The E

The E-Mail Letter Which Reveals
Why I Characterized Harry Osborne
As “crafty and dishonest”
(Mentioned in Stan’s Article).

From: J Belknap
To: Harry Osborne
Cc: Stan Cox ; Tim Haile ; Stephen M. Willis ; Joe Price ; david mckee ; Pat Donahue ; Terence Sheridan
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Supposed Charges Made Against Harry Osborne

Below, I am responding in blue to sections of your letter. (Your original letter remains in black.)

Your post is yet another case of misrepresentation while you seek to charge another with the very thing you have done. However, in an effort to set the facts before brother Sheridan, I will again summarize the facts. After that, you may have the last word to say as you will while keeping in mind that God knows the truth and will bring every word and action into judgment (Matt. 12:36-37; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eccl. 12:14; Col. 3:8-10).

I take great comfort in the knowledge "that God knows the truth and will bring every word and action into judgment," for though the power and influence of those holding the doctrine I oppose is much greater than my own, I know that God is a righteous judge and helper.

First, your rendition of the woman whose husband divorced her in Las Vegas took only my brief synopsis of the situation. When brother McKee suggested in Lakeland that I fabricated the story, I noted the facts as related from the woman (her husband had establish residency in Las Vegas, he had run the ads in the paper, etc.). As to what the laws were at that time, I do not know and did not check. I saw no reason to call her a liar. I also noted that other brethren who have preached in the Houston area for some time knew of the same case. However, if all of us were misinformed, what would that prove? Other cases of civil divorce by unilateral action could be cited. In my articles and the Lakeland meeting, I noted the scenario of the first century Jewish woman (living after the start of the Gospel, but still under OT law in Palestine) whose fornicating husband gives her a bill of divorcement. We know she could put away her husband because Jesus said she could (Mk. 10:12). Yet, she could not give a bill of divorcement because no provision for such is stated in the law (Deut. 24:1-4). Hence, the possibility exists of unilateral civil action taken by a fornicator. Since the legal requirement had already been met, may such a party use additional means or procedures in renouncing the fornicator, departing from him and severing the union since the law of Christ does not bind the procedure? To deny such is to bind where God has not bound. In such a case, the cause of fornication is present and is the reason for the marriage being sundered.

Brother Harry, could you please give me the name of the woman in that position and the preaching brethren in the Houston area who know the particulars of this case? Even if what you say is true (that the man had established residency and run ads in the paper, etc.) that is beside the point. The point I was making is, your synopsis is a misrepresentation of what actually took place. You offered that synopsis as if it was complete in your Lakeland sermon. Then, a week later, in a discussion period after Ron's Lakeland sermon, you reiterated the same (incomplete) synopsis. Only when David McKee questioned you about such [at that second telling of the (incomplete) synopsis], did you reveal "the rest of the story" showing that it hadn't been quite as easy for this man to divorce his wife as your "synopsis" had led others to believe. A minimum requirement of 4-6 weeks to obtain a civil divorce in Nevada (available only to those who have first met the requirements for residency) is a far cry from your synopsis of a man leaving his unsuspecting wife in Texas on a Monday and returning home that Friday as a divorced and remarried man.

(P.S. 2/2/02 Brother Osborne never provided me with the requested information about the woman in Houston.)

In addition, the point made by your (incomplete) synopsis is the same as those offered by brothers Tim Haile and Ron Halbrook - with all of the same pertinent facts missing. (Facts which clearly show that your example of what the ungodly civil courts can do to unsuspecting victims is a stretch). Your synopsis was preceded by this: "And yet, some would suggest by the idea of making the civil proceeding that which is equated to Biblical putting away – here goes a person out here and takes the civil action – person doesn’t know that – I particularly know of a case of this happening in Houston." (emp. jhb)

