Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In recent years, the divorce and remarriage issue has become an issue receiving much attention among us. This has occurred because several brethren have begun publicly teaching matters long believed but held as private opinions. The issue came to a head after brother Homer Hailey preached in Belen, NM (March 1988) his long held conviction that God’s marriage law applied only to citizens of the kingdom. Later he published his book on the same subject, titled The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God (1991). During the same period of time, brother Jerry Bassett published his book Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (1991). Their false doctrines were immediately answered by several competent brethren.

As the issue was discussed among us, another group of brethren began teaching that the divorce and remarriage issue should not be made a test of fellowship. These brethren stated that they disagreed with those who took a loose view on divorce and remarriage but did not believe that this issue should be pressed to the point of fellowship. Consequently, preachers who take the “unity in diversity” approach to fellowship on the divorce and remarriage issue preach in churches which teach and practice what they admit to be unscriptural doctrinal on divorce and remarriage without rebuking the sinful conduct or unscriptural doctrine. In many respects this looser view of fellowship is a more dangerous doctrine than is the loose view of divorce and remarriage. If unity in diversity will work with reference to divorce and remarriage, why won’t it work on institutionalism, the sponsoring church, premillennialism, instrumental music in worship, water baptism, the deity of Christ, a whole range of moral issues, and any other doctrine revealed in God’s word? None of my brethren who have appealed for unity in diversity on the marriage question is willing to make application of the principles to the issues mentioned above, but there is no logical reason not to.

A variety of defenses have been offered to teach unity in diversity on the various views of divorce and remarriage. They include, but may not be limited to, the following: (a) it is just like the war question; (b) everyone practices unity in diversity; (c) the issue is not clearly revealed; (d) the teacher is good, honest and sincere and, therefore, is not a false teacher; (e) Romans 14 teaches that we should receive one another in such matters; (f) pressing this issue will lead to endless divisions; (g) we need to recognize the difference between important and unimportant issues. Many of our readers will recognize these arguments as the very arguments made by Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Edward Fudge in their teaching unity in diversity during the 1970s. Not everyone who has made one of these arguments would embrace the extremes of the Ketcherside movement. Too, we understand that brethren will differ on when enough time has passed for study of an issue before fellowship is broken (see 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6). Each brother must be allowed room to exercise his own conscience in such matters. But the issue of unity in diversity is not dead; it has manifested itself again in another place.

Because of the importance of this issue, we have assembled this special edition of Guardian of Truth to addresss the subject of fellowship as it pertains to divorce and remarriage. I am confident you will benefit from the study of this issue.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 1, 35
January 2, 1992

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

“Unity through restoration” is a phrase which Christians have used to describe agreement to share spiritual relationship and activity based upon mutual understanding and acceptance of truth as taught in the Scriptures. “Restoration” is a word we have adopted to signify the recovery of first century faith and practice in later centuries. We unashamedly believe that the faith and practice of Christians in the first century, when recorded in the New Testament with Divine approval, forms the pattern for God’s people until Christ returns (1 Cor. 4:6; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Tim. 4:6; 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2; 3:10,14; Tit. 1:9; 2 Jn. 9-11).

“Unity in diversity,” on the other hand, is a phrase which has been used to identify agreement to share spiritual relationship and activity while disagreeing on what the Bible teaches about mutually shared items of faith and practice. The phrase often describes denominational acceptance of totally divergent and even contradictory positions considered significant enough to separate people into different “fellowships” or denominations. Baptists and Methodists, for example, consider one another Christians and share some activities (such as Easter sunrise services). They recognize that their faith and practice are sufficiently different to keep them from being together, yet they claim to be united. The phrase has also been used to call for the uniting of those who hold differing views in “Christian churches” and “churches of Christ.” For example, advocates of “unity in diversity” want those who believe in using mechanical instruments of music in worship to join with those who do not, working and worshiping together in spite of their differences.

I have been asked to discuss which of these two approaches is biblical when we confront questions concerning divorce and remarriage.

