Menu Close

Tag: Adultery

Then and Now: The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue

kate upton 2017 swimsuit issue cover
Kate Upton, 2017 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Cover Model. (See Upton interview here)

Warning! PG-13, slightly adult conversation ahead!

I have on and off over the years subscribed to Sports Illustrated (SI). Published weekly, SI features stories about athletes and sports leagues. One issue every year is devoted, not to sports, but to the wonders of the female body. The Swimsuit Issue, as it is called, is chocked full of photographs of bathing suit-wearing models. SI chooses exotic locations for the photoshoots. The photographer part of me lusts over what can only be described as a dream gig — splendid locations and beautiful women. What’s not to like, right?

Over time, the bathing suits have become skimpier, reflecting our society’s increasing comfortableness with nudity. Every year, Evangelical groups express their outrage over the Swimsuit Issue, and every year countless Baptist preachers rush to the mailbox so they can preserve their SI copy before their wives get a hold of it. But, of course, Evangelical morality police are not the only people who get a self-righteous hard-on over the Swimsuit Issue. So do Catholic groups such as Catholic Youth Apostolate (link no longer active):

That takes us to the other half of your question, one of swimsuit models on magazines. Again, the real question here is one of intent. Swimsuit catalogs exist to sell swimwear for women. One could safely say that these kinds of images should be harmless to someone striving to live chastity [sic]. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (we use this example because the SI Swimsuit Issue is the highest grossing, most widely distributed issue of their magazine every year… interesting, for a magazine that is supposed to be supporting a culture of sports fandom) exists to sell supermodels to men. No one purchases that particular issue of SI in order to buy a new swimsuit for his wife. The women in those magazines are styled and posed in such a way that could easily lead anyone viewing them to lust – they’re often topless, sometimes naked; posed not to show off the swimwear, but their bodies.

One might say, ‘But I’m just admiring their beauty, what’s wrong with that?’ The problem lies in JPII’s quote above – you can’t admire their full beauty as a human person, because you don’t know them. All you have to admire is their physical form, separate from their heart, mind, and soul, so it’s impossible not to objectify them. Furthermore, the women in those magazines don’t express the wide variety of God’s beauty in all men and women – all the women in those magazines are roughly the same size and shape, a cultural standard of ‘beauty’ that simply means ‘sexy’ and is impossible for the average woman to achieve. Beauty is much broader than the images displayed in magazines. It’s not that these images show too much, but too little.

Does this mean that if you happen to catch a glimpse of the cover of the SI Swimsuit Issue in the check-out line at the grocery store, you have sinned? Probably not. But in order to grow in the virtue of chastity, it would be wise to not pick it up and flip through the pages. In as little as two-tenths of a second, an image can be emblazoned in one’s memory for years. And Jesus would rather you not risk it, since he said that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Mt 5:28). Again, make no provisions for the flesh…

This could just as easily of been written by an Evangelical preacher.

Back in my Evangelical preacher days, I would watch for the Swimsuit Issue to be delivered so I could throw it in the trash before one of my teenage sons or I was led into horrible sexual sin. One particular year, the magazine never arrived. Hmm, I thought at the time. I wonder what happened to it? Months later, while working on a vanity light in our master bathroom, I found the missing issue hidden above the cabinet. How did this magazine get here? I wondered. Come to find out, one of my sons had intercepted the magazine and hidden it. I made sure my mag-stealing son knew that he had sinned against God, and then I tore the magazine up and threw it away. Today, we heartily laugh about this story, but at the time, absconding with the magazine was viewed as a serious act of disobedience to God. I felt it my duty to ensure that my sons were not exposed to pornography, be it Playboy, Hustler, or the SI Swimsuit Issue.

Fast forward to 2017. The SI Swimsuit Issue arrived in our mailbox. I spent 20 minutes or so looking at the magazine while we were driving to Defiance for our granddaughter’s basketball game. I didn’t have lustful thoughts or feel the need to masturbate or engage in sexual intercourse. Shouldn’t I have been filled with lasciviousness as I dared to gaze upon the exquisite bodies of the fairer sex?  What’s changed between now and twenty years ago? Gone is the fear and guilt caused by the teachings of Evangelical Christianity about sin — especially sexual sin. As many former Evangelicals will attest, once the fear and guilt are no longer a part of the equation, things once considered “sin” can be enjoyed (or not, depending on one’s tastes and desires) without feeling like the reader just committed a heinous crime. Now that God, the Bible, and Evangelical moralizers no longer have my attention, I am free to be a normal, healthy heterosexual man. What is most interesting is that, once something is no longer taboo, it often loses its power and draw.