"His wife thought he was leaving on a Monday to go on a business trip to New York ; he actually went to Las Vegas with a girl he had been having relations with. He went out there on Monday, filed for divorce, and in Nevada you have a three day waiting period, you can mail the procedure to the spouse. When it was mailed, it didn’t get to her before they got back on Friday. When they get back on Friday, he says, ‘by the way hun, I didn’t go to New York , I went to Las Vegas . I’ve divorced you, I’ve married her.’ The first his wife knew about it was at that time. She told him, ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with you if you’re ungodly and going to stay in that relationship. I’m going to put you away. That farce that you had of an action out there in Las Vegas is not what was putting away.’ If civil procedure is the putting away, that woman was divorced, didn’t know about it, and there is no way she can be protected by the law of God. I suggest to you the principles of God would show the very opposite. The principles would show she does have a right to say ‘here’s why I’m going away from you. I’m expressing that as the reason why. I’m taking action. You get your stuff out of here.’ That’s Biblical putting away - and it’s Biblical putting away for the cause, and it’s Biblical putting away after the very principles that Jesus made clear.” (emp. jhb)

Both Ron and Tim's accounts (found on my web site under "The Nevada Strawman") leave the same distinct impression - that a resident of another state could go to Nevada and within a few short days obtain a civil divorce, with no prior notification to their unsuspecting spouse. Your point from the first sentence above is that, "making the civil proceeding that which is equated to Biblical putting away" can lead to this "– here goes a person out here and takes the civil action – person doesn’t know that – I particularly know of a case of this happening in Houston. Man went away to Las Vegas..." and that "If civil procedure is the putting away, that woman was divorced, didn’t know about it, and there is no way she can be protected by the law of God."

What scenario could possibly be cited to prejudice and provoke a more emotional response (to such an extreme case of injustice) than that particular one? And yet it is what you knew to be a mere half truth (which is nothing more than a whole lie).

Further proof of this same point from Tim Haile's writings: "This is exactly why so many divorces are obtained in Las Vegas . Their liberal divorce laws, coupled with state reciprocity laws, have traditionally led many people to the state of Nevada when they want a quick and easy divorce. These divorces are granted by the state of Nevada to people who reside in other states. These divorces will be granted regardless of the reason, regardless of whether or not the divorced party has any knowledge of the divorce, and regardless of whether or not the divorced person consents to the divorce." (emp. jhb)

Further proof of this same point from Ron Halbrook's words: "And, to illustrate, what you’re saying is not in any way hypothetical, my wife thinks I’m here tonight studying with you from the Word of God. I could be in Law Vegas getting a quickie divorce. And I could come home and tell her, ‘Guess what.’" (Ron was a out of state person; emp. jhb)

Your (incomplete) synopsis of a "case in point," was offered in the context of your assertion that "making the civil proceeding that which is equated to Biblical putting away" can and has resulted in a three day "quickie divorce", in which an unsuspecting spouse can and has been divorced without any prior "knowledge" or "consent." The way you presented your "synopsis" left a definite FALSE impression. And your admission that you knew additional pertinent facts prior to giving the synopsis, but withheld them (making your synopsis misleading) makes matters even worse. Such is irresponsible and dishonest.

If a brother saw you in the arms of another man's wife and relayed that "factual" account to others, but withheld the pertinent fact that he knew the woman to be your mother, I would say that his account was a sin. What you have done is no different. Yet in the face of evidence of your wrong doing, you continue to defend your actions and deny any fault on your part.

Additionally, your illustration about the Jewish woman in the first century is another misrepresentation of the facts. The ability of the Jewish woman to put away is thoroughly explained in my web site rejoinder to you and Tim Haile, "Response to Brothers Haile and Osborne" and in the document, "Divorces By Jewish Women In The First Century."

Second, I believe you and Wayne Goforth have discussed the matter of the list of preachers circulated. You have told him that Tim Haile, myself or possibly others might have made the list up ourselves and then attribute it to you. On other occasions, you have said that you never made such a charge. Which is it? Though you claim such was not meant as a list of sound preachers, you know full well that you assisted in compiling that list of names. I do not even know most of the men on that list. If you want to claim an innocent reason for compiling it, I will leave that between you and the Lord. But don't try to blame its compilation on some who do not even know the men.

