adultery in literature, free will vs. pre-destination, and dealing with problems which are internal vs. external to the self

World's blurb about D.G. Myers' blog post (a fellow Aggie!) on the difference between Jenny Sanford and Gov. Mark Sanford's beliefs in describing his passions and their problems...

Myers opens with a sentence on the prurient, car-accident aspects of "the affair" before quoting "the dignity and good sense of Jenny Sanford’s prepared statement to the press".

“I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal,” Mrs Sanford said, exposing the gulf between her and her husband, who believes instead in the Stendhalian [I had to look up that one!] passion that sweeps a man away against his interests. The whole sorry episode reveals not that Sanford is a hypocrite, as some political antagonists will chortle, but on the contrary: he lives by the same literary ideology of adultery that rivets pretty much the entire Western world.

All the literary world loves a lover, especially if passion overwhelms his commitments and will. I dare you to name a single work of literature that focuses upon the sufferer of adultery, detailing her grief, loneliness, shame, self-loathing, and dejection. The injured party in the literature of adultery is more likely to be Othello, driven mad by jealousy....

Then, this theological irony:

The word passion originated in Latin as a Christian theological term, referring to the sufferings of Jesus. Thus it is related by blood to the word passive, which originally meant “subject to passion or emotion, capable of suffering or feeling.” The literary ideology of the Western world is that the adulterer is subjected to erotic passion, as if he were the unwilling victim of a power outside his control.

Then, a few (more) punchlines:

The Jews have a word for this. The word is idolatry. Why novelists find such an experience dramatically compelling is beyond me. I am far less interested in Gov. Sanford’s five days of “crying in Argentina”...than in what Mrs Sanford and her four children were going through....

This is interesting in and of itself, but a few more thoughts:

First, the Sanford's perspectives are reminiscent of the tension/debate between free will and pre-destination. In matters of "love", she holds to free will; he holds to pre-destination.

The Bible clearly speaks of both. But many are uncomfortable holding on to both within that tension. The results are noteworthy. For example, some people (implicitly) claim to be pre-destined through their biology, but what a hopeless way to live! In the context of love and marriage, he is more likely to rationalize and excuse his own abhorrent behavior, whereas she is obviously more likely to take responsibility for her own actions.

Second, on a related point: I reminded of Dallas Willard's comment in The Divine Conspiracy where he notes that God only blesses people where they're at. He continues by noting that those who focus on external catalysts for our sin (the world and the devil) are unlikely to focus on the internal capacity we have to wrestle with sin (through the sin nature, spiritual disciplines, and the indwelling of the Spirit within believers).