I will leave it to Evangelical men to guiltily shuffle into the darkness with a flashlight to look at their copy of the Swimsuit Issue. I no longer need to deny myself pleasures, wants, and desires. I know that the Swimsuit Issue is not everyone’s cup of tea. Each to his own, right? No one is forced to look at the magazine. People are free to subscribe, not subscribe, or cancel their subscription over what they believe is Sports Illustrated’s promotion of “soft porn.”

leyna bloom
Leyna Bloom, 2021 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Cover Model

2021 brings us an SI Swimsuit issue featuring a Transgender woman. Evangelical culture warriors are losing their collective shit over this. OMG, how dare Sports Illustrated portray a transgender person as “normal.” In their minds, this is just another sign of the collapse of Western Civilization, a sign of the imminent return of Jesus. Perhaps, SI should do a Women of Faith swimsuit issue. Would that make Evangelicals happy? Finally, “modestly” dressed women to lust over. Or maybe they should do a Gay Men of Faith swimsuit issue for all the repressed gays in Evangelical churches. Here’s what I know. Preachers Bobs all across America will buy the latest SI swimsuit issue so they can gather “information” for next Sunday’s sermon on the LGBTQ people. And with only God and Satan listening in, these preachers will lustfully say themselves, “I wonder if she still has a dick”?

Did you, or your father, back in your Evangelical days, subscribe to Sports Illustrated?  How was the Swimsuit Issue “problem” handled? Did your pastors preach sermons about the Swimsuit Issue? Do you know of anyone who committed adultery or fornication after perusing its pages? Do you know of anyone who, after viewing the scantily clad models, turned to pornography? (You know, the Swimsuit Issue acting as a gateway drug of sorts.) Please leave your thoughts in the comment section.

bruce-gerencser-headshot

Bruce Gerencser, 64, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 43 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

You can contact Bruce via email, Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

Let’s Play the Evangelical Never, Ever Game

game show

Several years ago, The Foundations of Morality blog posted an article by “Dr.” David Brown that gives seven reasons why Christians should NEVER, EVER drink alcoholic beverages (links have been removed due to the malware they serve up):

  • Drinking leads to drunkenness
  • The Bible condemns strong drink
  • In Bible times what Christians drank was sub-alcoholic, basically purified water
  • It will call others to stumble
  • It harms our bodies which are the Lord’s
  • Alcohol is addictive
  • Believers are kings and priests separated unto God

Are you ready, contestants? It’s time to play The Evangelical Never, Ever Game.

Using David Brown’s “logic,” I can come to the following conclusion:

  • Eating food leads to gluttony
  • The Bible condemns gluttony
  • Gluttony will cause others to stumble
  • Gluttony harms our bodies
  • Eating food is addictive

Conclusion? Don’t eat food.

Wasn’t that fun? Let’s play another round.

  • Sex leads to fornication and adultery
  • The Bible condemns fornication and adultery
  • Fornication and adultery will cause others to stumble
  • Fornication and adultery harm our bodies (not really, but Christians think they do)
  • Sex is addictive

Conclusion? Don’t have sex.

Isn’t this game fun?  Feel free to continue playing the game in the comment section.

“Dr.” David Brown is the pastor of First Baptist Church of Oak Creek, Wisconsin. You can check out his blog here.  First Baptist is an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) congregation.

bruce-gerencser-headshot

Bruce Gerencser, 64, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 43 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

You can contact Bruce via email, Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

IFB Preacher David Hyles’ Latest Sex Scandal

david hyles at monument for his dad
David Hyles, at a Memorial Marker to His Dad. I think the Phallic Design is Fitting.

David Hyles, the son of the late Jack Hyles, pastor of First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana, finds himself yet again embroiled in a sex scandal. I have written about Hyles many times:

Yesterday, Preacher Boys Docs and Stop Pastoral Abuse reported that David Hyles allegedly was carrying on sexually with a young woman online.

