Church scandals and misbehavior by pastors this week has been overwhelming. A pastor advocating spousal rape is enough to make your hair stand on edge.
In particular pastors who are saying things outlandish enough to make newspapers print retractions with egg on their face causes you to scratch your head.
The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman newspaper has apologized to readers and says it will help organize a “community summit against sex crimes” after it published a column by a Wasilla pastor who contended that, from a biblical standpoint, a man cannot be accused of raping his wife if she resists his sexual approaches.
Ron Hamman of Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla told The Frontiersman his “Religion Views” column stemmed from an accusation that Alaska pastors are covering up spousal rape. Hamman wrote in response: “One of the more interesting comments to surface from the legacy of Lara Logan’s tragedy back in February is the allegation of spousal rape. Apparently, as has been alleged, every pastor in Alaska is involved in a big cover-up for not only knowing that this goes on, but in not reporting it to proper legal authorities so that these errant husbands can be thrown in the slammer and their families can be added to the welfare roles (because of the absence of his income, of course).
In the original column Hamman said:
I, for one, have never had any woman make such an allegation against her husband to me. But even if these accusations are as vast as alleged, there are major problems with them from a Biblical standpoint.
For instance, there is the problem of truth. That is, this kind of allegation becomes her word against his word. And while understand that in Alaska the lone female is able to convict her alleged perpetrator, this goes contrary to the Bible. In the book of Deuteronomy we find the following: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”
While this may be a problem for some in that this is Old Testament, this is carried over into the Christian era in Matthew 18: “But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one of two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”
The purpose for this is the preservation of justice. The truth is that people, including women, can lie. Thus, in not requiring two or three witnesses to the event, Alaska statute proves itself to be unjust, and likewise those legislators responsible for it. But then again, what more can we expect from the lost?
But this is not the only problem. The next question we need to ask is to whom does the body belong? While in our day of feminism it is asserted that a woman’s body is her own. Biblically speaking, this is only true prior to marriage, for in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians we read:
“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”
The truth is that God has given to us physical needs we commonly refer to as a “sex drive,” and he has designed for these to be met within the bounds of marriage. The trouble comes when one spouse or the other decides to exact retaliation against the other because of some offense and withholds him or herself from his or her mate. This is wickedness, and such is a violation of the spirit of marriage on the part of the withholder.”
It allows you to really wonder? Really?!? I mean really? I am devout Catholic. I follow a certain set of rules and believe with my whole heart things that are said and practiced in tradition. BUT, this is why I am not a fan of store front pastors. They interpret the bible to justify just about anything.
The paper followed it up by saying:
“In retrospect, we’re not sure printing Hamman’s religious viewpoint was the right decision. Publishing unpopular opinions is healthy for community debate and discourse; however, Hamman’s words can be interpreted as a defense for spousal rape, which is a position we would never condone or propagate. Rape is immoral and illegal, and we apologize for a decision that has offended so many.”
This is case where one just shrugs their shoulders and says, “Yea.. whatever…”