Unequivocally, I affirm that biblical unity on any question about which God has spoken must be based upon what God says. It cannot be based upon man’s reasoning (Jer. 10:23). Amos rhetorically asked, “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3) “Walking together” indicates mutual, shared activity. If I am involved in an activity with another, I must agree, at least in that activity, or violate conscience by participation. In spiritual matters the basis of agreement must be the Word of God (Matt. 15:8-9).

Jesus prayed that all Christians “may be one” in God and in Christ just as he had prayed that those who were with him should be one (Jn. 17:20-21). How were the apostles one? The answer is in his prayer: “You gave them to Me and they have kept Your word” (v. 6); “They have known that all things which You have given Me are from You” (v. 7); “I have given to them the words which You have given Me and they have received them” (v. 8); “keep though Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are” (v. 11); “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name” (v. 12); “I have given them Your word” (v. 14); “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (v. 17); “for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (v. 19). There is no question that Jesus taught unity upon compliance with the word of God.

One asks, however, “But what about divorce and remarriage?” Two very direct references settle that in my mind. First, when answering questions about divorce and remarriage, Jesus asked, “Have you not read. . . ?” (Matt. 19:4) Jesus called for a “restoration” of the will of God in their practice by leading them back to the Word. He expected them to read, draw proper conclusions, and then apply God’s word to their questions. Second, when the disunited Corinthians needed answers to their questions concerning husbands and wives, they knew to go to God’s word. They wrote Paul who was a messenger for Christ. Paul responded with the commands and counsel of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:1-40). He did not call for unity on grounds other than “that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10). Some might say, “But Paul gave his own judgment in some of his statements on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7.” A careful reading of the text will clearly show that where Paul expresses his judgment it is either apostolic judgment guided by the Holy Spirit (vv. 25,40) and/or an admonition to follow a safe course in matters left to human decision (vv. 26-28). In either case, “serving the Lord without distraction” is primary (v. 36). The overriding concern of the chapter is: What does God say for us to do?

We must acknowledge at this point some biblical guidelines which are essential to “unity through restoration” and which are most helpful in applying this great principle to issues related to divorce and remarriage:

First, Christians make decisions about fellowship or unity in keeping with the following clear instruction: (a) we must preach and defend the Truth as revealed by God in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:1-5); (b) we must not teach error or sin (Gal. 1:6-10); (c) we must not practice anything we believe to be sin (1 Tim. 5:22; Matt. 15:1-14); (d) we must not condone or support error or sin in others (2 Jn. 9-11; 1 Cor. 5; Rev. 2:12-29); (e) we must not be hindered from accomplishing all which God expects of us (Matt. 7:21,24-27; Jas. 4:17; 2 Cor. 8:7; 13:7-11).

Second, some issues can be decided by appeal to Scripture. In these, intense study and reflection upon God’s Word is often required. We must be uncompromising where God has spoken but we must also be patient, kind and loving (Eph. 4:13; Col. 3:12-17) with those still in the process of learning. We are all still studying some subjects. Some other issues are not answered in Scripture and still others call for human judgment. To agree to remain united when we disagree on matters of opinion or human judgment is a separate matter and is not properly within the scope of what has traditionally been referred to as “unity in diversity.” Let us not confuse terminology and thus open doors to error.

Third, all decisions on unity must be decided personally or congregationally, not nationally or by some individual Christian or association of Christians for all other Christians. We are not bound to a human creed or human consortium. We appeal solely to Christ as our Head. We must never forget what we teach concerning: (a) the imperative responsibility of each Christian to act from his/her own open investigation of the Word of God; and (b) the autonomy of local congregations to act independent of outside oversight or intimidation. We should allow the Lord to decide whether we are united spiritually with those outside the sphere of our activity or influence. Generally, I am united with all whom God accepts and I am pleased to share spiritual relationship with anyone who is in good standing with the Lord. Specifically, fellowship is at issue when I meet a situation in which my life, responsibility, or influence is engaged and I must make a decision regarding what or with whom I will share active relationship. May God bless us with a spirit of wisdom and understanding that we may meet our grave responsibilities in this area of our spirituality!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 5-6
January 2, 1992

By Mike Willis

Some have argued, “The differences over divorce and remarriage are just like our differences over the war question. One may interpret ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to mean that man cannot participate in the military, especially in time of war. Those who participate in the military or war, from this point of view, are guilty of murder. We tolerate these differences regarding ‘murder,’ placing them in the category of opinion. In the same way, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ is interpreted in many different ways and we should tolerate these differences as well, so long as ‘gross immorality’ (who gets to decide what is “gross immorality”?) is not committed.”