Brother Harry, that is an absolute untruth. This false charge is going to be added to my web page under "Rumors, Whisperings and False Accusations," but I will attach a copy of my exchange with Wayne Goforth regarding this very charge. Mike Willis questioned me about that rumor, which he heard from Tim Haile, who had heard it from Wayne Goforth (sounds like this unverifiable rumor is "circulating" among the very same group of brethren that the other two rumors I mentioned in my last letter were making the rounds in). And now, you are also spreading this untruth to even more brethren, with no proof of your accusation. It is absolute hearsay and gossip.

You will notice in my exchange with Wayne that he started with the same false version of the charge that you heard, and then progressively backed up from his charge until, in his last "questioning" of me, he changed his account to the actual account that I have held to all along and he altogether dropped the charge that I had accused you (and others) of "compiling" the list. (His last questioning of me actually reiterated the same account that I had already included in my response to your and Tim's GA articles - the account in which I had charged you with "circulating" the list as something it was not - a "sound preacher's list" - the same account which never intimates an accusation of another "compiling" the list.)

Third, you deny that some refuse to sit down with others and study the issues you have raised. You then deny that I offered you an opportunity to sit down and study. However, later in your post, you admit, "As far as the meeting Harry offered to host with me and other brethren (J.T. Smith, Ron Halbrook, Donnie Rader, etc.), it is true that I wanted no part of that." Your statements are in direct conflict. The facts are as follows:

A) In my first post to you, I offered to discuss the issues with you in a brotherly manner. I spoke of my respect for you and even expressed such in my article of response. Before any of the current tension developed, I wrote the following in my very first post to you:

"In my view, your article did not correctly state the teaching you sought to review and incorrectly assessed the motives of those who believe that not all applications are equivalent to doctrine. I have no personal axe to grind with you since I do not believe we have ever met, but I believe the concepts you are teaching will lead to needless division. My hope is that my article in response sets forth the view actually held and gives a scriptural defense of it. I am submitting it to brother Smith for publication in Gospel Truths.

If you seek to discuss this issue further and J.T. wishes to continue such a discussion in a written exchange in Gospel Truths, I would be glad to consider a written exchange with you. If you and J.T. think this arrangement would be helpful, I would be glad to discuss possible propositions and details of such an exchange."

There is nothing unkind in my offer. Rather than replying to me in any attempt to study, you wrote an article of rejoinder which misrepresented me, sent it to J.T. without sending me a copy, and then refused to give me a copy when asked. You are the one who began the adversarial approach.

Harry, the quote you offered above was not the instance in which you say you offered to "sit down and discuss the issue with open Bibles" with me - it was a proposition to engage in a written exchange, assuming that I would disagree with your reply to my article. I have already told you that when I used your quote from "Dimpled Chads," I only used it because it nailed my point on the head. I had no idea where you stood on this issue any more than knew where Wayne Partain stood when I used one of his quotes in the article, "God-Given 'Rights' Nullified by Man's Wrongs," or where James P. Needham stood on the issue when I quoted him in my "Response to Brothers Haile and Osborne" article. I did not begin writing my articles to start an exchange with you. In my eyes, at that time, you were not even involved in this issue. My purpose and aim in writing on this issue began with the hopes that the writing might help brother Halbrook to see his error as well as keep others from succumbing to it. When it became apparent that my hopes were not to be realized, my focus then became concentrated on warning and forearming brethren to the dangerous and pervasive doctrine being sown in semi-private settings by brother Halbrook.

In some venues, Ron has basically denied what he has affirmed and asserted in other venues. Some brethren have accused Ron of the beliefs which he articulated in the documents that I have posted to the web site. Other brethren then defended Ron, stating that they had asked Ron the very same question and that he had denied belief in such a doctrine. However, when these same defending brethren were exposed to brother Ron's own words and writings about this issue, they realized that Ron had not been forthright with them in answering their questions. Because of that kind of confusion among brethren about what Ron really espoused, and because this doctrine appeared to be gaining influence among brethren, I decided that brethren needed to be forewarned. With all due respect, brother Osborne, It had nothing to do with you.

