Am I Responsible for My Husband’s Sexual Sin? - By Darby Strickland

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

**Update**

Apparently Beth Moore thinks that not only is ok that a wife deny her husband sex, she should be able to divorce him.

----------------

At first this seemed to us to contain some good principles about sex and marriage. But we soon realized that the author is manipulating the situation. She engages in term-switching, neglects to mention other relevant Scriptures, and makes pronouncements that she does not document. Further, she has an ultimate agenda, to excuse the wife and blame the husband.

The author manages to quote only a single Scripture. Happily it is a relevant one, but its presence only serves the author's agenda. The author has nothing at all to say about other Scriptures that may come to bear, like

1Cor. 7:3-5 The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Both the husband and the wife have a duty to satisfy one another. One of the reasons is to avoid the potential for temptation. The mutual decision to deprive is only for a time, and specifically to pray.

"Duty" is a specific (applied) kind of indebtedness, implying an "applied obligation" due to the debt (what is owed). The husband and wife owe a debt to each other that must be paid.

Now it seems generally true that the wife is the one who does more of the depriving than the husband, and often it is unilaterally implemented. This is a violation of the Scriptural command. We need to be clear about this. If the decision isn't mutual, if the one is depriving the other in an unholy way, this is sin. There is sin already present. When sin is present, other sins are tempting. 

The husband and wife must avoid the presence of sin so as to avoid the possibility of temptation.

------------------------

Over the last few weeks, I have had several conversations with wives who were feeling guilt-ridden. Each feared that failing to meet their husband’s expectations for sex would push their husbands to satisfy their desires in sinful ways. This fear might seem extreme, but the belief that wives are responsible for keeping their husbands from sexual sin (The author inserts the word "responsible," as if the wife is at fault for the husband's potential sin. This tilts the argument away from the proper duty of husbands and wives to the imputation of guilt for another's sin. We believe it is more profitable to focus on the former and not the latter.

But we do need to ask, is it possible for a person to make it easier for someone else to sin? Are there things a person might do that facilitates sin in another's life? The author seems to think that this doesn't happen when it comes to marital sex, but doesn't explain.

It is possible to make it easier for someone to sin, but that doesn't me that person is "responsible" for another's sin. Responsibility implies deserving of God's judgment. But we are held to account for our own sins, not the sins of others. The author will reference this verse later:

Ja. 1:14-15 ...but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

 We can be the cause or agent the precipitates someone else's sin, particularly children:

Mt. 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

There are those among us who are weak, and therefore we should not seek our own pleasure. If the husband is weak, the wife should not pursue her own way, but rather bear with her husband:

Ro. 15:1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.

 We should not partake of someone else's sin:

1Ti. 5:22 ...do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

So the use of the word "responsible" actually steals away the central issue by focusing on the guilt feelings of people.)

is more common than you might think, so I want to draw attention to it. Here are just four samplings of those discussions:

“My husband leaves for a business trip next week, and if I do not sleep with him before he goes, I will leave him vulnerable to cheating.” When pressed why she had this fear, she said, “My pastor once spoke on the need to make sure your husband is satisfied before leaving home, or he might stray.”

“I am really struggling with my post-baby body. I fear if I cannot pull it together soon, my husband will lose his desire for me.” Knowing the couple, this fear seemed out-of-place. Asking why she would conclude this, she said she heard a sermon telling wives to keep up their appearances “so that your husband doesn’t get distracted by someone who does.”

“Next week, I know it will be hard for me to keep up with Bill’s eagerness for sex, but I fear if I fail him, he will turn to porn. It just adds so much pressure.” After drawing her out a bit, she revealed that her husband had been fighting a porn addiction for years. Their previous counselor encouraged her to keep up with his need for sex, lest he falls into sin, leaving her crushed and feeling responsible for his failures.

“I fear not being enough for my husband. He is never pleased with my ‘performance.’ I really am struggling to bring him more pleasure, but when he is critical and threatens to get his needs met elsewhere, I just freeze. I fear I will lose him if I cannot deliver what he wants.”

Each of these wives believed that she was responsible for her husband’s purity, so if he strayed in any way, the blame would circle back to her. In the first two cases, these wives had no fact-based expectation that their husbands would be unfaithful; these were honorable men. But other Christians taught them to fear their husbands’ potential for sexual sin. This belief hindered their ability to enjoy sex and take delight in their husbands. (Hmmm. The author jumps to a conclusion. There is no evidence in these examples that these women's ability to enjoy sex was being impeded or is even an issue at all. "Enjoyment is not a biblical criteria. In fact, it seems quite clear that these women were not looking to improve or increase their sex lives with their husbands. They simply had guilt for what they viewed as their substandard performance.

Now, we do agree with the author that wives ought to take delight in their husbands. But that is a matter apart from fulfilling their marital duty.)

In the last two cases, the women believed that their husbands’ sinful sexual desires were commonplace but also overwhelmingly powerful. It was up to the wives to keep their husbands from sinning and this enslaved them to their husbands’ distorted demands. (This person is starting to sound like a feminist and not a Christian. The author uses the word "enslaved," as if the husband's expectation that his wife obey the Scriptures is unreasonable. We remind the reader of what the Bible says: 

1Cor. 7:4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

When husbands and wives belong to one another, their is ownership of each other. The author is horrified by the idea of enslavement, but doesn't seem to realize that that is indeed what the marriage relationship is in the sense that each of them give up their own interests for the interests of the other.)

In some ways, these women are all hearing the same message: their husbands’ bodies produce an irresistible level of sexual desire that must be satisfied and wives are responsible for meeting that desire so as to maintain their husbands’ sexual purity. (Having used the word "responsible" in the context of potential sin, the author has set us up with a bait-and-switch. Now she uses the word differently. Spouses indeed are commanded by the Scriptures to meet their partner's desires. But note the tag on the end of her sentence, so as to maintain their husbands’ sexual purity. The author mixes truth with lies so as to further her case.)