This is basically the argument presented by Jerry Bassett in Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (145-148) and by others in magazine articles and sermons. Similar arguments for unity in diversity have been made with reference to mechanical instruments of music in worship, sponsoring churches, missionary societies and many other apostasies. The argument is that we practice unity-in-diversity on the military question, covering, funerals in the church building, and several other matters; therefore, we should practice unity-in-diversity on mechanical instruments of music in worship, institutionalism, the sponsoring church, and divorce and remarriage.

Here is the argument stated in chart form:

The War Question and Adultery Are Parallel

“Thou Shalt “Whosoever shall put away his wife,

Not Kill” except it be for fornication, and shall

(Exod. 20:13) marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away

doth committ adultery” (Mat. 19:9).

We agree to differ We should agree to differ on these

on the military question. points:

1. Alien is not amenable to God’s law of divorce and remarriage.

2. Stay married to one married to at time of baptism or restoration.

3. The adultery of Matthew 19:9 is the act of divorcing.

4. The guilty party in a divorce for fornication may remarry.

5. Desertion by an unbeliever gives Christian right to remarriage.

This argument assumes the very point under discussion that entering the military or going to war is parallel to divorcing for some reason other than fornication and remarrying. Let us begin by stating that if brethren truly believe the two are equal in all essential elements, they should be consistent in treating the two alike.

How We Treat the War Question

We receive into our fellowship both those who believe that one should be a conscientious objector and those who believe a man can participate in the military and serve as a policeman. We receive into our fellowship both those who have conscientiously abstained from participation in the military and serving as policemen and those who have served in the military (even during wars) and as policemen.

To Be Consistent

1. Receive the teachers of loose doctrine on divorce and remarriage. If our differences over the war question are equal to our differences over divorce and remarriage, we need to forthrightly announce to the church, that we are opening the fellowship of the congregation to those who teach that a person may divorce for any cause and marry another, just as we accept the pacifist and the man who believes that funerals should not be conducted in the church building. Are you ready to receive into your fellowship those who teach one can divorce for any reason and remarry, like Olan Hicks? Are you ready for your pulpit to be filled by those who teach that the guilty party in a divorce for fornication has a biblical right to remarry?

2. Receive those who have divorced for reasons other than fornication and remarried. If the two are equal, as this argument implies, those who believe they are equal need to forthrightly announce that they will open the fellowship of the congregation to those who have divorced for whatever cause and subsequently married another, just as they accept the pacifist and the man who believes that funerals should not be conducted in the church building. They need to welcome into their fellowship the deacon who was guilty of immorality with the wife of another one of your deacons, causing two divorces. After the two adulterers who destroyed two homes in violation of Matthew 19:9 have subsequently married, the church is logically compelled to receive them into their fellowship. The two can sit beside their grieving, innocent mates and pass the Lord’s supper to each other. Brethren, are you ready to accept them into your fellowship? If not, you mustface the fact that you do not really believe that the issue of divorce for causes other than fornication followed by remarriage is like the war question.

Brother Ed Harrell wrote about the divorce and remarriage issue, “A local church has every right to restrict its fellowship to those whose marriages conform to the restrictions of Matthew 19:3-12; I have never worshiped in a congregation that did otherwise. I believe that a Christian has the right to mark as a false teacher every person who disagrees with him about marriage and divorce” (“Response to Dudley Ross Spears [3],” Gospel Truths [March 19911, p. 5). Brethren, I cannot make such statements about the war question. I do not believe that a local church has a right to restrict its fellowship to those who are conscientious objectors or to those who go to war. I do not believe that a Christian has the right to mark as a false teacher every person who disagrees with him about the war question. Nor do I believe that most of those who argue that divorce for reasons other than fornication followed by remarriage is parallel to the war question would consent to these being done. Their practice negates their argument,- one should either bring his practice into harmony with his argument or give up his argument. I hope that these brethren will give up their argument, for it is unsound.

