|
Exchange Started by Pat Donahue with Mike Willis The following is an e-mail exchange between various brethren which began when brother Pat Donahue asked brother Mike Willis for a debate regarding his public teaching of multiple causes for “approved” divorce. Note: No one who presently opposes the (second “putting away”) “mental divorce” and remarriage to another doctrine is arguing “whether or not the innocent party must initiate the civil proceedings to have the right to remarriage,” or “whether or not the civil proceedings say ‘for fornication’ for one to have the right of remarriage.” Unfortunately, this obvious diversionary tactic has been repeated over and over again during the present divorce and remarriage dispute. – Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue Mike, I hope everything is going well for you and your family. Your position and teaching that a Christian can get a divorce for reasons other than fornication as long as they don’t remarry seems to keep getting attention (see Jeff Belknap’s web site for an exchange about it between Don Martin and Joe Price). Wouldn’t you change your mind and be willing to engage me in a friendly oral debate on the subject? If not me, what about Carroll Sutton or another? How can it hurt to have such a study where both sides can be fairly heard? I think a two session debate with three 20-minute speeches by each disputant per session would suffice. Perhaps doing it as part of the next “Truth Magazine Lectures” would be ideal. If not, I’m sure we can find an appropriate location/facility. I am certainly open to your suggestions as to format and location. I ask you to reject what seems to be the non-institutional brethren’s standard mindset against the value of debating, and instead accept what passages like Phil 1:17, Acts 15:2, 7, 17:17, 19:8-9, Mt 22:15-48, and Jude v.3 actually teach about debating. All I’m asking you to do is to do what Jesus and Paul would do - defend their doctrine. Again let me emphasize, that if you are willing, but I am not the ideal opponent, then a worthy candidate can easily be found. I am attaching your outline giving all the reasons a divorce would be scriptural, and a quote from Ron Halbrook talking about the value of open discussion. Your friend and brother, Pat’s Attachments: Divorce For A Reason Other Than Fornication, But No Remarriage Mike Willis (from Mike’s sermon outline entitled: “When Is Divorce A Sin”): a. A person may have to divorce his mate to break an unscriptural marriage (Matt. 19:9). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. b. A person may have to leave his mate to become or remain a Christian (Luke 18:29-30; 1 Cor. 7: 15; Matt. 10:34-48; Luke 14:26). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. c. A person may be in a marriage relationship in which his mate runs up bills which he has no intention of paying. In this case, one’s responsibility to God to pay one’s bills would demand that he not be supportive of his mate’s ungodly behavior (Rom. 13:8). d. A mate may be abusive to the children (beating). A person has a responsibility to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4). To fulfill that responsibility, may require him to leave his mate to provide for the children. e. There are some cases in which one must leave to have physical and emotional health. One’s obligation to serve God would require him to preserve his physical and emotional well being. f. Sometimes a couple becomes so alienated from each other, the hostilities have reached such a point, that they must live apart. (1) Cf. Prov. 21:9; 25:24; 1 Cor. 7:15-16. (2) We cannot force them to stay together. (3) The Scriptures do not teach a person that he must become a doormat to his partner to keep the marriage together. A person who becomes another’s doormat will do more to destroy his mate’s love and respect for him than about anything else he can do. A person has to maintain his own self-esteem to have proper Bible love. One is to love his neighbor “as himself” and the husband is to love his wife “as his own body” (Matt. 22:39; Eph. 5:33). g. Obviously, there is going to have to be left some room for judgment in these matters. (Those who allow a “separation” but not a “divorce” agree that there are some areas of human judgment that we must leave for each other.) C. Sometimes we place the blame for divorce on the wrong shoulders – we blame the mate who has reached the end of his rope in tolerating an intolerable situation and in his desperation has filed for a divorce, rather than blaming the one guilty of the ungodliness who created the intolerable circumstances. D. If one must separate from his mate in order to serve his God, that is exactly what he should do! Closing The Door To Open Discussion Ron Halbrook: Be willing to hear both sides of the issues involved and be wary of excuses offered for closing the door to open discussion. ‘Try,’ test, or examine the teachers in this controversy – no matter who they are – and do it by comparing what they say with Scripture (I Jn. 4:1,6). Do not be timid about approaching the men involved to ask for the Bible basis of their conduct and teaching. Pay close attention to whether they actually give you Bible passages or whether they merely talk around the subject. Notice whether they seem tense, resentful, and angry when you question them, or whether they seem to truly welcome and appreciate your questions. Those who stand on the truth find that it gives them a confidence which creates calmness and patience in discussing the questions of honest people. Those who cannot give Scripture for their position suffer from arrogance, impatience, and frustration which create bitter resentment against those who dare to question them. Something is wrong if the man you question does not seem glad for the opportunity to fulfill I Peter 3:15 (‘be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you’). ----- Original Message ----- From:
Mike Willis Pat, I have all of the commitments that I can handle presently on my plate; as a matter of fact, my wife thinks I am over committed at the present. At any rate, I do not have the time to take on any other obligations at the present. Nor am I of the persuasion that the issues which are leading brethren away from the truth involve the rare cases in which someone finds that he must divorce his mate in order to maintain his faithfulness to the Lord. Should you feel convinced that these are the issues which are leading brethren into apostasy (in contrast to the teachings of Hailey, Bassett, Hicks, etc.), you no doubt will feel obligated to debate those who disagree with you, draw lines of fellowship, and thus fragment us. After finishing a discussion on whether or not there are some cases (other than fornication) as a result of which a person might get a divorce, you would then want to debate whether or not the innocent party must initiate the civil proceedings to have the right to remarriage, whether or not the civil proceedings say “for fornication” for one to have the right of remarriage, and similar judgments. I am not interested in going down such a path with you.
