Sexting

With all the surprising uproar concerning Congressman Anthony Weiner's sexting escapades, it seems that we should find out what makes such a thing wrong. On one of the news shows this morning there was a panel debating as to whether or not sexting constituted adultery. The woman said it did; the man said it didn't (or if it did, that's just how men are and get over it).

What Makes It Right?
As we debate the issue, I have divided it into some of the arguments I have heard. Although not exhaustive, it is a good representation.
So, maybe it's...
Stupidity - What if he had just not posted on his public twitter account? If he could have kept it all private, then maybe this would have been just fine.
Admission - If he had just come out and been honest from the beginning, then it would not have been near as bad.
Age - at least it wasn't done with someone underage. (although there is evidence that he was texting at least some underage girls) So, is that what makes it wrong...age?
Forgiveness - it seems his wife graociously is willing to forgive and stand by her man. As long as you are forgiven by those who love you most, is it then okay?
Public opinion - Is it okay if a large majority of the voting public say it's okay? Over 50% of his constituency believes he has done nothing to jeopardize his job. They approve of the job he is doing regardless of the latest disclosures.

Practical Ways to Make Your Decision
I write this today with great empathy. There is not one of us that has done something that we would be ashamed of if the entire "twitterverse" knew about it. Yet I still have to ask, where do we draw the line? How can we really know what's wrong? Is there anything in my own life that I need to heed?

My wife would be a good start. What would she think? I would hope that I would be doing the kind of things that she would give hearty approval to. Something that she could participate in with me...if she wanted to.

My conscience should be another way of making this decision. Is it something that I think is right. Before you get upset with me, this is not final way I should determine my activity. But the reason I include this is because we can knoow osomething is wrong before anyone because we know how it makes us feel. We know our own hearts and minds better than anyone else. We live with ourselves. If your conscience tells you, "No," then it should be a no.

My friends can help me as well. There are things they can see in my life that I am blind to. So, find out from them how far you should be going. Then be willing to listen to what they have to tell you. Also, if you can't or won't tell your friend, then it is probably a "no-go" already.

My Lord is the ultimate standard in my life. To use a NASCAR term, He is the "go, no-go" template for my life. 

Here's how that template works. When the race car is brought to inspection, the inspectors have a metal standard that goes over the car to determine if it is within parameters given by the rules committee. When that template is placed over the car, it either touches the body of the car (that's a go), or it doesn't (that's a no-go). If it's a no-go, then there is work to do before the inspectors give approval for the race. 

Go or No-Go?
That's very similar to the understanding we are given in 1 Corinthians 9:
"you know that the runners in a stadium all race, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way to win the prize." (v. 24)

Then the Bible goes on to say:
"I discipline my body and bring it under strict control, so that after preaching to others, I myself will not be disqualified." (v. 27)

So then, what should be my template for adultery?

1. When I look at or think about someone, do I want to have sex with them? 
It's what Jesus described as lust in your heart. He simply is speaking to the religious, self-righteous people of His day that thought they had it all together and challenged them by saying if you don't have a physical relationship with someone, that's fine, but if you think you can lust after them and think you're doing okay with God, you're in trouble. 
Here are the words of Jesus:
But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28

2. Can you lawfully fulfill what you are suggesting with your words or actions?
That means, do you say things to another or do activities with another that you can't fulfill with them and still adhere to the standard God gave us? 

For instance, you might say to someone, "I want to have sex with you." Is that wrong if you have no intention of having sex with them?

Another example is this. Are you kissing and caressing another person in such a way that causes them to want  more than the standard will allow?

The standard we are given tells us:
this is God's will, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality, so that each of you knows how to control his own body in sanctification and honor, not with lustful desires, like the Gentiles who don't know God. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

Sexual Immorality Defined
In case there is any misunderstanding, sexual immorality means sex that cannot be done when God is the moral gate-keeper. It includes any sex that is done with any one that is not your husband or wife. It also includes any sex act that has the word sex in it. That is all sexual immorality.

But you say, as did the congressman, I never met them and had sex, so is it adultery? If you are asking another person to do something that you cannot physically fulfill with them, then it is defrauding them. I Thessalonians 4 goes on to warn us:
"one must not transgress against and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger of all these offenses, as we also previously told and warned you. For God has not called us to impurity but to sanctification. Therefore, the person who rejects this does not reject man, but God" 1 Thessalonians 4:6-8

if you would like to do more more study, then go to Bible Gateway and search for the words sexual immorality, fornication, and adultery. I know you will see what kind of standard God has for us.