Eric Skwarczynski wrote:

On Sunday, October 11, 2020, Jonathan Grisham Burchfield of Stop Pastoral Abuse received messages from a woman in her young twenties, who alleged an online relationship with the now 67 year old David Hyles.

He would contact her from a variety of accounts, using aliases like David Jaxson and David Miller.

He made claims that his wife had passed away. This information is not true. 

When reading the messages, Hyles acts as you would expect – some messages referencing meetings he was preparing to speak at, while others are purely sexual in nature.

“I will shut my door and we can masturbate together… hehehehe,” David wrote. 

Her response, “And there’s allowed there at your office?”

David’s personality shines through yet again, “I am the boss.” “I can do what I want.”

Among the myriad of messages that reflect a long running, deceitful and manipulative relationship are dozens of selfies from David Hyles. Pictures that she would be unlikely to possess unless truly sent by him.

It’s important to recognize that, simultaneously to manipulating this young woman, he was financing himself off of the backs of churches. A true charlatan, using ministries, church members, and every other person in his life as pawns to his advantage.

Is this particular situation illegal? No. But it’s a reflection of his moral character and his uncanny ability to lie without remorse or without consideration of impact it will have on the lives he toys with.

Hyles has evaded culpability and accountability for his decadent behavior for over 40 years. He continues to hide behind the “blood of Jesus,” and says that if Jesus has forgiven him, so should everyone else. I will leave it to Hyles’ victims to forgive him. All I know to do is to make sure that people know what kind of man David Hyles really is. That IFB preachers continue to support Hyles is beyond belief; a reflection of the esteem and worship wrongly given to the Hyles name.

David Hyles may love puppies, but when it comes to women, he is a serial abuser and adulterer. I would not trust him alone in a room with my wife, daughters, or granddaughters. He is, in every way, a bad man, and I will continue to hold this opinion until Hyles comes clean about 40 years of sexual misconduct, including involvement in acts that are criminal.

I’ll leave readers with a screenshot of Hyles’ messages to his latest mark.

david hyles screenshots 2020

Could these messages and photos be fake? Sure, it’s possible. However, when it comes to Hyles, I’m confident that what we see here is another example of the “real” David Hyles.

bruce-gerencser-headshot

Bruce Gerencser, 64, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 43 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

You can contact Bruce via email, Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

Should We Execute A Woman Who is Not a Virgin on Her Wedding Day?

stoning

Repost from 2015. Edited, rewritten, and corrected. 

According to Evangelicals, the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, timeless Word of God. The Bible is God’s road map for life, the divine blueprint for living. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, the Bible is one long letter from God to us. While Evangelicals use various hermeneutics, interpretive tools, and schemes to interpret the Bible, all agree that the text is the words of God.

Evangelicals also believe that God is immutable, that he does not change his mind. Malachi 3:6 says, For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed, and Hebrews 13:8 says, Jesus Christ (God) the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Ask Evangelicals if God changes his mind and they will emphatically say NO! God is perfect in all his ways, Evangelicals say, and his Word, the Bible, is truth.

How then, based on what I have written above, should Evangelicals interpret Deuteronomy 22:13-21?

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: and the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; and, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; and they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

The gist of the story is this: if a man goes into his wife on their wedding night and has intercourse with her and finds out that she is not a virgin, then his bride is to be brought to the door of her father’s house and stoned to death by the men of the city. There’s no ambiguity in the text. The soiled bride is to be considered a whore and executed. (If you have not read Deuteronomy 22, I encourage you to do so. God prescribes stoning for a variety of sexual sins.)

What say ye, oh believer that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible words of God?

Well Bruce, the Evangelical says, this is in the OLD Testament, and we now live according to the NEW Testament. So, God changed his mind? Were his words in Deuteronomy 22 imperfect, lacking in some way? If God’s law is perfect and true, why change it? All would agree that Deuteronomy 22 is the law of God. If it is, wouldn’t God’s law be preferable to man’s law? If God’s law was good enough for Israel, shouldn’t it be good enough for the United States, a nation Evangelicals claim is Christian? Why would any Christian want to be governed by the inferior laws of man?

Evangelical hysteria over same-sex marriage is rooted in the belief that God’s word/God’s law has the final say on the matter. Shouldn’t God’s law also have the final say on female virgins having sex before they are married? Where can I find in the Bible the verse that says one law is applicable today, but not the other?