Brotherly, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue Mike, Thanks for your kind reply friend and brother. I suppose your below is good human reasoning IF you have made up your mind that some things that Jesus taught on MDR are important but that other things equally taught by Jesus on MDR are less important. Your excuse certainly does not match up with what the scriptures teach about being willing to publicly defend what you preach publicly (see scriptures referenced in my original message). And it does not match up with the quote I sent you from the pen of my friend Ron. The issue that many have with Ron and others is not “whether or not the innocent party must initiate the civil proceedings to have the right to remarriage,” or “whether or not the civil proceedings say ‘for fornication’ for one to have the right of remarriage.” The issue has to do with whether or not it matters who actually gets (secures) the divorce. And doesn’t Jesus make it very clear in a passage like Luke 16:18 that it matters who gets the divorce?, else why would it be adultery to marry a woman whose husband has divorced her unscripturally and remarried? I state the obvious -> it is impossible to get a divorce for fornication (Mt 19:9a) if you don’t get the divorce. A piece of personal advice for you to consider: ignoring these issues we not make them go away. Can’t you see that the ignore tactic has only made matters worse for you brethren? Ed Harrell knows we disagree on these topics. Trying to cover that up will not aid the cause against him and the Hailey position. Still friends, P.S. - Is there anybody else on this mailing list that has the courage to defend Mike’s position on this issue? Your opponent does not have to be me. I am confident such a discussion would draw considerable interest. ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue Mike, Since you decline to do an oral debate on the “divorce without remarriage” issue, what about an exchange on the question in Truth Magazine? Please forgive the redundancy in asking. Remember that if I am binding something on MDR that shouldn’t be bound, then I am in apostasy and leading others into apostasy just as much as if I were loosing on MDR where God has not loosed. And all those who agree with me (including some or many on the Truth Magazine staff) are doing the same thing. I wish you could meet a few of the denominational preachers I have debated in the past 15 years. We could all learn from their courage in being willing to defend their position. In Christian love, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue Dear Truth Magazine Staff writers, I asked Mike about a year ago if he would print a review of his publicly preached sermon outline on “divorce but no remarriage” that has caused so much controversy. He declined, but I thought he might be more willing if one of you staff writers asked to be able to write a review. I hope Mike would understand why you would feel the need to name him and quote from his outline in your article, because it would be for the same reason that Donnie correctly needed to name names and quote from brethren in part of his sermon on MDR at FC a few years back. Surely one or more of you thinks this issue is important enough to write such a review. Your brother, P.S. - Following are an interesting quote from Roy Cogdill, and a short article on the issue in question by Bill Hall .. “Preachers ... blandly excuse men from obedience to God by teaching that some of God’s commandments are NON-ESSENTIAL.” (Roy Cogdill, “The Bible In Preaching”) God Hates Divorce“I’m getting a divorce, but I don’t plan to marry again” These words are being heard with increasing frequency. Usually the spokesman is thinking that God allows the right to divorce, but would disapprove remarriage. The truth is, however; Divorce itself is sinful unless it is for the cause of fornication.
If one companion in a marriage fails along these lines, the other must still be obedient to God, seeking to be what He would have him or her to be in the marriage relationship. Never should the thought of divorce or separation ever enter the mind unless fornication occurs. We are not suggesting that divorce itself is “adultery,” but we are saying that divorce for any cause other than fornication is sin. Christians must not be influenced by the loose standards that prevail in the world in which they live. - by Bill Hall ----- Original Message ----- From:
Mike Willis Pat, Your efforts to create dissension and division between brethren who are working together is exactly the reason that I don’t want to be involved in anything that you are involved in. One of the things that the Lord hates is one who sows discord among brethren (Prov. 6:16); a better example of it than your e-mail would be hard to find. I do not agree with any position that denies what Jesus taught -- that some have to leave father, mother, children, and wife in order to be his disciples (Luke 14:26). Mike ----- Original Message ----- From:
J Belknap Brethren, I thought Mike told us that he was too busy to debate. Now he claims that “exactly the reason” why he declined to get involved is because Pat is supposedly causing “dissension” and “division” (though Pat stated that there were others who would be willing to debate Mike, if he didn’t want to debate Pat). The necessary conclusion of his last sentence is clearly that those who hold fornication as the only authorized cause for divorce are guilty of denying “what Jesus taught.” Where is the outrage? Those who know this is false doctrine but sit back and do nothing will answer to the Lord (Proverbs 17:15; 28:4; Isaiah 56:10; Ezekiel 3:17-18; Obadiah 11; Ephesians 5:6, 11; I Timothy 5:20-21; James 4:17).