Even your very first article addressing my teaching in "Do All Applications Equal Doctrine?" was a misrepresentation. In it, you implied that I had taught that ALL applications are doctrinal, which I did not. I knew that a good deal of my response would have to address that false notion, and that any rejoinder you may write would likely include more of the same. (And I was right, for you had the same article printed in Gospel Anchor, even after you read my rejoinder to your article and knew that I didn't believe that ALL applications equal doctrine. Even your title was inflammatory.) As I told you, I did not want to obligate myself to a number of exchanges with you in advance. When one must spend so many of the limited words allotted for rejoinders in simply dispelling the twists made by another (not to mention expenditures of considerable time and effort), it limits the influence one can exert on dealing with the issue itself. I felt that simply writing articles separate from an exchange with you would be much more profitable in terms of sticking to my own focus and goals (to address the issue of my concern, not yours).

As I have told you, in the past, when I have examined others' articles in a magazine, I was never sent a copy of their rejoinder prior to print. In those cases, I did not view their failure to send me a copy as "adversarial," and would have never expected such of them. From my previous experiences, such "sharing" had only been done at the discretion and hands of the editor.

(BTW, brother Cox never sent me a copy of his Watchman article I am replying to, nor even a notice of it being posted, I learned of it by brother David Lytle, jhb)

B) I offered to come to West Virginia and discuss these matters with you, Mo Hafley (who was holding a meeting where you preach) and brethren from the church at Beckley. Such a meeting would have taken place in your home area with people you know. It would have required considerable expense on my part and I would have been far outnumbered by those close to you. Such was hardly an act of intimidation. Yet, you refused the meeting.

As I quoted from you in my letter to Terrence, that meeting was not to "sit down and discuss the issues with open bibles," as you wrote in your letter to Terence (and in your last GA article), but you had told me "I am prepared to fly up there and address you and let Mo and the brethren at Beckley witness it. Your response took this matter to a level that cannot remain where it is. I am ready to do whatever is necessary to see that the truth is fully shown. In addition, concluding the paragraph you said, "I think you would do well to sit down with an older preacher like Mo Hafley and ask him whether he thinks you have acted properly towards your brethren." (emp. jhb)

Your own words indicate that your "offer" was not to "discuss these matters" (the issue) with me, but that you wanted to "address" me about whether I "have acted properly towards your brethren." That sounds more like intimidation than a generous "offer" to me! Nevertheless, as I replied to that suggestion, "After speaking with three of our men (whom I have kept apprised of this present controversy with copies of all of my articles in the past, your article, then my reply to you) about your offer to come out here, they had absolutely no desire for you to come. I also believe that the best witness to our exchange is our written words, which do not fade and change with time as memories often do, and which can be verified with certainty at a later date."

Again, I am so glad for that decision, as it is the only thing that can vindicate me against such charges as you have made.

C) I offered to host a meeting to study the issues you had raised. I had discussed the meeting with brethren J.T. Smith and Maurice Barnett. They both thought it would be a good idea. In a post to you, I invited you as follows:

"In a previous letter to brother Smith, I offered to get a meeting together with several brethren regarding these issues. He has agreed to come. This offer is also extended to you if you would like to be present."

You responded declining the invitation. You say you feared the "tactics" that would be used on you at such a meeting. Do you believe brethren Smith and Barnett would have allowed any mistreatment of you even if I had tried such? Surely such an arrangement would have guaranteed good behavior by all.

**Obviously, you and I had already reached an impasse. In my e-mail sent to you on May 4th, I wrote: "I appreciate your offer to be a part of your planned meeting to discuss these issues. However, I will leave that up to others, whom you would deem as older and more experienced, if they are willing." (emp jhb) You had already expressed disdain for both me and my teaching prior to your "offer" to come to the meeting you were planning with the other brethren. Your "tactics" certainly did much to manifest your lack of respect for me. I thought that brother J. T. and any other brother who held the truth on this issue (who you actually respected) stood a much better chance at influencing you than I would. Are you intimating that you had held back some new argumentation that you wished to bring to the table at such a study? We had already hashed and rehashed the arguments in writing. Regardless, in my absence, the meeting to which some had already agreed evidently never took place anyway.

