tone via type words on a pc screen

Passion applied can be misinterpreted…….

— Yes. He shed His own blood for my soul.

Matthew - I don’t think anyone has slandered you in this thread. If so, please point it out and I’ll remove it immediately.

Your perspective is welcome here, although, I will admit, your tone is not. I’m sure we have much to learn from you, so I hope you’ll continue to engage, but if you do I’d appreciate a more irenic approach from you in matters of disagreement.

To answer your questions, yes, Fuller is the gravitational center of theological liberalism and the Vineyard is busy cloning John Wimber in the basement. : )

“….the Vineyard is busy cloning John Wimber in the basement. : )”

Shouldn’t there be an “evil scientist” laugh after that statement?:-)

Jason – seriouly are you cloning Wimber in the basement ?
No – seriouly now; is Fuller still liberal?

[now my link to my blog works…}

I’m not really sure how to answer your question because it doesn’t really seem like an honest question. Fuller is generally considered to be too liberal by people who are very conservative, and too conservative by those who are very liberal. In my own experience, I’m always quite surprised by how conservative my professors are.

I am serious. [about Fuller].

Thank you for your answer.

Now, are you liberal in your theology?

What’s liberal to you?

A denial that the Bible is the very, inspired, literally God-breathed, word of God. But rather a ‘moral guide’

Liberal theology – can and does lead to a denial of the virgin birth, triune God, hell and various other fundamentals.

An example would be Bishop Sprong .

- you know what I mean.

I wasn’t sure what you meant. Liberal can mean many different things to people these days.

I certainly affirm the divine inspiration of scripture.

But……………..?

Well in Canada here gay marriage has been legal for a few years now and it has yet to harm my heterosexual marriage in the least.

Dan, I figure we’re plenty good enough at screwing up heterosexual marriage all by ourselves without having to blame gays for it : )

“I figure we’re plenty good enough at screwing up heterosexual marriage all by ourselves without having to blame gays for it : )”

LOL! Exactly!

I’ve been saying now for quite a few years that once/if/when (whatever) gay marriages become “legalized” that they would have to work REALLY hard over the next coming millenniums to even catch up to screwing up marriages as much as heterosexuals have.

So Jason intsead of explaining the sin of homsexuality – explaining the damage it does do [IT IS AN OFFENSE TO GOD], you merley shrug it off……….

Seriously guys. Come on…..

Matthew - The purpose of this post was not to address the question of sin and homosexuality. What I’m “shrugging off” with my last statement is the fallacy that homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

Fallacy –

It is an abomination to God [like lying, stealing, adultery] .

Shrinking from making such claims will lead to a serious problem come that Day.

Right. Well, again, that’s not the topic, although it certainly is a very important one. Don’t worry Matthew, I’ll get around to posting on that at some point.