Brotherly, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Ron Halbrook Dear Pat, Hope this note finds you well. I leave Mon. for the Philippines, am swamped, so please excuse my brevity. I was close to Roy Cogdill in the latter yrs of his life and we discussed everything under the sun from Dan to Beersheba. I used to spend every Mon. studying with him. He was a lawyer, as you know. He believed a woman could use whatever legal remedies were necessary to protect herself. He regarded the man not the abused woman responsible for any such separation or its effects. He did not believe this changed or altered the marriage covenant binding before God. Neither of us believes that his view is the standard of truth. Just FYI. May God bless your family during the holidays, and I keep a special prayer in my heart for little Wesley.
In Christian Love, ----- Original Message ----- From:
J Belknap Dear brother Ron, Your discussion of Roy Cogdill does not appear to address brother Pat’s concerns. His initial request for debate was regarding the following: “Your position and teaching that a Christian can get a divorce for reasons other than fornication as long as they don’t remarry seems to keep getting attention.” Your discussion of brother Cogdill’s views focused on the situation of abuse only (the most emotion - provoking scenario possible). However, brother Willis’ views certainly do not end there. His list of approved reasons for divorce includes the following: 1) a mate’s running up of bills which he/she has no intention of paying; 2) for the preservation of physical and emotional health; 3) when a high level of alienation and hostilities exists between the spouses; and 4) in order to prevent one from becoming a doormat to his/her partner. (http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/WillisOnBiblicalPuttingAway.htm) Due to your apparent defense of Mike in light of the recent discussion, am I correct in concluding (from this defense) that you agree with Mike’s various reasons for obtaining an approved divorce (as long as one remains unmarried)? (The applicable portion of Mike’s sermon outline that details his reasons is posted below in this e-mail). Additionally, do you believe that Luke 14:26 (which Mike cited in his e-mail letter today) authorizes divorce for multiple causes? I realize that you are busy getting ready for your trip, but hitting “reply to all” and answering these two questions with yes’s or no’s would not take up more than 30 seconds of your time.
Brotherly, From Mike’s sermon entitled: When Is Divorce A Sin? a. A person may have to divorce his mate to break an unscriptural marriage (Matt. 19:9). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven's sake. b. A person may have to leave his mate to become or remain a Christian (Luke 18:29-30; 1 Cor. 7: 15; Matt. 10:34-48; Luke 14:26). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven's sake. c. A person may be in a marriage relationship in which his mate runs up bills which he has no intention of paying. In this case, one's responsibility to God to pay one's bills would demand that he not be supportive of his mate's ungodly behavior (Rom. 13:8). d. A mate may be abusive to the children (beating). A person has a responsibility to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4). To fulfill that responsibility, may require him to leave his mate to provide for the children. e. There are some cases in which one must leave to have physical and emotional health. One’s obligation to serve God would require him to preserve his physical and emotional well being. f. Sometimes a couple becomes so alienated from each other, the hostilities have reached such a point, that they must live apart. (1) Cf. Prov. 21:9; 25:24; 1 Cor. 7:15-16. (2) We cannot force them to stay together. (3) The Scriptures do not teach a person that he must become a doormat to his partner to keep the marriage together. A person who becomes another’s doormat will do more to destroy his mate’s love and respect for him than about anything else he can do. A person has to maintain his own self-esteem to have proper Bible love. One is to love his neighbor “as himself” and the husband is to love his wife “as his own body” (Matt. 22:39; Eph. 5:33). g. Obviously, there is going to have to be left some room for judgment in these matters. (Those who allow a "separation" but not a "divorce" agree that there are some areas of human judgment that we must leave for each other.) C. Sometimes we place the blame for divorce on the wrong shoulders -- we blame the mate who has reached the end of his rope in tolerating an intolerable situation and in his desperation has filed for a divorce, rather than blaming the one guilty of the ungodliness who created the intolerable circumstances. D. If one must separate from his mate in order to serve his God, that is exactly what he should do! Brother Ron never answered the above questions. ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue Mike, Your response betrays the very attitude that is causing the most problems for TM, that we shouldn’t criticize our friends (“brethren who are working together”); we should only review an article of an enemy (in TM’s case, I guess this would be the Christianity Magazine crowd). Favoritism is an ugly trait that rewards the devil’s causes (James 2:9, Acts 10:34). In my previous message, I was only asking those on the TM staff to do the same thing in principle that Donnie did at FC. So then according to your reasoning below, Donnie’s arguments on MDR at FC were “efforts to create dissension and division between brethren who are working together” and Donnie was “one who sows discord among brethren.” Since you do not believe that about Donnie and his speech, I am forced to conclude one of two things, either you don’t really believe what you said about me, or you are showing favoritism. Is there a third option I am overlooking? Notice I Corinthians 11:18, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” I was only giving those on the staff an opportunity to make manifest that they are approved on this issue. We shall see where their stand lies. Luke 14:26 only refers to loving your wife less than the Lord, and isn’t