Feature
- Do You Hate Your Partner, Too?
- California Teen Avoids Heavy Sentencing by Passing the Buck
- Wanna Buy Your Teenager a Padded Push-Up Bra?
- Vampires in Texas!
- These Guys Are As Bad As Westboro Baptist Church
- Funny Letters Sent to Women's Magazines
- Women's Ski Jumping: Still Not a 'Real' Sport
- Will the World Be Pro-Choice Soon?
- Are We Getting Too Lazy to Even Divorce?
- Forever 21's Maternity Line: Glamorizing Teen Pregnancy?
The thing with being a public figure, particularly an outspoken figure casting moral judgment on the masses, is that you have to keep your past in mind. I deplore hypocrisy, both in myself and in others, and it always makes me laugh when those who make holier-than-thou edicts are caught with their pants down.
New Jersey’s Reverend Cedric Miller, head of the Living Word Christian Fellowship Church in Neptune, referred to Facebook as a “portal to infidelity” and required his church leaders to delete their accounts last week, an action that garnered a great deal of attention.
Turns out, though, that Miller is kind of an expert on portals, infidelity, and …
… threesomes (or possibly even foursomes).
In court testimony he gave in April 2003, Miller said his wife had an extramarital affair with the church assistant. Miller said he participated in many of the sexual encounters and said the assistant’s wife was sometimes present, too.
Miller said the dalliances — which occurred in the Millers’ home — sometimes took place during Thursday Bible study meetings and Sundays after church. But the minister said the encounters “came to a crashing halt” when several women in the church accused the assistant of having sex with them.
The testimony was given in connection with a criminal case against the assistant that was eventually dismissed. The names of the church assistant and his wife were not disclosed, and Miller told the newspaper that he was concerned that revisiting the incident would “irreparably” hurt some people.
Okay, here’s the thing. What a married couple choose to do with other consenting adults is their own business. I wouldn’t pass judgment on two couples engaging in various combinations of sex. Their business.
However, were I to be involved in that sort of thing, I would never, ever make commentary of any sort that made it sound like I was a bastion of fidelity fighting to maintain the sanctity of marriage. You can’t have it both ways.
I was married for seven years, and I never once cheated. There was nobody else involved in the sexual aspects of my marriage. I took my marriage vows seriously, religiously even. With that said, though, I am still in no position to judge what goes on in another couple’s marriage. If a couple wants to add a third party and that goes with their own interpretation of their marriage vows, more power to them.
I would have respected the Reverend Miller a lot more if he’d publicly admitted, either while demonizing Facebook or when he realized that ménage e trois did not fit into his definition of a good marriage back in 2003, that his own experiences had framed his current beliefs. I would have thought he was kind of an idiot, but I’d have appreciated his honesty.
Nope, he speaks of it as a mistake swept under a carpet, a dirty secret that he clearly hoped (and naively believed) would never see the light of day.
“It has come to my attention that a very painful part of my past has resurfaced,” Miller wrote in an e-mail sent Friday. Noting that his court testimony was mailed to his church leaders and other pastors several years ago, Miller said, “This was resolved at that time and accordingly we will not allow it to detract from our mission at hand to save as many marriages as we can.”
Miller said people must look at his Facebook directives in the proper context.
“My life as a minister, husband, father and friend has led me to the conviction that I must do all that I can to help as many people strengthen, preserve and repair the often times fragile cords of marriage,” Miller wrote.
Yeah, buddy, good for you. The proper context of your Facebook directives would have a hell of a lot more weight if you’d been honest about from whence they came.
Instead, you’re just showing the world yet another example of a hypocritical asshole talking about both sides of his mouth. Talking to old friends on Facebook is a lot less detrimental to a marriage than getting mixed up in sexual complications that are not exactly mainstream … and your awareness of and admittance to this could have made you look respectable.
Instead, you’ve just proven to the world what a moron you are.
You Might Also Like ...
-
-
5
My MIL has a facebook account so she can see pictures of her grandson. She lives in Canada, we don’t.
I wonder if she knows how detrimental FB is to her marriage?
Soo, what you are saying is that another hypocritical human has been exposed? Same old.
“However, were I to be involved in that sort of thing, I would never, ever make commentary of any sort that made it sound like I was a bastion of fidelity fighting to maintain the sanctity of marriage.”
You know, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen non-monogamy being equated to infidelity on here, what gives?
I may be old fashioned, but I’ve always defined infidelity as a violation of your partner’s trust. Which, pretty much by definition, isn’t something that you can do with you partner’s active consent.
Extreme monogamy is great, if that’s your thing, but to say that couples who don’t choose that option automatically have nothing to say about fidelity (or the sanctity of marriage, for that matter) comes off as somewhat dogmatic.
(note that I’m talking about the attitude towards non-exclusivity in general, I don’t have any specific opinions on whether or not Reverend Miller is an asshole)
“several women in the church accused the assistant of having sex with them” : Does this mean that the assistant raped them, or that he had consensual sex with them and they got pissy? It kind of sounds like the latter.
thanks admin for informations.