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus said that he did not come to destroy or do away the law. In fact, according  to Jesus, until heaven and earth pass away, the law of God is valid and in force. Till all be fulfilled, he said. Has everything been fulfilled? Has Jesus come back to earth? Has God made a new heaven and new earth as prophesied in Revelation 21 and 2 Peter 3? No, no, and no. Thus, the law of God, particularly Deuteronomy 22:13-21, is in force.  Every Evangelical is duty-bound to support the execution of women who are not virgins on their wedding day. The unchanging holy God has spoken!

bruce-gerencser-headshot

Bruce Gerencser, 64, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 43 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

You can contact Bruce via email, Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

Did King David Rape Bathsheba?

david and bathsheba

Most Christians are familiar with the Old Testament story about David, King of Israel, and Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. 2 Samuel 11:1-5 says:

And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried still at Jerusalem. And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.

David decided one evening to take a rooftop stroll. As he surveyed the city of Jerusalem, he noticed a beautiful woman taking a bath. Horniness aroused, David sent messengers to Bathsheba’s home, and had her brought to him so he could have sex with her.

David’s dalliance with Bathsheba was not a one-time thing. David’s lust for Bethsheba was such that he was willing to do anything — including murder — to “have” her. David knew Bathsheba was married, and that the punishment for adultery was death, so he cooked up a plan to kill her husband, and thereby hide his crime.

David tried several times to get Uriah to go into Bathsheba and have sex with her, hoping to cover up the fact that she was pregnant with his child. Uriah, a dutiful soldier, twice refused offers to go home. David, now worried that his adulterous act with Bathsheba would become known, treacherously decided to have Uriah murdered.

2 Samuel 11:14-17 says:

 And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die. And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were. And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also.

With Uriah out of the way, David — a man the Bible calls, “a man after God’s own heart” — was free to “take” Bathsheba for his own.  2 Samuel 11:26,27 says:

And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.

Either David planned to concoct a story, saying that Uriah had sex with Bathsheba before he left for the battlefield, and she became pregnant, or the time frame is short enough that David could marry Bathsheba and claim that she got pregnant soon after their marriage. Either way, David’s subterfuge was such that he faced no consequences for his adulterous behavior.

Over the past several weeks, the Evangelical world has been afire over the claim that what David did was rape, not adultery. Some Evangelicals trotted out the tired argument that I heard countless times as a youth: that Bathsheba was to blame; that she was bathing in a place where she could be seen by David; and that David can’t be blamed for sexually desiring a beautiful naked woman. I can imagine Lori Alexander saying these very words. Regardless, wasn’t David’s behavior with Bathsheba adultery? Didn’t David arrange things in such a way that Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, would be killed (murdered), and then didn’t he take Bathsheba to be his wife? How is it that David is exonerated of all these things? Does David’s stiff prick wipe out his culpability? Is the woman always to blame?

Other Evangelicals have argued that the law of God makes clear that David having sex with Bathsheba was NOT rape.

Deuteronomy 22:22-24 says:

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

The inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God is clear:

  • If David and Bathsheba committed adultery, then both of them should have been stoned to death.
  • If David raped Bathsheba and she cried out, then only David should be executed.
  • If David raped Bathsheba and she didn’t cry out, both of them should have been stoned to death

Wanting to protect King David’s name, some Evangelicals argue that his sex with Bathsheba couldn’t be rape because the Bible doesn’t say she cried out. No crying out, no rape. And what about the adultery, then? Doesn’t the Law of God demand David be executed, along with Bathsheba? *Crickets*

Evangelicals are fond of demanding everyone follow the Law of God; yet when it comes to one of their idols, David, obeying the Law is optional. I have no doubt that it was widely known what David had done with Bathsheba and to Uriah, yet it was an innocent baby that was punished for his “sin.” More on this later.

In 2 Samuel 12, the Lord sent the prophet Nathan to David to tell him a story:

And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

This story should settle for Evangelicals the rape or adultery question. The rich man in the story took the poor man’s ewe lamb by force. The poor man would never have willingly given the ewe to the rich man. The poor man treated the ewe as if it was one of his children. Is this not exactly what David did with Bathsheba? Bathsheba would never have willingly had sex with David. Uriah would never say to the King, “sure, take my wife, and fuck her.” It is clear, at least to me, that David raped Bathsheba, and in an attempt to cover up his crime, had her husband murdered. The fact the Bathsheba became David’s wife changes nothing. Bathsheba knew that if it became publicly known that she was pregnant with the child of a man not her husband, she would be executed. Both David and Bathsheba knew that by getting married they were burying David’s criminal behavior.