necessarily talking about leaving her. Luke 18:29, on the other hand, does refer to leaving your wife, but would have to be talking about an unscriptural wife, else it would contradict Mt 5:32. I am confident that you believe the exception clause in Mt 19:9 rules out all other causes for divorce and remarriage other than fornication. That is the most important argument against the Hailey position. Well, the exact same reasoning on the exception clause in Mt 5:32 would similarly rule out all other causes for divorce only, since it doesn’t mention the remarriage of the one doing the putting away. Your friend and brother, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue Mike, As I am sure you found out in your younger days, the reason people refuse to debate is almost never because they don’t have enough time, or because the opponent is sowing discord, etc., etc.. After all, if one of the Romans 14 advocates wanted to debate, I know you would find the time to debate them, even though you believe they sow discord among the brethren. And your refusal to debate this subject certainly has nothing to do with me. As Jeff pointed out below, I have offered for you to debate more formidable opponents. Debaters know that almost without fail, the reason a preacher won’t debate is because of the subject. They don’t believe their position strong enough to think it will really hold up in a public debate. In that light, maybe we can just discuss your position over e-mail in a more private, friendly way. First, I ask you to reconsider your Lk 14:26, 18:29 proof texts. Doing something “for the kingdom of God’s sake” in Lk 18:29 involves doing something you HAD to do to be right with the Lord. Not something that is optional, that you are doing for your own sake, like your reasons for divorce b, c, d, e, and f describe. Having to leave an unscriptural mate whom you love is truly having to do something “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (as you point out in your reason a). Would you like to discuss this way? Your friend and brother, P.S. - Jeff, thanks for being willing to speak up / take a stand on this issue. As far as I know, there was no further, private discussion between brothers Mike and Pat. ----- Original Message ----- From: “Don Martin” <dmartin5@concentric.net> Hello Fellows, I was not officially included in the initial emails that were generated by Pat Donahue to Mike Willis, in which Pat and Mike copied others. However, I was copied toward the end of the email discussion by one who evidently was a recipient and participated in the email exchange. As most of you know, I have been vocal regarding some views being taught relative to MDR, views which I consider aberrant positions. I am of the old position that teaching that is contrary to the scriptures must be challenged and exposed. As a consequence, I have challenged the teaching of Ron Halbrook and Mike Willis. Ron is either “going to the Philippines” or “just returned,” but in either event he, “is too busy” to answer my questions and challenges. As you all know, Mike Willis is teaching multiple causes for divorce. Since I only read of one cause, fornication, I view other cases as spurious and condoning and encouraging adultery (most people will marry another). As society collapses, the church is being weakened relative to MDR, one man, one woman for life, fornication being the only exception (Matt. 19: 4-9). I am now witnessing more and more who are especially associated with Mike via the Guardian of Truth Foundation and/or Truth Magazine who are defending Mike’s multiple divorce doctrine. Romans 14 is again being used, should I more correctly say misused, to justify and demand tolerating such teaching as multiple causes for divorce. The paradoxical thing is that some of the very ones who correctly opposed Romans 14 being thus used regarding the Homer Hailey matter are themselves guilty of precisely the same abuse. Those who were told, “You are divisive,” are themselves heard making the same charge to others who will not go along with aberrant teaching on MDR. Many of you receiving this email are associated with (in fellowship) Mike in the foundation and/or magazine work. I would like to ask you some questions, questions which I believe are urgently important: (1). How do you feel about Mike’s teaching of multiple causes for divorce? (2). How can you justify not openly opposing Mike’s multiple causes for divorce? Mike is wrong, but are not you in a complicit circumstance by being thus tied to Mike? What message are you sending about fellowship as you continue to closely work with Mike? I know the response of some will be, “Don Martin is divisive and is trying to cause trouble among us!” What a cop out! Brethren, I do not claim to have all the answers for every imaginable nuance involved in the broader MDR issue; however, some of the teaching now being presented, such as multiple causes for divorce, is patently false and sinful. What say ye? Mike Willis, are you willing to continue dividing brethren by your multiple cause for divorce position? Mike, you are not only wrong yourself, but you are leading others astray at a growing rate. I am referring to men who not long ago would have disagreed with the multiple divorce position, but who are now defending your teaching. They are faced with the quandary of either saying you are wrong and that they by association are also wrong or, some how, defending your position and that they, consequently, are right in their special association with you, the Foundation and Magazine. You, Mike, are therefore pivotal in this circumstance. I for one would like to see Mike come out and deal forthrightly with his teaching instead of continuing to offer excuses for his lack of accountability. Those of you who are staff writers and directly involved with Mike, it is high time that you take a position and stand! In closing, I anticipate a number of deflective moves; however, keep in mind the simple issue: (1). Mike Willis is teaching multiple causes for divorce (scriptures only teach one (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). (2). A number of you are inconsistently defending and protecting Mike, making the cause of truth suffer.
Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue Don, well said. Mike, Since you won’t debate me on this issue, what about Don? I would be fully satisfied with him as your opponent. How can it ever hurt to have such a Bible study? Do you think God should have left the Acts 15 debate out of the Bible because of all the harm it has done? <grin> Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: “J Belknap” <jeffbelknap@charter.net> Brethren, I thought the timing of the following article was very interesting. Brotherly, Wanted: Honest Discussion From the beginning of time, man has had difficulty discerning truth. After God had placed man in the garden and given command that he could eat of any tree except one (Gen. 2:15-17), we find that the serpent begins a conversation with the woman by asking, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” (3:1) From the very first words, we see that the discussion was not going to be honest, for the serpent reveals that he already knew what God had commanded (cf. 3:4, 5). The very intent of the discussion was to be misleading! The serpent first presented himself as “innocent” and “ignorant” of the truth, and then slipped in just one word that differed from what God had said. That one word made a world of difference, though, because the result was sin. Think about it: just one word was what necessitated the death of the Son of God! But such is the strategy of our enemy, the devil! When Jesus told the parable of the tares, He explained that the one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man (Matt. 13:37), the field was the world (v. 38), the good seed was the children of the kingdom (v. 38), the weeds that were sown were the sons of the evil one (v. 38), and the enemy that came and sowed the tares was the devil (v. 39). The strategy here was to place unwelcome elements among the good in such a way as to make it difficult, if not impossible, to discern between the good and the bad [some tares are very similar in appearance to wheat in the early stages] or to simply make it difficult to “weed out” the bad without adversely affecting the good. Again, that is our enemy’s strategy! If the devil can get God’s people to find it difficult to discern between the good and the bad, or if he can just make it difficult to “weed out” the bad from the good without adversely affecting the good, he has succeeded [temporarily, at least]. Imagine such strategies used when two or more individuals sit down for what is supposed to be an honest discussion of truth. What is going to happen? Well, if all parties are honest, they will open their Bibles, see what God says, make a proper interpretation based on the context, and apply it honestly and consistently. All parties will leave in accord with one another because they have let the word of God be the sole source of their judgments and applications and they will not let personal prejudices, personal friendships, personal relations, or even their personal opinion stand in the way of truth. But, in reality, we know that this scenario is far too rare. Far too often, one or more parties in the discussion comes to the table with a hidden agenda or ulterior motives. Far too often, one or more parties is not really interested in the truth at all, but only in a further propagation of the erroneous doctrine they hold or to simply justify themselves. When the lawyer asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) after telling Jesus the greatest command was loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself (v. 27), he was not really wanting to know the answer — he was only seeking to justify himself! There was no real interest in knowing who his neighbor was, for he had already decided in his own mind. Let us not be foolish in believing this man was alone, for there are many still today who ask questions just as this man did, but who are not really interested in a discussion of truth. In times past, when brethren disagreed on the matter of authority and the work of the church, some were sincerely interested in the truth and sought an open discussion so all could reach an accord based on God’s word. But, somewhere along the line, some started sidetracking the discussion and began confusing the issues at hand with other unrelated issues; some began making some slanderous insinuations and accusations against those who opposed them. No longer was truth being discussed, but time was spent on defending reputations and motives simply because another had thrown out unfair and unwarranted accusations in an attempt to prejudice the minds of those who heard or read their words and to prevent an honest and open discussion of truth. If truth was really being sought, and if truth was really desired by all, we would not have the division that now exists because all would have searched for the truth, found, it, discussed it, and applied it consistently and without regard to personal beliefs or desires. But that did not happen. Some brethren — who disagree about God’s law on marriage, divorce, and remarriage — have now taken up this strategy. Some are now teaching error on this subject but are plainly not being honest. One man who is teaching error has been covertly teaching young men under his tutelage but has since been exposed. He continues to travel this country and to places favorable to his name and reputation and who will willingly hear him speak, but he — for some reason yet to be explained — cannot find time to discuss it with those who disagree. The most he will say is that those who oppose him and his erroneous doctrine should read articles he has already written on the subject of marriage, divorce, and remarriage [but which do not discuss, much less answer, the erroneous doctrine he now preaches] or he chastises those who oppose him by saying, “We do not need to divide over every issue,” or [if you can believe this], tries to convince us he is “still studying the matter.” I fear the ugly head of dishonest discussion has reared again and it will not be long before the issue will be considered “closed” [if not already] and “truth is fallen in the street” (Isa. 59:14). Friends and brethren, when we will not honestly discuss issues, there will be no unity based on the truth of God’s word no matter how loudly some proclaim that as their desire, yet that is exactly what is going on. Those who sincerely desire truth seek discussion and debate with those who disagree because they want everyone to hear the truth, see who is being honest with the Scriptures, and be able to decide for themselves who speaks truth. Those who do not seek truth will avoid debate except to further misrepresent the truth and twist it to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16) — and of those who blindly follow them. When the Pharisees opposed Jesus, they did not do so with honesty. When they asked Him about the lawfulness of divorce for any reason, it was done to test Jesus (Matt. 19:3), not to find an honest answer. When they brought the adulterous woman to ask what should be done, it was not that they didn't know; it was that they were dishonest (John 8:6). When Jesus was asked about the legality of healing on the Sabbath, it was not asked with honesty (Matt. 12:9, 10). When Jesus asked them about the baptism of John, they did not answer honestly (Matt. 21:23-27) In all they did, they vehemently attacked Jesus and severely questioned Him about many things, but not because they sincerely sought to know the truth; they just wanted something with which they could accuse Him (Luke 11:53, 54). Simply put, the Pharisees did not desire honest discussion. The fact [Fact!] that some have taken this up as their strategy when disagreements on certain issues arise is despicable and is destructive to the cause of truth. Where have the honest men gone? Where are those who are willing to discuss any matter at