Examining the Argument

Now, let us consider the argument itself. The parallels which I see are these: (a) Both are moral issues; (b) men are disagreed over the issue; (c) both are individual matters. But these same arguments can be made about the issue of homosexuality. Those who consider the parallel with homosexuality arguments “unrealistic” need to be aware that homosexuals among churches of Christ who have not been accepted into fellowship have organized their own congregations in several larger cities. They argue that there ought to be room for mutual tolerance, acceptance, and fellowship. Notice the parallel to the earlier points: (a) Homosexuality is a moral issue; (b) men are disagreed over the issue; (c) homosexuality is an individual (not a congregational) matter. One can just as consistently argue that homosexuality should not be made a test of fellowship as to argue that divorce for any reason other than fornication followed by remarriage should not be made a test of fellowship. Adultery is just as sinful as homosexuality. The similarities cited above do not prove that either practice is sinful or that fellowship should be extended or withdrawn.

Here the similarities end. In these important respects the matters are not parallel: (a) Service in the military and police force is a matter of authorized liberty which allows room for differences of conscience; divorce for some reason other than fornication and marriage to another is utterly and directly condemned by Jesus as sinful, thus leaving no room for different practices on the matter (scriptural proof is cited below). (b) Jesus himself equated adultery with unlawful divorce and remarriage to another mate. There is no place in all of the Scripture where participation in the armed forces or police force is equated with “murder, ” though it may be so equated in the individual’s conscience. Hence, participation in the military and police force is a matter of authorized liberty which should be governed by the principles revealed in Romans 14, i.e. settled by individual conscience. Sinful matters such as homosexuality or unlawful divorce and remarriage, which Jesus called the sin of adultery, are not under discussion in that chapter. Such sins are discussed in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 John 9-11, from which Scriptures we must go to learn how to treat those guilty of sin.

Is Participation in War A Violation of “Thou Shalt Not Kill”?

From the Bible, we can see that “Thou shalt not kill” did not mean “Thou shalt not participate in any occasion of taking life.” Through the study of the Mosaical Law, we can learn what “Thou shalt not kill” prohibited. The Old Testament law demonstrates that “Thou shalt not kill” was not intended to condemn participation in war (Exod. 17:8-16; Deut. 7:2), manslaughter (Num. 35:9-34), protecting oneself from a thief (Exod. 22:2), or capital punishment (Deut. 22:22). When properly understood, “Thou shalt not kill” means “Thou shalt not commit murder.” Because participation in warfare is not a violation of “Thou shalt not kill,” it can properly be a matter under discussion in Romans 14 – matters which are authorized but not required, matters which may be settled for each person in his own conscience between him and the Lord alone.

Sinful Divorce and Remarriage Is Equal to Adultery

Jesus is the one who equated adultery with divorcing one’s mate for some cause other than fornication and marrying another.

These Are Equal

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and

(Exod. 20:14) shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her

which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

Jesus said so!

Where did Jesus say that participation in all occasions of taking life is murder or anything which correctly interpreted leads to that conclusion? It is true that attitudes such as hatred and bitterness, often associated with war, are directly condemned by Jesus, but whether or not a person can participate in some phase of the military without having such attitudes is a question which must be settled within that person’s conscience alone.

Who Said These Are Equal?

“Thou shalt not kill” (Exod. 20:13) Protecting oneself

Manslaughter

Capital punishment

Participation in military or as a policeman

Jesus did not say so!

These are men’s opinions.

A Better Parallel

A better parallel for this argument based on “Thou shalt not kill” would be this: “Are abortion on demand and adultery parallel?”

A More Accurate Chart:

Are Abortion on Demand and Adultery Parallel?

“Thou shalt not kill” (Exod. 20:13). “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

We agree to differ on abortion on demand. We should agree to differ on these points:

1. Alien is not amenable to God’s law of divorce and remarriage.

2. Stay married to one married to at time of baptism or restoration.

3. The adultery of Matthew 19:9 is the act of divorcing.

4. The guilty party in a divorce for fornication may remarry.

5. Desertion by an unbeliever gives Christian right to remarriage.

Are you ready to accept this conclusion?

