Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Christianity Magazine. (I cancelled my subscription when the magazine publicized error without allowing the opportunity for open discussion.)  This is, however, a reminder that, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander” (Mt. 7:1-2; Rom. 2:1)!  While Truth Magazine continues to deride Christianity Magazine for their closed-door policy to controversy on MDR and Romans 14, Mike Willis and associates refuse to openly and honorably discuss both sides of the present (“mental divorce”) issue that is causing so much division in the church.  While Truth Magazine writers ridicule those who defended and enabled brother Hailey’s MDR teaching (even while admittedly disagreeing with it), many of them are now guilty of the same regarding brother Halbrook’s MDR error (a post-civil-divorce putting away and remarriage for some, when fornication is committed AFTER the civil divorce).  If the Lord is willing, there will be more articles to come.

“All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” - Jesus Christ (Mt. 23:3)


Truth Magazine Associates Promote Tolerance of
“Differences in Application” (In a Matter of Divine Revelation)

Principle #1

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” 

Principle #2

“And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”



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).

“…Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect…” Mt. 15:6

Home | Search This Site

Last Updated:  Thursday, January 26, 2006 03:41 PM