I’ve gotten this question from a number of readers lately. It seems there’s a fresh questioning of the traditional view blowing across the Churches — a very good thing.
I have read your book, “But If You Do Marry,” and wanted to ask how you came to the conclusion that adultery is “covenant breaking.” It has troubled me that the traditional approach seems to present a double standard for this sin, requiring celibacy for the “guilty party,” but I couldn’t deny that the lexicons define adultery as “sexual intercourse involving someone who is not one’s spouse.” Can you tell me what convinced you to view adultery instead as the “one time” sin of covenant breaking rather than the potentially “continuous” sexual sin?
.
