Agreed. It should be an interesting discussion.

It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus puts a very high premium, in both words and actions, on the protection of the weak.

In ancient Palestine my guess is that a man could abandon his wife and still make it in society without much penalty, whereas a woman would become an outcast unless she was very wealthy. Jesus' words in the sermon on the mount on adultery and divorce set up accountability for men, and, as continued by Paul, the NT takes this accountability to a new level.

The worldly scenario changed in the 20th century once women could more easily enter the workforce and make it on their own economically in society without a husband. Once the economic changes occurred, women in modern society started acting exactly like the men Jesus criticized in ancient society and started committing more adultery and getting spurious divorces.

While I acknowledge the Old Testament standards, I also acknowledge the presentation of the Last Judgment in various forms, particularly by the Gospels (Pope Benedict just wrote a beautiful encyclical focusing on the Last Judgment). And fortunately, we do not have to rely on fragile Kings, corrupt judges, and vain, false prophet preachers to bring justice to the world. Because we have God's justice.

And being a man with a wife and two children, I can tell you that I sure wouldn't want to have to go before the Lord having abandoned my children, broken my family by adultery, or left them through divorce. From various passages in the Gospel on the severity of doing anything that harms children, and Paul's statement about taking care of one's family, I would quake in my boots at such a propsect.

So, Wendy, I think you may rest comforted that God will judge with the greatest of severity any man that goes around taking the thorn out of various women's eyes while he neglects the children in his own life and the logs in his own eyes. He commits a double sin - both 'judging' in the negative sense and harming children. It's makes my shiver to imagine the prospects. And if such a man flips back through the bible and considers himself "in the clear", it makes me shiver all the more deeply.

I by no means think Dr. Fleming was committing the sin of negative judging in his article; he was simply writing a piece on these topics with a helpful historical focus.

Dr. Fleming, this is a good point, though I know we're drawing you afield. Proverbs 6:16-17 recounts seven thing God hates without mentioning sex/licentious conduct. That doesn't mean it's acceptable, of course, but as you indicate helps establish proper perspective and avoid hobbies.

Re: the OT, it is true that our Lord promised the Comforter would come and lead the disciples into truth. It is also true however that, as Paul stated in Romans, that through comfort and assurance of the scriptures (meaning OT scriptures) we might have hope (in Christ revealed in the OT, I think being the most direct application.) A proper understanding of them is necessary, of course, including the limitations of what is being presented in them. (My real point to Wendy being that the recounting the acts of men in the OT should not necessarily be taken as approval, but simply that the events happened.)

As I have observed before more than once, Our Lord, in leaving his disciples, did not tell them that all the answers to their questions would be found in the Old Testament, but he promised to send the Holy Ghost who would remind them of what He had taught and make everything clear. That is why we are studying the early Church. Naturally we find anticipations, especially in the prophets; and, inevitably, we can try to read orthodox Christian teaching back into contexts where it does not quite fit, but to what end? There are many passages in the OT which, if taken literally and in the wrong spirit, could encourage us to become polygamous, put aside wives for no good reason, or kill people because we think God wants us to. These monsters on television who support Israel, even when Israel is persecuting Christians, are all the proof we need that it is to the institution created by the Holy Ghost, that is, the Christian Church, and not to any private reading of Scriptures that we must turn for truth.

I would say we should also beware of the feminist delusion that what is sauce for the goose is always sauce for the gander. This is true in many cases, but not in all. Husbands and wives have similar but not the same set of responsibilities. A man cannot nurse his children; a wife cannot in most cases find to defend the household. Even in moral questions, there are distinctions. Take the case of adultery. Though a wife's adultery is not more immoral, in the simple fact, than a husband's, the fact remains that an adulterous wife can impose a spurious child on her husband and children and her immorality does more grave damage to the family. A mother's purity is an essential part of her position. Adultery is a grave sin in either case, but the effects are not necessarily the same.

Finally, I have to say that we may be making too much of sex. Most of the deadly sins have nothing to do with sex. What about pride and envy and anger? I remember going to a Disciples of Christ church with a friend. The pastor went on and on about how sinful other denominations were, how the women dressed lewdly etc. He was about 75 pounds overweight but did not mention gluttony, and although he was wearing shoes almost as expensive as Jerry Falwell's and a flashy sportjacket and his fingers were incrusted with gaudy rings, his own vanity--and, I should add, wretched taste--had to be passed over in silence.

I hope that Wendy will join this discussion, which is only one part of a longer discussion of the evolution of early Christian thought on important topics.

I think you read too literally into the fact that the injunctions of Lev 18 were written to men. The injunctions condemn illicit relations (incest, adultery, sex without fulfilling the obligations associated with it.) That it is directed to men merely recognizes the fact that men are predominantly the initiators of relations with women. (Recognizing that Solomon in Proverbs wrote of the seducing woman.)

I also do not think there is toleration in law for fornication or adultery. It is true that there are examples of leaders in Israel committing fornication (Judah having relations with his daughter-in-law Tamar in the guise of a prostitute, Samson visiting a prostitute.) But I don't think there's anything in the revelation to indicate divine approval of that conduct. Absolom was condemned for violating his father's concubines.

And, in any event, a view of events in the OT must take into account the observation made both by our Lord in Matthew 19 and the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, that God in times past overlooked such wrongdoing in anticipation of the Redeemer. (Due to the "hardening of your hearts" of Israel as stated by our Lord in Mt. 19.)

I don't think there is any such double standard in the revelation. For example, the Levitical law forbade a man who put away his wife for uncleanness from taking her as wife again if she subsequently married and her second husband died. (That provides a warning against unjustly dismissing a wife, in my view.) If the perhaps apocryphal account at the beginning of John 8 is any indication, our Lord certainly didn't hold a double standard. While what he wrote in the sand was a mystery, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that he referred to the Levitical requirement of stoning both man and woman caught in the act of adultery and the Jews brought only the woman.

Certainly, our Lord's admonitions in the sermon on the Mount hold no such double standard, instructing that a man who lusts after a woman commits adultery with her. (I suppose one could have different interpretations of the degree intended by "lusting.") The Apostolic epistles also contain no such double standard (Paul in Romans 1 refers to both the abuse of sexual relations by men and women.)

I don't think there is more than modern cultural bias to support an assertion of any "double standard" in revelation or Christian tradition regarding the obligation for sexual purity among men and women. If culturally we place a greater onus on women, it is only because of the woman's role as bearer and nurturer of children carries a great appearance of defilement than adultery by the man. But that's a cultural/natural conclusion as opposed to one enjoined by revelation.