I’ve had my “Wall of Shame” page up for a little while, but I haven’t placed anything on there (having more than a few other things to do…). My first post is actually an archived Facebook interaction from Nov. 1, 2013 where a brother from my seminary and I had a little back-and-forth over the resignation of Doug Phillips from the (now nonexistent) Vision Forum.
Here’s a coversation I had with a brother on Facebook where I made an off the cuff statement and got corrected. The names have been changed since I didn’t ask his permission to toss this up.
Initial Facebook Status:
Now those who know me will know that there are several movements and organizations surrounding the church that I’m not a fan of, but when anyone falls into sexual sin, it’s a frightfully horrible thing:http://tinyurl.com/q3sz3rr
Remember to pray for Doug Philips and all the people that follow the Vision Forum who are probably struggling to understand and make sense of this news.
Mr X – Thanks Lyndon, my wife is not the authority though However, I get your point.
I would just be careful to broadcast “sexual sin,” which implies fornication, and grounds for divorce according to Matt 19, versus inappropriate conduct (hugging, kissing?)), which is not.
Mr X – I think the Bible distinguishes that sins of the heart as very different than sins of the body. For those who thought they kept the Law, Jesus exposed them as being law-breakers because of their lust. That is very different than committing adultery (fornication). I think if Lyndon was the one in question, he would not want people posting that he committed “sexual sin,” as it presents a different picture in the minds of people than what actually took place. I would say an emotional affair is obviously wrong, but a different issue. My 2c
Lyndon Unger – ok. I can see ehat youre getting at; hatred is technically not murder…but can you tell me where the bible uses “emotional affair” as a viable category.The gory details are given by Doug Phillips himself, so the imaginations/misunderstandings of people don’t factor into the equation. People can think that he stole ten chickens, but that’s only because they ignore the publicly available facts.
I’d appreciate some understanding of Matt. 5:28, which says nothing about divorce. Conflation of two separate issues is occurring when you bring up Matt. 19.
Finally, what exactly is the context where a pastor/ministry leader can lay the lips on a woman?
Mr X – Lydon, firstly, let me apologize for posting my concern and not emailing you privately. I am making a concerted effort to not argue with Christians in public forums, as I think it is a bad witness. However, my stubborn fallen nature keeps dragging me back (Rom 7:17), and I have to reflect on what has taken place, ask for forgiveness, and try again next time
But, to answer your question, I am not saying that he did not sin, and that he should not step down from ministry. He should, and is presently disqualified from being in leadership. My main concern was the useage of the term “sexual sin” when he clearly stated the relationship did not involve sex. So, it might just be semantics, but “every idle word” is important, and we especially need to be wary of sins of the tongue (cf. Jas 3). So, I was merely pointing that out for cautionary sake. Not to start a debate.
I do think there is major difference between desiring a woman in the heart, and actually going to bed with her (cf. 1 Cor 6:18). And I agree with Randy, and would state that if that was the case, and lust is “sexual sin” in the same way as adultery, then no man would be qualified to lead anyone.
Lyndon Unger – Apology accepted but not necessary. I don’t believe that either of us has sinned against the other. I also wouldn’t suggest that we’re arguing; I’d consider this more swashbuckling or having public dialogue. I’m far from angry or offended, and I enjoy getting the screws from time to time. It’s good to be challenged and called to account for my words, with are careless more often than I’m likely aware.We agree that he sinned, but we’re only disagreeing on the descriptor. I was using “sexual sin” as shorthand for “sexual immorality”, and I was thinking of several passages when I tossed out the “sexual sin” label. I was thinking “sexual” in the nature of the sin, not “sexual” as in the physical act.
The verses that I was thinking about all used either porneia (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm…) and moicheuo (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm…), both of which (upon further study) explicitly have physical connotations to them, so after further searching the scriptures, I’ve discovered that I was wrong here.
It would seem the case, at least from where I stand now, that Doug Phillips is guilty of lust, but not porneia (sexual immorality). Lust is the same as far as eternal consequences, but it is not the same with regards to temporal consequences.
So, it appears that you’re actually correct in calling me out in this one.
I hate the phrase “emotional affair” because it’s a nonsense phrase that more or less appears to be an intentional softening of the situation (IMO), but thanks for straightening me out.
Mr X – Thanks for sharing that Lyndon. Oh, and I know we are not “arguing” but the believing world does not understand that we love as brothers, but can go toe to toe with the Scriptures and that won’t change anything. I have been convicted of that lately, and I get enough friction from unbelievers as it is
Love you bro. Thanks for the discussion.
So, that’s not really the biggest faceplant on my part, but I’m documenting this just for my own sake (and the reasons I’ve stated on the Hall of Shame). It’s a soft opening to public archiving of my faults. Also, this reminds me of something that I learned about porneia and moicheuo that I probably will forget again.