D) I asked you to talk with Ron Halbrook again in hopes that you might come to understand that you were misrepresenting him. You said you already had. When I suggested you do it again, you declined. Other brethren have related similar requests to which you gave much the same reply.

As I told you, I had talked with Ron about this issue. We went over the scenario at least twice, if not three times. I told him it was mental divorce, although I did not move forward at that time because he said that he was only tossing the idea around. I subsequently had an e-mail exchange with him several months ago, after seeing his printed material (which he had recently sent to a friend of mine). In that material, Ron articulated the exact thoughts which he had expressed to me on the phone years earlier - only his written materials suggested that it was no longer an idea which he was simply considering, but one which he clearly affirmed. In reading those materials, I found that Ron has been teaching this doctrine for (at least) fifteen years. If Ron was being misrepresented, it is he who was responsible for the misrepresentation. Please check the web site for Ron's position, articulated in his own words. Moreover, in our correspondence, he was not moved from his false doctrine. I had seen his argumentation. He had seen mine. We were at an impasse.

Your justification for blocking Pat Donahue's e-mail from your box was: "As far as debating Pat, I will not engage in any further discussion with Pat due to actions taken by him which I have already brought to his attention. I have blocked only two people from my e-mail, but Pat is one. As noted above, each of us must make those decisions after we have made honest attempts to discuss and evaluate the fruit born."

As I said, my previous discussions with Ron had been fruitless. Much prior to my correspondence with you, I had already evaluated whether I should continue to attempt a dialogue on this issue with Ron. I had decided that such was pointless. Yet, you are justified in your decision about Pat, while I am derided for declining to again talk with Ron "...in hopes that you (I, jhb) might come to understand that you (I, jhb) were misrepresenting him."?

Yes, you have repeatedly been offered an opportunity to study, but have declined those offers.

Again, in regards to my having been "repeatedly" "offered an opportunity to study:"

1) Your first "offer" to "study" was actually an offer to have a written exchange with you in GT.

2) Another of your "offers" to "study" was actually a proposed meeting to "address me" about whether I "have acted properly towards your (my, jhb) brethren."

3) Another of your "offers" to "study" was asking me to "talk with Ron Halbrook again in hopes that you (I, jhb) might come to understand that you (I, jhb) were misrepresenting him."

4) Another of your "offers" to "study" in a meeting to discuss these matters with you, Ron, Donnie, J. T., etc. came the closest to a genuine offer for study, however, I have already outlined why I declined such (the section prefaced by the two asterisks). Surely you would not dare to condemn my right and prudence in declining such, because you, yourself a) have discouraged Mike from allowing an exchange to discuss this matter in Truth Magazine with David McKee for some of the same reasons as I have refused you, and b) have now refused to debate David McKee for some of the same reasons, as well.

Fourth, you have repeatedly asked why I offered you a debate. I have repeatedly told you just as I told Terence in my post to him. You wrote the public article in Gospel Truths, a paper which was distributed at South Livingston, that named me and implied my hypocrisy. (More on this in a moment.) I did not desire the debate, but I was not going to allow the misrepresentations you made of me and of what I believed to be biblical teaching by myself and others. You suggested that the distinction between "doctrine" and "application" was merely a "new-fangled 'reasoning,' a Pandora’s box for tolerating doctrinal differences." You were not correct in such, thus, I challenged it publicly just as you taught it publicly. At the time, I thought you were an honorable man of integrity, so I proposed honorable discussion as noted above. Since that time, I have come to see by your fruit that you are not a man of honor and integrity. My hope and prayer is that you will repent, but until you do, I do not seek to meet you in discussion because I think it would be pointless. I would honor my commitment to debate you in Gospel Truths and Gospel Anchor if asked, but I would not agree to any other such arrangement with you. (emp. jhb)

(Your words in bold reinforce the reason for my decision in the section prefaced by the two asterisks above.)

