|
On Monday, March 03, brother Don Martin posted the following to Bible Matters. Reprinted on this site with his permission. - Jeff MDR Double Talk Response to: http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/TacticsOfErrorTriumphOfTruth.htm Don Martin to the list: I understand that this list is not for discussion (two people back and forth) and I respect this. I did, though, want to address a matter involving Ron Halbrook's teaching on MDR and a misunderstanding that some have as to Ron's teaching. I think this post exhibits what has been happening with Ron, a matter that I consider to be duplicity and equivocation, or, put in simple parlance, a lot of double talk on the part of my friend Ron. Let me begin to show you why I believe this. Ron has recently written the following: Are Mike Willis, Tom Roberts, Bill Cavender, Harry Osborne, Donnie Rader, Connie W. Adams, Ron Halbrook, Andy Alexander, Jerry Fite, and other men who have spoken out against error, all at war with each other now? Are they all teaching contradictory doctrines and principles? For several years, concerted efforts have been made to make it appear the answer is, “Yes.” Actually, the answer is, “No!” Recent events illustrate this phase of the ongoing battle between truth and error. Ron recently affirmed: To the contrary, I embrace the principle set forth by Connie (Adams, dm) in that article in the following words, “It is my conviction that there are only three classes of people who have a right to marry: (1) those who have never been married; (2) those whose companions are dead; and (3) those who have put away a companion for the cause of fornication.” Don reflects: The area of double talk lies in the one whom Ron considers put away and the act of putting away for the cause of fornication. Please again notice, “(3) those who have put away a companion for the cause of fornication.” I am reminded of a case (not a parallel point to point) when we were talking to a prospective family about placing membership. As usual, the subject of MDR came up (they mentioned that they each had been married before). We questioned her and there did not appear to be any problems. We then asked him the reason for the termination of his first marriage. “My first marriage was ended because of fornication,” he replied and continued by saying, “and there is absolutely no doubt about the fact of fornication.” Upon further questioning he said, “I know fornication was committed because I committed it and my wife put me away because of it!” Hence, I learned many years ago that MDR has much equivocation and ambiguity characteristic of it. Reading Ron’s above statement sounds like he is straight down the line, following Jesus’ teaching to the smallest particle. Why would, then, anyone disagree with Ron? Ron adamantly affirms: To the best of my ability, I have preached that Bible principle all across the U.S. and have published numerous materials affirming and reaffirming that principle, including an article entitled, “Marriage and Divorce: No Waiting Game” (Guardian of Truth, Mar. 18, 1993, pp. 168-69). Based on Ron’s apparent sound stand he says: Faithful brethren who have engaged this battle during the last decade have been subjected to whispering campaigns, attacks on our character, aspersions about our integrity, smirks, slurs, and slander. Attempts have been made to turn us against each other so that divided we fall, while the enemy accentuates positive gains and eliminates negative critics. I do not intend to fall victim to these tactics. Don comments: I think the problem with Ron is all his double talk has caught up with him. The following written by Ron was recently published: Is Matt. 19:9 (a) and (b) a sequence of events OR does (b) set forth a separate situation in which a woman put away for an unscriptural reason is married by a third party? Ron answered his own question: “...If he has unlawful sexual relations with another (whether before or after he wrongfully puts away his true mate), his true mate has scriptural grounds to reject or put him away. That might involve countersuing in the courts if he has a suit for divorce pending. But if he has already been granted a divorce by the courts of man, the laws of man make no provision for her to act. So far as the courts of man are concerned, legal issues such as property rights have already been settled and there is nothing else to be said in the realm of human law. But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts of man), there is something else to be said by divine law-by the moral and spiritual law of the court of God. She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act.....” Don comments: Concerned reader, notice Ron’s language, “whether before or after he wrongfully puts away his true mate.” Concerning the innocent put away and after the putting away, the man who put her away commits adultery, Ron unmistakably wrote: “She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act.....” Hence, there is no doubt but what Ron is allowing the innocent put away mate of Matthew 19: 9 the liberty to put away and marry again. Ron, then, is presenting the old waiting game circumstance with the qualification that the put away person must be the one to later put away and to whom remarriage is allowed, providing the putting away mate commits adultery or remarries first. Concerned readers, I have labored under the belief that we need to be open and explicit in our teaching and convictions. I have consistently taught that the innocent put away (no fornication present on either part) does not have the right to perform a “second putting away” even though the putting away mate later (after the divorce) married another. I have also taught that the innocent mate (the putting away mate is guilty of fornication anterior to the putting away) must act upon the right Jesus provided or end up put away. I do not believe that years after the divorce, the innocent mate can suddenly say, “I have decided to put you away for fornication, now I can remarry.” I have not hidden this and I am not ashamed of it because it is what Jesus taught in Matthew 19: 9, clause A and B. Why has Ron been so misunderstood? I submit it is because he has not always revealed his full position: The put away can put away for the cause of fornication when the prior mate remarries. Ron does not understand why he is now being said to advocate the waiting game. The only essential difference between Ron’s waiting game and other variants is Ron says the motive must be good. Notwithstanding, Ron is advocating the circumstance for the waiting game doctrine. Please again consider what I earlier wrote: “I have dealt with the waiting game circumstance for many years. ‘Two people may divorce in the absence of fornication and the first to remarry frees the other to divorce on grounds of fornication and marry another,’ it is said. There are serious problems with this practice. (1). This position ignores that the divorce must be for the cause of fornication or both parties are ineligible for marriage to another. (2). The view also has to argue for a second putting away since the divorce that involved repudiation and the civil dissolution of the marriage has already occurred.
