In an effort to defend fellowship with those advocating Mental Divorce, some argue that unity can be maintained on all MDR issues if we only agree upon the following principle:

“Marriage is for one woman and one man for life, the only exception being that an innocent mate may put away a spouse guilty of fornication and have a right to marry another.” 

While the first part of the above principle is true for all, the second part (outlining the exception clause) specifically applies ONLY to those who put away.  However, while the above principle does not address it, the Bible also gives instructions to another class of people involved in divorces: those who are put away.  Jesus stated, “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit ADULTERY.”  Hence, there are two separate principles under consideration here, not varying applications under one principle.  Consequently, our conflict does not stem from differences in application, but in a rejection of Jesus’ principle (rule, law) regarding the put away.

Just as brother Hailey’s teaching exempted a class of people from Christ’s law on MDR (non-Christians), brother Halbrook’s teaching effects exemption of another class of people (the unscripturally put away).  Brother Hailey would have endorsed an essential Biblical principle for us to agree on: that All Christians are amenable to Christ's law regarding MDR.  I know of no one who would argue with this principle, however, our disagreement regarding those who are unnamed in such a principle (non-Christians) would make our point of agreement meaningless. 

Likewise, the essential principle for MDR unity advanced by brother Halbrook and others sounds good.  Nevertheless, its omission of the Lord’s principle regarding the put away renders it an incomplete basis for unity.  The end result is approval of a remarriage that Jesus specifically condemned!  Because Ron’s “application” contradicts the principle of the Lord regarding the put away, it is clearly a matter that effects our fellowship (Rom. 16:17-18; Eph. 5:11; II Jn. 9-11).  Consequently, this “differences in application under the same principle” theory is founded upon a false premise and has become a cloak for “unity in diversity” (Gal. 1:6-9).