Volume 31 – 1990 (PDF) - Searching The Scriptures

Page 10
will leave us with too few friends with whom to have pot
luck.
I agree that he did not say there is no one with whom
he agrees fully on the question of marriage and divorce.
He said he is not sure such a man lives. If it helps us get
closer together, just strike that sentence of mine out. I
retract it. It is a very small thing to dissect a sentence
from "I am not sure there is a man anywhere with whom
I agree, " and there is no man with whom I agree. I stand
corrected.
One thing that is extremely comforting to me is his
agreement with the basic principles I attributed to
Connie Adams. But Ken, if that old saying of "sauce for
the... " still works, why did you even mention the
catechism you are certain that all of us are certain does
not exist? Were you concerned that someone might think
the catechism exists, even unofficially? We can put that
in the "careless" reporting sack or something very close
to it.
Brother Green agrees with the scriptural principles
in reference to those who clearly have a divine grant for
marriage. But we do not fully agree. Ken again leaves
what is plainly revealed on an excursion into the "if
land. The "if is whether Ken and I can agree with
Connie Adams in regard to the second point. I will not
even attempt to speak for brother Adams. He has been
doing that quite well for years without my help. But
permit me to simply observe that any modification
anyone puts on a given situation must be based on what
is plainly revealed — not on some supposed or even real
situation. I perceive this to be Ken's problem on this
point.
Ken wonders out loud in regard to Connie's consistency
regarding an innocent party's right in a divorce to
remarry in a case where fornication is involved. The case
involves the innocent party's initiating the action, as
Ken sees Connie's position. This entire portion of his
article smacks of pitting one against another who both
concluded there is danger in what Ken wrote. I believe
that not only brother Adams, but a number of other
readers, perceived that danger.
The question of fellowship recurs in Ken's articles. In
theory, Christians are in fellowship (if ever so loosely)
with other Christians, meaning they have a common
family connection. In practice, jointly participating with
the brethren, the same Christians have very little fellowship
with others outside their local activities. What
fellowship have brother Green and I ever had? What
joint work have we engaged in as brethren in fellowship?
This encounter is one of the few associations we ever
have had. We should quit trying to decide the fellowship
question before we get the problem fully studied.
My point on baptism was not even remotely designed
to deal with how we treat a brother who wants to be
baptized in a running stream. Ken, it had to do with
understanding the plainly revealed facts concerning
baptism and abiding within the divine standard even in
the presence of questions we may not be able to answer.
We may not be able to answer all the questions someone
can pose regarding various aspects of baptism, but we
can recognize scriptural baptism. I could not get from
your article that you believe such is the case in marriage
and divorce. If you do recognize a scriptural marriage, a
second marriage God authorizes, it would be very enlightening
(at least to me) to know how you recognize it.
The war question is not handled in scripture like
adultery. The two issues are not in the same class. In the
"war question" it is their obligation. I cannot blackball a
brother who believes participation in governmental
affairs is murder. I can try to teach him. But in adultery,
where I am presented with the facts of an illegitimate
marriage, and understand the Lord's will as I do, I would
be in the position of the pacifist. But, Ken, I would be
right (and you agree) if I stand on the three premises
listed earlier. Adultery makes a union of male and
female corrupt. Participation in governmental affairs is
not sinful. Murder is wrong. Adultery is wrong. But
participation in governmental affairs is not murder.
This is a case of keeping apples with apples and oranges
with oranges.
I wish the scope of our discussion could permit a full
analysis of Romans 14, but Ken says it doesn't. The
statement, "there can be no wrong position to take on
anything over which good men of spiritual wisdom and
unblemished reputation differ" was mine, Ken. I am
putting it on you as a consequence of your application of
Romans 14. If it is erroneous to say "both sides were
right" in the things over which they were divided in
Romans 14, which was the wrong party? Why did Paul
say in verse three that both the one who would eat and
the one who would not were both received by God? Did
God receive someone who was wrong on an issue that
parallels adultery? If your application of it to divorce is
valid, does God accept some who are in an adulterous relationship?
Brother Green did the very thing Paul repeatedly
says no man has a right to do. He rendered a
judgment on someone in Romans 14 and Paul forbade
such (Verses 4, 10, and 13). Paul even prohibited trying
to change the other's scruples (verse 1).
Ken's reference to the brethren who have written him
saying they would not fellowship anyone with whom
they disagree on the war issue, the covering, or divorce
proves very little to me. It has about as much weight as
the many letters and calls I received as a result of my
written response, without exception expressing the
same fears of which I wrote. In the final analysis, it is a
love of revealed truth, a respect for individual differences
in unrevealed matters, and brotherly concern for
each other that will help us strike hands in unity and
fellowship as God would have it. There is nothing at all
wrong with vigorous discussion of differences of any
kind, such as those Ken mentioned in the last paragraph,
but I still deeply feel that there is a great danger
in any effort to reduce the seriousness of something as
clearly condemned in scripture as the adulterous and
sinful results of divorce and remarriage with no scriptural
grounds. To make it appear that it is no more
serious than the covering question or the war question
was a mistake.
I appreciate the opportunity this paper has offered to
have this problem heard. I sincerely hope there will be no
biting and devouring among us. I still admire brother