Volume 31 – 1990 (PDF) - Searching The Scriptures

Page 8
believe he has written the catechism that we must
all recite. Furthermore, I'm confident that neither
Brother Spears nor Brother Adams believes so either.
But what Brother Adams said as quoted by Brother
Spears will help illustrate a Point I was trying to make
in my original article: "He affirmed that there are three
categories of people who have a divine right to marry—
(1) two single people, (2) two people where one or both
of them have been the innocent party in a divorce
involving fornication, and (3) two people whose mates
have passed on to their reward. He concluded that
beyond that he knew of no divine right granted to
anyone for a second marriage. I don't know if Ken
agrees with that fully, but I can truthfully state that I
do. "
I assume that the above categories would include
any combination of such people, i. e. a couple
consisting of one whose mate had passed on to his
reward, and another who was single (which I suppose
means never married), etc. With those assumptions
understood — while I hate to recite the catechism —
let me say that with my present understanding of
Scripture, I too fully agree with that.
So Dudley and I agree on that much, at least. May I
wonder out loud if Connie agrees with it. He is quoted
as saying it. But unless I am mistaken, he would not
agree with the second point without further modification.
The innocent party in a divorce involving fornication
would not necessarily have a right to remarry, I
think he would say. Not unless that innocent party took
the initiative in obtaining the divorce.
If this is the case, what shall we do, Dudley? Can you
and I continue to have fellowship with Brother Adams?
When he teaches that people whom we consider to be
married should divorce, is he not putting asunder what
God has joined together? And what shall he do with us
who in his view are condoning adultery?
Brother Spears says that I conclude "that each one
of us should be content to believe whatever we want to
believe about divorce. " I don't know where I concluded
such a thing. That is his conclusion about what I
believe, not mine. And may I kindly say that he jumped
to the conclusion. I don't believe we should just be
content to believe whatever we want to believe about
any Scriptural subject, be it the Christian's participation
in government, the eldership, the Lord's supper,
baptism, or the matter of divorce and remarriage.
Having noticed some points that do not properly
represent my teaching, let's turn to the more important
areas in which I believe Brother Spears falls short. He
uses baptism for the remission of sins as a parallel to
this subject and observes that there are many questions
relating to it. The question, Dudley, is how you
would treat a brother with whom you disagree on one
of those questions. If someone asked you to baptize him
in a stream of running water for conscience sake, would
you accommodate him? Would you continue to fellowship
him if he continued to believe that? I suspect you
would do both. I know I would. If he continually pressed
the matter and caused constant agitation over it, that
would be another issue.
Brother Spears has a simple answer as to what a
marriage is. But such does not negate the fact that
brethren disagree on some specifics in this area even as I
indicated in my first article. I know of a situation in which
a very young teen ran away and married and her parents
had the marriage annulled. Now was there a marriage or
not? Several years later she married another and is
raising a family. I might have some ideas or even convictions
on the matter but I for one am not going to demand
that she divorce her present husband. I would fear I might
be putting asunder what God has joined together. Neither
am I going to assure her she's OK. She and her husband
will have to decide that question.
Brother Spears says, "... if we will limit our thoughts
to what is revealed clearly, we will avoid the problems
he sees. " Well, I just see some problems where I have not
yet found the clear revelation, i can preach the
principles about as well as anyone, and I probably teach
what most of us believe to be the truth of Matt. 19: 9
and related passages more than most. I am on call-in
radio and TV programs a total of two and one-half hours
each week and receive numerous questions on this
subject. I teach what I believe the Bible plainly reveals.
But again, I don't claim to know all the answers to all the
problems I see.
Dudley avers that "to put (the war question) in the
same class as marriage, divorce, and adultery is not
possible. " He states several reasons for this conclusion.
For one thing, "they are not handled the same way in the
Scripture, " we are told. Adultery is specified as grounds
of excommunication, and God hates divorce; but
"nothing even remotely like that is ever applied to
governmental participation by God's people. "
Now, while Dudley and I agree on the basic principles
of divorce and remarriage, I think we need to be honorable
with those who disagree. We need to keep our logical
antecedents and consequents properly categorized. Pacifists
believe that "governmental participation" in war or
law enforcement is murder or may lead to it. Now looking
at the matter from their point of view, is murder less
serious than adultery? Is murder or the condoning of
murder not grounds for excommunication? Doesn't God
hate murder? A brother who disagrees with Dudley and
me on divorce might say, "nothing even remotely like that
is ever applied to marriage by God's people. "
The difference in both instances is not whether adultery
and murder are wrong, but whether these particular
situations equal adultery or murder. My object in all this
is not to condone adultery, but to at least cry out for a little
consistency in the way we treat brethren with whom we
disagree on some of these quite difficult questions.
The scope of this article will not permit an analysis of
Romans 14. Let me briefly state that I did not say; nor do
I believe; nor does my statement on Romans 14 demand
that "there can be no wrong position to take on anything
over which good men of spiritual wisdom and unblemished
reputation differ. "There were some wrong positions
being taken by some of whom Paul wrote in that chapter.
I believe it is erroneous to conclude that "both sides are
right, as far as the Almighty is concerned. " The subject of
foods and days were both matters of divine revelation.
Both sides were not right in their understanding.