Your "Do All Applications Equal Doctrine" article was to address your perceived implication of hypocrisy and what you deemed as misrepresentations. Once you had "vindicated" yourself in writing, why would you feel the continued desire to debate me and me alone? You say an additional motivation for your desire to debate me was because I wrote things which you considered incorrect. However, you also believe that what David has taught in print and orally is incorrect. In your letter to Terence, you said that you thought David had misrepresented and failed to deal with the arguments raised - the same things that you accused me of in your letter to another brother (which you inadvertently sent to me). Your inconsistency in desiring to debate me while avoiding to debate David is clear.

[BTW, did you not receive a detailed offer / proposition to debate this issue by Don Martin in May? He sent it out to several brethren (of whom I strongly believe you were one) and said that he never received any takers. If you want, I can forward it to you, or ask Don to send it to you himself, if you didn't receive one before.]

Again, my reason for declining is in my last letter. My reasons (your "tactics") for declining to debate you (both in writing and in person) are basically the same as the reasons you gave for your refusal to debate David. Yet, although I have told you why I refused, you have, time and again, derided me for refusing to debate you. It is inconsistent for you to think your refusal to debate David is justified, while criticizing me for the same decision in regards to you (Mt. 7:1-5). Please check your explanation to David for your refusal to debate him for consistency:

">>>....I make no apology for urging Mike not to let Truth Magazine be used for that purpose. I have refused to debate or continue discussion with those who (1) repeatedly misrepresent others or the facts without correction or (2) show a lack of ability to openly discuss the issue at hand by failing to deal with arguments raised. Just because such a person wants access to a paper does not obligate the editor to grant his desire.

For a debate to be effective, you must have (a) an issue meriting discussion, (b) disputants who are representative of the issue considered and (c) disputants who are capable of dealing with arguments made. <<<

My intent in the above statement was to say why I believed further discussions with you are pointless. In whatever way I failed to make that plain, I am sorry for my lack of clarity. David, we must all make judgments about the best use of our time. I have made mine for the above reasons. You are free to make your judgments as well. I have no ill-will towards you, but I do not believe you have proven yourself able to engage in meaningful exchange on the issues involved, nor do I desire to have a personal wrangle with you."

In addition, in regards to Carrol Sutton, you say, "His experience and wisdom in the kingdom is to be honored by all of us with lesser ability. If he wanted to debate me on some issue, I would freely admit to not being his equal and defer to someone else."

Yet, while you think such is an acceptable excuse for you to decline from debate, you chide me for declining debate with you, when I have told you that I am not a debater and have no experience. Brother Harry, the scales you have used in your measurement of me are very obviously unequal (Prov. 11:1, 16:11; Mt. 7:1-5).

Fifth, you claim that your article entitled "Differences In Application" did not imply hypocrisy on my part. The other two men with whom I serve as elders thought that it did. Three other members of the church at South Livingston who read the article came to me thinking that it did. (I had said nothing to them about your article to cause them to have such an opinion.) Several brethren called me thinking such was your implication. Either your writing just happened to mistakenly leave that impression with several independent brethren or you intended to leave that impression. Though I think the surrounding facts make clear the intent, I will leave that matter to the Lord for final judgment since He alone can fully know your mind (1 Cor. 2:11).

Indeed, I will let the Lord (and the other recipients of this letter and the last one) judge whether the quote from my article represented an implication of hypocrisy on your part:

"Recently, a brother accurately wrote of the Romans 14 apostasy, 'Those seeking a broader application of Romans 14 have told us that the inspired writer did not instruct the readers to ‘settle the issue on the basis of which was right or wrong.’ They have come up with subjective rules as to which doctrinal differences are ‘included’ and which are ‘excluded.’" (“Dimpled Chads in Romans 14;” Harry Osborne; Truth Magazine, 1/18/01, par. 7) The same observation can be applied to the issue under examination in this article. A "broader application" of the scriptures is proposed on the basis of purely "subjective rules as to which doctrinal differences are ‘included’ and which are ‘excluded.’"