Abortion on demand is a violation of “Thou shalt not kill.” It is a matter in many respects parallel to “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Our society has accepted both abortion and easy divorce and remarriage as acceptable forms of behavior. God has condemned both. Some are preaching that men should be tolerant of a person’s choice to obtain an abortion, and others are saying that we should be tolerant of a person’s choice to divorce for causes other than fornication and marry another. Both are (a) moral issues; (b) matters on which men disagree; (c) individual, rather than congregational, issues. We can just as logically accept the one as the other. My brethren, are you ready for this?

The argument that we should practice unity-in-diversity on the divorce and remarriage question because we have practiced unity-in-diversity on the war question is false. It mixes the war question, a matter of authorized liberty for the individual conscience (similar to eating of meats) with the issue of sinful and unscriptural divorce followed by remarriage (which Jesus called “adultery”), a matter of sin. The Scriptures give two patterns for fellowship: (a) in matters of sin, fellowship must not be extended (1 Cor. 5; 2 Jn. 9-11); (b) in matters of authorized liberties, we must receive one another (Rom. 14:1-15:7). We would err to treat matters of authorized liberty as if they were sin – withdrawing from those who disagree with us over the covering, weddings and funerals in church buildings, or participation in the military. Similarly we err when we treat matters of sin as if they are matters of authorized liberty – receiving into our fellowship those who practice homosexuality, adultery such as that Jesus described in Matthew 19:9, or perversion of the work and worship of the church.

Let’s not mix apples and oranges – matters of authorized liberties and sinful conduct.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 18-20
January 2, 1992

By Randy Cavender

In our society, most people are concerned about their rights. Individuals say that they have the right to do anything they desire, sometimes caring little who they hurt in the process. It seems that many have this attitude in the religious world also. They surmise that since we are constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom that we can believe anything that suits us. Consequently, it makes no difference what the Lord has said, as long as they can do what they want. When Jesus was at the wedding in Cana of Galilee and the wine supply was depleted, Mary, the mother of Jesus, told her son about it. We find in verse 5, “His mother said to the servants, ‘Whatever he says to you, do it'” (Jn. 2:5). The Colossians were taught, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17). We need always to keep in our minds that Jesus is who we must follow and heed the advice of Jesus’ mother to the servants, “Whatever he says to you, do it.” What are some things that Jesus expects of us?

In Matthew 16:24 Jesus said, “if anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). If one is going to follow Christ, he will have to deny himself. There will be no more of this “my rights” attitude. We will voluntarily lay aside our wants and wishes and transform ourselves to obey the commandments of the Lord. If one is to please God, he will have to deny himself, by himself. But many have not done this! They simply do what they want in religious matters, failing to recognize Jesus as their Lord. Since Jesus said, “Let him deny himself,” a Christian’s will should simply do it!

Furthermore, Jesus taught that we should follow his example. “I am the light of the world. He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (Jn. 8:12). Are you walking in the footsteps of Jesus? Do you look to the Son of God as your example in life? Many use the excuse that we cannot do this. But apparently Jesus thought differently, for he expects us to do as he has done (Jn. 13:15). Peter also teaches us that we should follow Christ (“leaving us an example, that you should follow his step,” 1 Pet. 2:21). Are you following the example that Christ has left for you? Do you make the effort to be Christlike in your life? Remember, this is required of us. Therefore we should do it!

Finally, we shall discuss another command that apparently troubles many people, i.e. baptism. When Jesus gave the Great Commission, he told his disciples to teach the gospel to all nations. He then taught them that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). We also have example after example in the book of Acts that teaches us how people were converted to the Lord and one will find that baptism is in every account! It amazes me that so many affirm that one does not have to be baptized to be saved. Sometimes they claim to have already been saved without it! But why? Why do people try to get around a plain commandment of God? It seems to me that pride has kept some from doing all that God has said to do. Let us remember that if we fail to obey fully, we will be lost. Therefore what Christ has commanded, let us do it!

Let us stop questioning why the Lord has given us things to do. Let us simply with love for our Lord obey his every command. Therefore, “whatever he says to you, do it” (Jn. 2:5).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 24, p. 745
December 19, 1991