Our Loving Heavenly Father
One final thought, God is not a cosmic killjoy. To the contrary, God created sex. He thinks it is wonderful. He even included a book that tells us of the bliss of a faithful, loving sexual relationship with our husband or wife. He created us to enjoy our husband and wife in marital bliss all of our lives. He loves us so much that He gives us right and wrong so we can live the best life possible (Ask the congressman if he would recommend what he has done to others to help spice up their life). God gives us these standards because He wants to provide for us and protect us. That's a Father's heart for His child. 

So, is sexting adultery? Yes, it is.

Beware the "New" NIV

Are all translations the same?

The Bible is God's Word, plain and simple. We believe that God superintended the writers through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to write it without error in their own personalities as given to us in the original manuscripts. That means that God inspired the Bible, not any translation. But are there better translations for us to read and study than others? Yes, it does make a difference whet we study and read.

My Translation History
Let me give you a little of my history. For many years I used the King James Version. Most everything I memorized and studied came from that version. Then in college, for the sake of study and the use of the original language, I used the New American Standard Version. When I got into the ministry in the 80's, my pastor used it as well. I was very happy. Soon, when I went to seminary, my new pastor used the New International Version. I soon grew to appreciate it. I especially liked these verses:

• 2 Peter 1:21, "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." and 
• 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

I especially liked the way it explained inspiration of the Bible by saying that it was "God-breathed." What a powerful translation! I was happy and recommended the NIV to others, used it in my preaching, and studied and read it as well.

The First Updated NIV
Then, the translators of the NIV told us that they were going to begin work on a newer more up to date version that was much more gender neutral than the 1984 version. Many were not pleased. If the Bible's is gender neutral, then that's fine, but for man to translate a word that was intended to be gender specific into something the original had no intention of saying...big problem.

So the company, because of the uproar, scuttled the change and simply made it a new version called the TNIV. It was not received well. No one seemed kto like it, and it didn't sell. It was a marketing disaster. In the mean time, many had been working on much more faithful translations like the ESV and the HCSB (my personal favorite). The people had been given some good, viable choices and many gravitated to those translations. the result was the TNIV sales waned and its days were numbered. The idea of getting people to switch over failed as the church found other versions that affirmed the historical Christian faith.

With all that said, I must ask, "Is the new NIV 2011 more the 1984 version we have all come to know, love, and appreciate or more like the TNIV which was panned by scholars and laity alike?"

Comparison
Here's an article I just read that compared all the differences between the 1984 NIV and the New 2011 NIV. Here are their findings:

 An example of the way the translators of the NIV 2011
take liberties with. Other translations say simply "fishers of men".
This is but the tip of the iceberg.

"The 2011 NIV makes several noteworthy improvements over the 1984 NIV and the 2005 TNIV, including 933 improvements in accuracy in translating gender language in places where CBMW had criticized the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. And the entire translation process was carried on in a commendable spirit of transparency and openness, for which Zondervan and the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation are to be appreciated.

"However, the 2011 NIV was based not on the current NIV (1984) but on the TNIV (2005). The 2011 NIV retains 2,766 (or 75%) of the TNIV's problematic gender-related translations that led CBMW, and eventually the larger evangelical world, to reject the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. We still consider these 2,766 examples to be inaccurate translations of terms that have male meaning in the original Hebrew or Greek, male meaning that is lost in this new NIV. Therefore, this translation cannot be considered sufficiently trustworthy in its translation of gender language or in its translation of singular and plural pronouns generally. We consider this too high a price to pay for attaining gender-inclusiveness in a translation.

"In addition, the 2011 NIV changes some key verses on women's role in the church so that they favor an evangelical feminist position, especially in translating 1 Timothy 2:12 in a way that differs with all other commonly-used modern English translations and that gives women a wide open door to serve as pastors and elders in churches, contrary to the actual teaching of the New Testament.

"We regret, therefore, that we cannot recommend the 2011 NIV as a sufficiently reliable English translation. (bold mine) And unless Zondervan changes its mind and keeps the current edition of the 1984 NIV in print, the 2011 NIV will soon be the only edition of the NIV that is available. Therefore, unless Zondervan changes its mind, we cannot recommend the NIV itself.

This report was published by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), 2825 Lexington Road, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40280. http://www.cbmw.org/. (502) 897-4065.

Go here for more of this article that actually does a verse by verse comparison:
An Evaluation of Gender Language in the in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible

Conclusion

So here is my conclusion, translators that present to the laity the word of God have a sacred trust. This is the Bible, not Shakespeare. That is, good translators can't just change the intent ofnthe manuscript to suit the culture. Otherwise, once this path is taken, there would no point at which to stop pleasing that same culture. What would be the next target? You see, whenever culture demands we loosen up on the language of the Bible to make it more culturally relevant, we are then allowing a standard to conform to the culture rather than the culture conforming to the standard. The Bible's original manuscripts are our standard. These cannot be changed because our culture demands more relevance. Church of Jesus Christ, be aware!