There are few of us who have not seen a close personal friend or relative go through a highly emotional and agonizing divorce, and I am sure we can all agree that
Neither party in a divorce represents the objective truth,
nor can either party see beyond their own hurt, anger and righteousness.
For any publication or individual, to condemn someone on the basis of of the rhetoric from one side of a divorce situation, is simply unrealistic. Here's the other side, Randall Terry's position,
Documentation refuting Cindy Terry and Landmark Church's accusations against Randall Terry, for those who are interested.
All activists must be conscious of the fact that the closer we walk along the path of righteousness, the more life's little distractions will attempt to divert us from our various missions.
Yes, you're right. Even if we're not activists, we'll find constant opposition as we seek to live holy lives in Christ.
The situation of the former Mr. and Mrs. Terry represents one type of distraction. I confess I jumped to a conclusion (with prejudice) because this is one of every SAHM's nightmares ... husband decides "Our marriage is breaking down," and there's nothing you can do, while he quickly finds a woman half your age, and starts a new family with a $400,000 house (notice my subtle class-warfare theme, too :-).
Irrespective of moral judgments on any party, the objective facts of the situation reinforce the idea that marriage covenants are always revocable, and that personal gratification is the highest end in life.
Comely twenty-year old females will do that, won't they?
Soliciting money for a half-million dollar house (his bookeeper's tap-dancing notwithstanding) may be the Lord's work, in your mind.
It's not, in mine.