In closing, I believe that your actions and argumentation are an aid to factionalism. While we must not be willing to tolerate on-going fellowship with those teaching doctrinal error and those engaging in sinful actions as the unity-in-diversity crowd suggests, neither can we make all matters of our own conscience into tests of fellowship. Neither extreme is according to truth. Do we make teaching of doctrinal error and the participation in sinful conduct a test of fellowship after a time of longsuffering? We must. Do we recognize that some things we require of ourselves as a matter of our own salvation cannot be made tests of fellowship with others? We must. I fear you fail to see such and the result of that failure is factionalism when traced to its inevitable end. Both extremes will cause harm to the unity defined by the Spirit (Eph. 4:1-3).

Was Ron's attempt to teach against Homer Hailey's error "factionalism?" Can you think of even one doctrinal error introduced within your lifetime whose defenders have not used the same argument of "factionalism?" Who are the real troublers of Israel?

As you must know by now, I do not consider this issue to belong in the category of "matters of our own conscience." If what Ron (and others) teach actually results in adultery and spiritual death (as I most certainly believe it does), then the logical conclusion is that we cannot have fellowship with those who promote that doctrine (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11, 13). To tolerate those who advocate adultery will bring the swift condemnation of the Lord (Rev. 2:14, 20-23).

Even if you don't believe that what Ron advocates is adultery, you should know better than to encourage one who does (believe that his teaching promotes what is adultery for all who would follow it) to continue fellowship with him (Rom. 14:23). Obviously, even if I were wrong, it would be a violation of my conscience to continue fellowship with both those whom I consider to be adulterers and those who would advocate what I firmly believed to be adultery. I am sure we both agree that adultery is not a matter of indifference to God. Brother Hailey didn't believe that his doctrine promoted adultery, and those who supported him didn't believe that we should divide over his doctrine. Did that make their contentions right? Does God expect me to act upon what I believe to be truth, or what another tells me?

Though Harrell and Owen (et al) believed that Hailey was doctrinally wrong, they advocated fellowship with him. If, in your estimation, Ron's position does not promote adultery (in other words, you believe that his teaching can actually lead to a scriptural union with another spouse, after an unscriptural civil divorce), you are acting upon what you believe to be truth. On the other hand, you seem to be saying to me that I should follow your opinion about fellowship regarding this issue (to avoid "factionalism,") much the same as Harrell, Owen (et al) wanted the rest of us to do. However, you know I believe that what Ron advocates is adultery and therefore requires me to have no fellowship with him (Eph. 5:11; II Jn. 1:9-10).

In addition, I wonder if brother Sutton (whom you have so much respect for) agrees with your assessment that this issue is merely a difference in application - an issue of conscience and nothing more? Moreover, I assure you that I am only one of many who recognize this issue for what it truly is: a false doctrine that is dangerous and pervasive - one that advocates no less than adultery. The web site's overwhelming amount of support and appreciation (by numerous mature brethren of sound reputation) testifies to the fact that your quarrel is with many, not only myself.

In the end, your judgment of me and mine of you is a small thing in comparison to the judgment both of us face before the throne of the Almighty. I hope that you will give that serious thought. You are free to reply as you will. I have tried several times to reach you and get you to turn from a path destructive to others and yourself. There is nothing more I can say that will matter, therefore I will leave it for God to resolve in judgment if you do not correct it before. I hope and pray that you will not let human pride keep you from turning to the path of truth and peace before it is too late. You will continue in my prayers to that end.

Brother Harry, I believe that I have done all possible to convince you of your error, as well. I pray that in the future, something will penetrate your heart and your eyes will be opened to accept the clear words of truth on this issue, and in regards to your inconsistent expectations of others (Mt. 7:1-5), as well as your misrepresentations of others.