We are now hearing the waiting game circumstance
with a little different twist. ‘Two people may divorce (no fornication involved)
and the first to marry another frees the other to be able to now put away for
fornication and marry another without sin, providing their intentions are good.’
Notice the same two residual serious problems: (2). The view also has to argue for a second putting away since the divorce that involved repudiation and the civil dissolution of the marriage has already occurred. ‘Oh, but the first divorce does not count since it was not for fornication and the second divorce is the real one and counts since it was for fornication,’ it is reasoned. ‘Do not you believe that when A remarries, A is committing adultery? If so, B may now follow Jesus’ teaching,” it is further explained. Certain ones among us who are teaching the waiting game today reason thus, ‘B did not want the divorce, but A divorced her anyway (adultery not present). It really does not matter if there is a civil decree or if A commits adultery years after the issuance of the civil decree, B as the innocent mate is allowed to put away A for the cause of adultery.’ After teaching this, they then say, ‘We are not teaching the circumstance for the waiting game!’ Jesus said: “32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery....(Matt. 5, dm)...9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19). Consider Matthew 19: 9: (1). Adultery is not present and the putting away is wrong; nonetheless, the man (or woman) puts away. (2). The man then marries another and in so doing is committing adultery. (3). The woman then remarries and is in adultery. This waiting game posture now being taught must do the same old gymnastic maneuvers. They must assume that the circumstance for ‘her that is put away’ in clause B of Matthew 19: 9 did not initially involve fornication on the part of A. ‘This is the reason the one marrying her commits adultery, the bond is still in place. Since the bond is still in place and in view of A having now committed adultery, B may put away and also remarry.’ What is the trouble with this explanation? It ignores the sequence of Jesus’ teaching and replaces Jesus’ sequence with an assumption. In view of the sequence of clause B in Matthew 19: 9, why can we say that it could be that Jesus thus taught that B whom A put away (no fornication) is also in adultery when she marries C because she is a put away woman? It could teach that in view of the sinful divorce, both A and B remained bound one to another regardless of what A or B does. Thus, strongly discouraging divorce in the absence of fornication. “Why would Jesus teach such a thing?” some ask. It is my opinion that Jesus taught that the innocent put away mate cannot put away and remarry now that the putting away mate has committed adultery by remarrying because Jesus intended to PRECLUDE EVEN THE VERY CIRCUMSTANCE FOR THE WAITING GAME! Please carefully note that I only said “my opinion” as to why Jesus taught as he did. The fact of the matter is, Jesus did teach, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19: 9). For about 40 years I have preached that those eligible for marriage are: (1) those who have never been married; (2) those whose companions are dead; and (3) those who have put away a companion for the cause of fornication. This is what Ron says he preachers. The serious difference in Ron’s teaching and mine is that I believe in the sequence of Matthew 19: 9: The put away mate cannot “put away” and marry another when the putting away mate later remarries. Ron says the put away can “put away” and marry another after their prior mate remarries. I have no respect for hidden positions, especially with the guise of “teaching the same thing.” I have lost a lot of respect for Ron Halbrook in this whole matter. I would have had more respect for Ron had he openly taught that the put away can later put away and marry another when the putting away remarries instead of this, “We teach the same thing business.” Am I some how misrepresenting Ron Halbrook? I honesty do not know how I can be. I have invited Ron to join me on another list that does allow exchange. So far, Ron's general reply to me has been, “I do not have time to discuss the matter.” |
|