Discussing the frequency of sex with married couples is often difficult because it’s so complex and personal. But one issue we can clearly talk about that is relevant to most marriages is: Do men need sex? (Now the author begins to shift blame by telling men they don't need sex, which of course means that their wives should be free to deny their husbands.)

Is this how God made men? Simply put, no. Men do not need sex. (She makes a flat denial, then immediately qualifies her statement with...) 

Sex is not something men need to survive, (... survival is not the issue. No one has claimed that sex is a matter of survival. This is simply dishonest.)

nor is it a temptation they are unequipped to resist. (How does the author know how tens of millions of husbands might be equipped? Possessing a principle [i.e., you can control your sex drive] is not the same thing as being equipped. Nor does it have anything to do with the marital duty to not deny one another.)

There are many times throughout a marriage that a wife is unable or it is deemed unwise for her to have sex with her husband: (Sigh. The author has shown herself an able dancer, negotiating her way around every detour and diversion she can find. We are not talking about times when sex is not advised.)

post-childbirth, after surgery, during an illness, (The principle is to not deny one another except by mutual consent. If the husband consents in these situations, there is no issue. Further, a wife can satisfy her husband's sexual needs without intercourse. 

The author continually sets up these false choices, thereby deceiving us.)

or when abuse is present. (Whaaat? We are beginning to wonder if the author is ignorant or if she's malicious. We were granting her the benefit of the doubt, but now we are wondering if she is intentionally obfuscating the issues in pursuit of an agenda.

Abuse has nothing to do with a healthy relationship based on biblical principles. Abuse has nothing to to with consenting to sex. Abuse has nothing to do with the counsel a couple ought to receive concerning their intimacy together. 

There is nothing at all that connects the factors or expression of a couple's sexual relationship with abuse.)

God does not set us up to need something he does not provide (such as an ever-available partner) (An undocumented claim. And where is the Bible verse that tells us that God gives us every physical thing we need? There is no verse. And in fact, the author has yet to quote or even reference the Bible.

Even worse, the author is muddying the waters even more. We are not talking about an "ever-available partner," we are talking about the proper arrangement of marriage and how that expresses itself. No one expects their partner to be ever available. 

So the author is further shifting the conversation to blame the husband by suggesting his desires are unreasonable.)

or permit (such as fornication or adultery), nor does he create our bodies to experience irresistible temptation (James 1:13). (Finally a Scripture reference.)

Debunking these beliefs has at least two important impacts. (In actual fact, the author has deconstructed straw men, not debunked beliefs.)

It removes the burden of guilt that comes from inaccurate teaching and it enables wives to at least start more balanced conversations about sex with their husbands.

To support that effort, there are some simple principles on display in 1 Corinthians 6 that I hope will bring some added clarity.

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (v.18-20)

First, notice that Paul’s instructions are directed to the person tempted. It is their responsibility to flee so that they do not become enslaved to their sexual desires. Paul is placing the burden directly and exclusively on the person being tempted, spouses are not mentioned.

Second, consider that Paul’s top strategy for dealing with sexual immorality is to run. Paul was speaking into a culture much like ours, where all kinds of sex and sinful desires are normalized. Paul’s directive for dealing with sexual immorality is simple and straightforward—Run! Flee!—get as far from it as you can. He is not saying to stop and reason with it, consider it, negotiate with it, or flirt with it, but rather to run from all temptations leading to it, as Joseph did with Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39:12).

Third, notice why he tells us to flee. Paul wants us to treat sexual immorality as the danger it is, lest we harm our own bodies, which is where the Holy Spirit dwells. He knows the enslaving nature of sexual sin and that our bodies were created to be a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit.1 To entertain means of bodily satisfaction outside of what God has given us ultimately violates our connection to Jesus, so Paul urges us to, instead, glorify God in our bodies.

Fourth, by highlighting the tremendous damage done by sexual sin, Paul’s warning here should lead tempted people to hate their desire for sin. I would put it this way, it is good for each of us to cultivate a horror for our sin. Indeed, we should be repulsed by it. And while we can pray for our spouses to no longer be captivated by sinful desires, we cannot change their taste for it. That is up to them. It is not your fault, nor is it your responsibility to break them from their evil passions. They will need to fight the battle themselves, enlisting Jesus’s help. Only he has the power and ability to break the bond of sin.

(The author does a pretty good job explaining this passage, but never connects it to the matter at hand. Yes, we have a responsibility to avoid sin. Yes, we should exercise self-control. Yes, our sin is our fault. 

None of that speaks to the proper marriage relationship and how intimacy should express itself. The author never does this, preferring to tell men to essentially man up.

That's the bottom line, that husbands are the problem. Their wives should not be expected to "come together" so that Satan will not tempt them. No, the husband should bite the bullet.)

Troubles in marital sex life are complex, and this distortion is just one of many. But given its prevalence, I suggest husbands consider asking their wives about this one. Find out what she has read or heard about the need to tend to you sexually. This conversation will bless you both.

For the rest of us, expect to encounter women who believe that they are responsible for their husbands’ purity. When you do, I encourage you to slow down, find out how they came to this conclusion, and then point them to passages like the one above. We all instinctively know that a wife is not responsible for her husband’s eating habits, daily devotions, or whether he is a thief. But many wives need us, and especially their pastors, to help them make this same application to their husband’s potential for sexual temptation.

1 When we think about being enslaved to sin, it is not that we are powerless or helpless, but rather that the bondage to sin is a direct result of our own choice to sin (John 8:34).