Evangelicals love to paint their God as just, holy, and righteous. Many of them, at least privately, believe LGBTQ people should be arrested and executed. The same goes for abortion doctors who perform abortions. Some Evangelicals go so far as to say that women who “murder their babies” should be executed too. While these positions seem extreme to rational, thoughtful people, when one’s brain is chained to the Bible, reason goes out the window. Yet, when asked why David and Bathsheba were not stoned to death for their crimes, Evangelicals suddenly start stammering and come up with all sorts of patently unbiblical justifications (i.e. Jesus’ lineage is through David: He [Jesus] shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. Luke 1:32 No David, No Jesus).

Some Evangelicals argue that God “did” punish David and Bathsheba. After Nathan told David the ewe story, he said:

Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:7-12)

I find it interesting that Nathan doesn’t mention David’s rape of Bathsheba. Instead, he focused on David’s murder of her husband. I thought sin was sin in the eyes of God. Regardless, David confessed his sin, and the Lord forgave him. Nathan said, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” The law of God demanded David’s death, but God gave him a pass. Is it any wonder, then, that predatory Evangelical preachers, when caught with their flies open, think they can escape punishment for their crimes by saying, “my bad, Jesus.”

The summer before I left for college, a local preacher stopped by to talk to the father of a friend of mine. I was in the driveway working on a car. I knew that the preacher had left his wife and was carrying on with someone from his church. I point-blank asked him to explain his adulterous behavior. With nary a thought, he replied, “David had his Bathsheba, and I’m going to have mine!” I have never forgotten what this preacher said. His words perfectly explain how many Evangelicals view personal “sin.”  Hey, no one is perfect. Look at what David did, yet he was still called a “man after God’s own heart.” Look at all the Psalms David wrote. Yes, he raped a woman and killed her husband, but look at all the good things he did for God.

David did suffer a bit for his crimes. Nathan told David that when Bathsheba gave birth to her baby, God planned to kill the child.

2 Samuel 12:13-18 says:

And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.

Think about this story for a moment. David deserved to be executed for his crimes, and perhaps Bathsheba did too. But God, in his infinite wisdom, decided to kill an innocent baby instead. What an awesome God, right? I suspect some Evangelicals will try to put a gospel spin on this story. I know I did back in my preaching days. The innocent baby paid the ultimate price for the sins of David and Bathsheba. What a beautiful picture of what Jesus, the perfect lamb of God, did for us by dying on the cross for our sins. Woo Hoo! Ain’t God wonderful? No, he’s not.

The Bible says in Ezekiel 18:20:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

The Good Book is clear; God will not punish children for the sins of their fathers. Each of us bears personal accountability for our actions. (I am aware that Exodus 20:5 contradicts Ezekiel 18:20. Dammit, I have a point to make! I’ll deal with Exodus 20 some other day.) Why did God give David a pass on his crimes?

From start to finish, the Biblical account of David and Bathsheba is one fucked up story. That many Evangelicals refuse to see David as a predator and rapist is troubling; especially those who argue that it wasn’t rape because Bathsheba didn’t scream or that she was a temptation that David couldn’t pass on. In times such as this, we are reminded that Evangelicals are a long way away from coming to terms with their  warped, perverse views on women and human sexuality. As long as David is viewed as a hero, there’s no hope of progress; no hope of Evangelicals developing a sexual ethic that reflects twenty-first century thinking.

About Bruce Gerencser

Bruce Gerencser, 62, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 41 years. He and his wife have six grown children and twelve grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist. For more information about Bruce, please read the About page.

Are you on Social Media? Follow Bruce on Facebook and Twitter.

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section. If you are a first-time commenter, please read the commenting policy before wowing readers with your words. All first-time comments are moderated. If you would like to contact Bruce directly, please use the contact form to do so.

Donations are always appreciated. Donations on a monthly basis can be made through Patreon. One-time donations can be made through PayPal.

Bruce Gerencser