any time? Where are those who will put aside personal vendettas and selfish ambitions that the truth may be found, accepted, and defended? I challenge you, as a fellow believer, to support those who seek honest and open discussion of all spiritual matters, and to reject those who will not. We need men, now more than ever, who will speak the truth (2 Tim. 4:2). —— Steven Harper ----- Original Message ----- From: “Don Martin” <dmartin5@concentric.net> Hello Mike, Staff Writers, and Interested Brethren, I trust all had a profitable weekend. We are digging out of about a foot of snow here in the foothills of Denver and it continues to come down (we need it). I think that the circumstance that has been conducive to the myriad surfacing views pertaining to MDR is the situation of focusing almost entirely on marriage to another. Hence, in this concentration, we have drifted away from what the scriptures teach about the act of divorcement. Therefore, we have brethren now teaching that one may divorce for any cause, just as long as they do not marry another and, as does Mike Willis and a growing number advocate, one may divorce for some causes in addition to fornication, just as long as they do not marry another. Some think that when the stipulation is inserted “just as long as they do not marry another,” that multiple causes for divorce is not something brethren need to expend efforts in controversy. “I listened to Mike Willis’ teaching on MDR pertaining to his six reasons divorce may be obtained and I do not see any problem, after all, Mike said remarriage is forbidden unless the divorce is for fornication,” I hear. I have never accused Mike Willis of advocating multiple causes for divorce with the possibility of marriage to another (I am accused of such). My problem with Mike and others, even some of you receiving this email, is that I find only one cause for scriptural divorce and that is fornication (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). Besides, the concession of multiple causes does usually involve marriage to another because most people will marry another, this is a fact. To argue, then, for the cause of multiple reasons for divorce, even though the stipulation is made that only for the cause of fornication allows marriage to another, is to introduce the problem of marriage to another in circumstances other than divorce based on fornication. There are two real and pertinent questions: What does Jesus teach about divorce not for fornication and what are Mike Willis and others saying? Allow me to begin by first briefly stating what Mike Willis is saying. Mike has taught six causes for divorce, one allowing marriage to another, five not allowing marriage to another. In Aurora, Colorado, this spring Mike stated that Jesus allowed divorce for fornication, but that there are “other situations.” In this "other situations" reference, Mike went on to refer to I Corinthians 7. In a sermon outline that Mike typically has used to teach multiple causes for divorce without sin, Mike lists the reasons. In Mike’s outline, under “II. ‘If She Depart, Let Her Remain Unmarried’ (I Cor. 7: 11,” Mike succinctly lists his six causes (he may have more, I do not know). “a. A person may have to divorce his mate to break an unscriptural marriage (Matt. 19:9). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. “b. A person may have to leave his mate to become or remain a Christian (Luke 18:29-30; 1Cor. 7: 15; Matt. 10:34-48; Luke 14:26). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. “c. A person may be in a marriage relationship in which his mate runs up bills which he has no intention of paying. In this case, one’s responsibility to God to pay one’s bills would demand that he not be supportive of his mate’s ungodly behavior (Rom. 13:8). “d. A mate may be abusive to the children (beating). A person has a responsibility to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4). To fulfill that responsibility, may require him to leave his mate to provide for the children. “e. There are some cases in which one must leave to have physical and emotional health. One’s obligation to serve God would require him to preserve his physical and emotional well being. “f. Sometimes a couple becomes so alienated from each other, the hostilities have reached such a point, that they must live apart. I must decidedly disagree with Mike’s reasoning and use of one scripture pitted against another. Yes, the Christian is to responsibly pay his bills, for instance, but does the situation of a wife running up bills constitute a mate putting away his mate? According to Mike’s teaching, such a financial debt circumstance can constitute grounds for divorcement (“c”). I had a preacher come to me one time and out of much distress say, “Don, my wife is recklessly spending money and running up bills that we cannot pay, what am I do to?” I suppose Mike would have said, “Divorce your wife” (I did not offer divorce as an option since fornication was not in the scenario). Mike says, “f. Sometimes a couple becomes so alienated from each other, the hostilities have reached such a point, that they must live apart.” Sounds like the modern day civil terminology of “divorce granted because of irreconcilable differences.” When Mike preached this year here in my area, he made the emotional appeal of the wife whose husband was selling drugs and offered divorce as an option. Mike also emotionally worked his audience by using the example of the husband who was physically abusive to the children and even offered divorce as not only a scriptural option but a matter that might even be required by God. Again, fornication was missing in Mike’s illustration and Mike was careful to stipulate that marriage to another was forbidden. To me, this is kind of like saying to a child, “You can take the forbidden candy, but you cannot eat it.” Brethren have fallen into the habit of saying, “In order to marry another, the divorce must be for the cause of fornication.” Hence, the inference is being drawn that divorce in the absence of fornication with no marriage to another is allowable, even preferred in some circumstances. Notwithstanding, Jesus said that one who puts away or divorces his wife not for fornication shares in the guilt of her adultery when she marries another (Matt. 5: 32). In view of the vast majority marrying again, this is Jesus’ way of dissuading divorce for any cause other than fornication. The very text that Mike and others are using to teach multiple causes for divorce is a text that is actually teaching no divorce (I Cor. 7, Matthew 19: 9 is an understood exception). I Corinthians 7: 3-5 explicitly teaches marital responsibility and no marital severance. Verse five shows that each mate has responsibility in the matter of the faithfulness of the other in the avoidance of fornication. The command is, “Let not the wife depart from her husband” (I Cor. 7: 10). The reasoning is, “But Paul went on to say, ‘But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried....” (vs. 11). In view of this, some have concluded that divorce not for fornication is allowed as long as there is no marriage to another. In my next email, I shall address this matter. Besides, I must stop and go out and again dig out of the snow. I might add that I trust these emails are not intrusive, but that there is a willingness to study, discuss, and perhaps even formerly debate some of these MDR issues (I appreciate all the “private” replies). After my next email, I would like to hear from others (send by “reply to all,” please). Perhaps Mike will experience the command of I Peter 3: 15 and Jude 3 and respond. Are there any of you who are now defending Mike’s teaching who would like to speak for him in this forum, assuming Mike will not? (It appears that both Mike and Ron Halbrook have lost their desire to be “set for the defence of the gospel.”)
Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From: “Don Martin” <dmartin5@concentric.net> Don Martin to Mike Willis, Staff Writers, and Interested Brethren, I want to begin to thank you for your time and interest. We all look forward to hearing from Mike Willis. I closed my last email with this statement: The command is, “Let not the wife depart from her husband” (I Cor. 7: 10). The reasoning is, “But Paul went on to say, ‘But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried....” (vs. 11). In view of this, some have concluded that divorce not for fornication is allowed as long as there is no marriage to another. Furthermore, it is being said that divorce in the absence of fornication is not only allowed in some cases, but more or less required. Let us now direct our attention to I Corinthians 7: 11 (I shall share with you excerpts from “But and If” found in www.bibletruths.net). Let us more closely examine the first three words of I Corinthians 7: 11, “But and if” (“But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife,” KJV). It has been said many times that a word, verse, or extended thought must be considered in its setting or context, with this I totally agree. Paul has just taught in no unmistakable terms, “Defraud ye not one the other...” (vs. 5). He has discussed in plain words the matter of the conjugal responsibility of the husband and wife and the matter of the avoidance of fornication (vs. 2-5). On the heels of this teaching and reaching the apex of the teaching we read, “...Let not the wife depart from her husband” (vs. 10). Notwithstanding the powerful context in which “departure” from the marriage bed is forbidden, some have believed they have found justification for divorce for other causes than fornication in, of all verses, verse 11. Let us look again at “but and if.” I submit to you that “but and if” (ean de kai) is not simply introducing another verse, if you will, but is considering the plight of those who violate the command (yes, command) “let not the wife depart from her husband” (vs. 10). Paul was total in his dialectic process and exploration. Hence, what will happen if the wife decides to disobey the command of verse 10, this is his thought and this is what “but and if” syntactically means. She should know that she has forfeited all hope of marriage and a home, unless she is reconciled to her husband whom she left, this is Paul’s answer. Not a very encouraging picture, is it? Therefore, rather than offering permission for divorce for multiple causes and for celibacy, Paul is only seeking to dissuade such rejection of God’s commands. Please consider the explanation of the German commentator and grammarian Peter Lange regarding “but and if:” “This and the dependent clauses are a parenthesis, so that what follows is in direct connection with what precedes. The words ean de kai choristhe (“but and if she depart,” dm.) point to some possible case of divorce occurring hereafter contrary to the command of Christ....The kai (“and,” dm) does not belong to the whole clause, making it equivalent to ‘even if,’ etc., but simply to the verb, and may be translated by ‘actually,’ or ‘in fact” (see ASV, dm.). [‘This is not intended as an exception to the law, but it contemplates a case which may occur in spite of the law...’]....” (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 10, pg. 143). The absolute and incontrovertible point is: “But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried...” is not providing additional exceptions for divorce to the exception Jesus stated, fornication (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). Any use of I Corinthians 7: 11 to attempt to justify divorce for other causes and then permission to remain estranged from one's mate, is a patent misuse of the verse and forces verse 11 to contradict verses 2-5 and the immediately preceding verse, verse 10. Jesus
reinstated God’s original universal moral law relative to marriage when he said:
“For this cause shall a man leave Father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but
one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not Moreover, the belief that I Corinthians 7: 11 is granting permission to divorce (no fornication) and remain unmarried is a prolific sponsor of the waiting game philosophy. Here is why: (1). First, divorce for different cases has to be advocated in order to “separate people.” Many who are deprived of the conjugal rights of marriage, begin to long for physical fulfillment. Hence, temptation sets in. As soon as there is opportunity, adultery is committed. (2). Second, the question is raised: “Are not the two, while not married, still martially bound by God when the estranged mate commits adultery?” Of course, the answer is, yes. (3). Third: Enter the strange, twisted logic of the mental divorcement theorists: “Since the bond is in tact, adultery has now been committed; hence, the innocent mate now has the right to not only ‘divorce’ on paper, but to also put away in one’s heart the guilty mate.” They now maintain that the “real” divorce is biblical and must be recognized as the putting away of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9. (4). Fourth: “Since the divorce is now the divorce that Jesus taught,” they continue to reason, “the mate who put away for fornication is now free to remarry whom she desires!” Beloved, all this twisted logic, strange induction and deduction, and warped application all was set up by the teaching: “One can divorce for any reason, they just must not remarry....” The rest of the omitted sentence is: “One can divorce for any reason, they just must not remarry, unless the one to whom they remain bound commits adultery and allows them to put away on grounds of adultery....” I believe the foregoing as well as many other matters, is why Jesus taught that the divorce itself must be for the cause of fornication. If the divorce itself is not for fornication, all subsequent remarriages are wrong and place the person in the position of continuing in fornication (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). Notice, also, that Jesus used the term “put away” (apoluo) both for scriptural and unscriptural divorces (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). In addition, the put away, whether correctly or unjustly, are always condemned when they remarry. In closing, I Corinthians 7: 11 is not offering any hope for those who want to teach or practice divorcement for causes other than fornication. Mike Willis, what say ye?
Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From: “Don Martin” <dmartin5@concentric.net> Don Martin to Mike Willis, Staff Writers, and Interested Brethren, I have waited to see if there would be any response in this forum by Mike and others (“reply to all”), but as I type this, there have been none. I am disappointed, but not surprised. I recall how some of you talked about various ones pertaining to the Homer Hailey matter (you talked to me then). “Don, they are a bunch of cowards who will not defend or even discuss their doctrine,” some of you said to me. I agreed with you, but what am I now observing out of you? Mike Willis, you are becoming known for your multiple causes for divorce, just as long as they do not marry another doctrine. Ron Halbrook is going down in history as the fellow who promoted the “innocent put away may later put away and marry another doctrine.” Alas, some of you receiving this email are defending both Mike and Ron, at least, you continue to closely work with these men and not allow such doctrinal deviations to cause any problems among you. Others of you know the truth on MDR and on occasion teach it, but you insist on remaining in the camp of these who are leading souls astray and offering hope in the circumstance of practiced sin. I have observed that some who have challenged your teaching, you dismiss by presenting them as bad boys, unworthy of your notice. This is how a number regarding the Hailey matter treated you and me and you did not like it. It really is funny how all of this seems to play out. Clam up, say nothing, band together as a group, and form your own special fellowship that swills around the Guardian of Truth Foundation, this seems to be how it all works. Plain? Yes, but I say all of this out of genuine concern for you, the church, and the future. Again, I regret Mike has not responded (I have about given up on Ron Halbrook). I should think that there would be at least some of you who are also disappointed with Mike. When Mike preached in the Denver area this year and presented his multiple causes for divorce teaching, it impressed some. The young preacher where Mike held the meeting became convinced that Mike was right and now we have another soldier who will probably go forth with the belief that one may scripturally divorce for a cause other than fornication. By the time Mike, Ron, and some others finish their treatments and assaults on such verses as Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9, the verses will pretty well be muted. After all, divorce can be for a cause other than fornication, the innocent cannot be put away and forbidden marriage to another, put away does not mean put away, and the put away may later put away. “We do not teach the waiting game,” say they, but they have some of the same logistical positioning, “...the motive makes the difference,” they believe. Of course, motive is intangible. Society is ripe for such doctrines and some need to remove the heat resultant from MDR issues; hence, the time is here. When I started my feeble efforts to battle MDR perversions back in the early seventies, I saw all of this in the making. There were those who then embraced some of the tenets being presented today, but most remained in the closet, until now. The closet doors have now opened in unison and it seems all are coming out. However, they are not ready for full exposure, not of a polemic and straightforward nature, anyway. I suppose I will also be dismissed as a know-nothing-trouble-maker. However, there are more than these fellows realize who have years of experience, polemic expertise, and a love for the truth who are equally disgusted with such teaching as I have addressed in these four emails. I am now engaging in about five exchanges each year relative to various aberrant MDR nuances. At least these with whom I have had exchanges have conviction and courage! I am still hearing through the grape vine, “The time is not yet fully here, we must avoid becoming too public, yet.” I wonder if the silence witnessed in these emails is indicative of this mentality and mind-set? I am not one to be intimidated by numbers, money, or a big organization or discouraged by silence. Lord willing, I shall continue to be around and also keep up what focus I can on Mike Willis, Ron Halbrook, and other’s teaching. These men must not be allowed to simply go around in certain favorable conditions and teach their doctrines and then remain silent when invited to openly discuss such matters. I do appreciate the interest and honesty of a number of you. I know you have mutual concern and are very apprehensive as to where all this is headed. I want to encourage you to keep on keeping on and do not be discouraged at the tactics of some. I thank all of you, Mike Willis, staff writers for Truth Magazine, Guardian of Truth Foundation members, supporters of Mike and the Foundation, and also those of you who stand where I do for your time in considering these emails. I remain open to discuss what I believe to be the truth. You name the forum and I will certainly consider it. I am now conducting about 25 written World Wide Web exchanges on a spectrum of subjects each year. I am inundated in my local work where I have preached for about eighteen years and serve as one of the elders, but I will make the time. The more qualified my disputant is, the better. I have nothing to hide and I do not belong to a clique; thus, I am without party loyalty. If, though, I am viewed as not worthy of polemic engagement, I am sure there are others, even among the recipients of these emails, who certainly are capable. I close with the reminder that truth has nothing to hide!
Cordially, ----- Original Message ----- From:
Pat Donahue I guess the denominational preachers were right all along - you can just pick and choose out of the Bible what you want to obey. Phil 4:9 teaches that we have to follow the Acts 20:7 approved example, but it doesn’t teach we have to obey the approved example of Acts 15:2,7, 17:17, 19:8-9, etc.. What we need in the “brotherhood” are less “yes men,” and more who are willing to stand on their own two feet. Patrick Donahue The blatant unwillingness of Mike, Ron and the other Truth Magazine associates to discuss the divorce and remarriage error espoused by them – and fellowship with it – brings to mind two Bible accounts in which men of old responded in a similar fashion: I Kings 18:21, “And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.” Matthew 21:25-27, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? 26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.” |
|